I actually wrote most of an article for the Sharpener, a British group blog to which I occasionally contribute, about this awful programme, but stumbled on the bit where I had to deal with what it said about Iqbal Sacranie going to "pay homage" to Ahmed Yassin and not going to the Holocaust memorial. I don't have much time to blog except late at night, and I was annoyed that it was taking so long and that I kept deleting bits, and ended up deleting the whole lot. However, I've got quite a bit to say about it, especially now that Abu Eesa has said that Panorama "told it how it was". I don't think so. There are an awful lot of distortions in this programme.
There are some who are already crying "Zionist propaganda", which is the first thing people always think of when confronted with unjust coverage of Muslims in the mainstream media. I think they were playing to an altogether different gallery - the "anti-dhimmi" crowd in the right-wing media and blogosphere. Indeed, Robert Spencer praised the programme on his own blog. Perhaps this was what Abu Eesa was getting at; I still don't think they "told it how it was".
I didn't get to see all of it for what I will call personal reasons, but there is a transcript of it on the BBC's website. I walked in at the point where Muhammad Abdul-Bari of East London Mosque was squirming when interrogated about the use of the term "idol-worshipper" for Hindus. I appreciate that not all Hindus worship idols, but the term shirk, translated as polytheism or idolatry, is used in Islam for any compromise on la ilaha ill' Allah (there is no god but Allah). Besides which, a lot of Hindus have no problem with the term. I have a pamphlet my sister brought home from the temple in Neasden, north London, which describes their figures as idols and their worship before them as "murti-puja", which they translate as idol-worship. This was written by Hindus. I cringed when I watched this interview.
The criticism that some popular figures say different things in English to what they say in Arabic is a valid one, but in the case of the imam of the Meccan Haram, Abdul-Rahman al-Sudais, it must be asked if he writes his own sermons, or has to read one issued by the government, as happens in some Arab countries. In one sermon, the notorious insult "sons of apes and pigs" appeared, which strikes this writer as a school playground insult with no place in a religious sermon. He is, however, a renowned Qur'an reciter and people may well have come to the East London Mosque opening to hear his recitation.
Given that in all probabilities this programme would not have been made if the London bomb attacks had not taken place, it seems appropriate to ask what relevance the Islamic position on the fate of unbelievers, hardly a position unique to Islam (even today, contrary to what Neal Robinson of Louvain University says), has to the situation. The position of orthodox Islam on this issue can be found in this article. This is a tactic I've seen deployed frequently in coverage of Islamic issues since the July bombings: the mention of an irrelevant fact (or accusation) in order to increase fear in the reader.
The translation Ware criticises - only for its hardened stance on the fate of unbelievers - is part of a wider Saudi propaganda effort. It is one of the most unpleasant, jarring translations of the Qur'an in existence, from a group notorious for producing poor-quality, propaganda-laden translations of other Islamic books. In a translation of Sahih al-Bukhari, a multi-volume collection of hadeeth (reports about the Prophet, sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, and the early Muslims), Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller notes that a 73-page introduction is inserted detailing beliefs of which the original author knew nothing - and that Saudi-financed organisations and individuals have even tampered with classical texts in order to further their sectarian agenda. Ware's criticism shows another fault of non-Muslim criticism of Muslim extremists: while all too willing to condemn Muslims when they threaten or even offend non-Muslims, they do not care one whit about the effect these people have on the Muslim community. I noticed the same problem in the coverage of Abdullah Faisal's case in 2003: the media mentioned his comments about Holocaust survivals and gas bills, about nuking 100%-unbelieving countries and about killing a Hindu in the street and taking his money, but not his horrendously-distorted comments about Bareilawis or his condemnation of certain black American "Salafi" preachers, which I mentioned in my essay on him.
Ware manages to dig up some guy called Taj Hargey, of whom I'd never heard before I watched this programme. You'd think if someone was prowling round Oxford's Muslim community they'd bump into a real figure of authority like Shaikh Riyadh Nadwi, but I guess the shaikh wouldn't dish dirt on the Muslims like Taj Hargey. In fact, there's not much on the web about Hargey at all: there's the "Crescent University" he tried to found (the website is now dead), and the money he raised from the Apple computer company for the "first black newspaper in South Africa", which turned out not to be first at all.
Hargey is brought in to have a go at the Muslims for using the term kafir to refer to non-Muslims in conversation amongst themselves. No doubt the spurious racist connotation this has, as a result of its use by South African whites as an insulting word for black people, is what Ware and Hargey are getting at. Hargey claims that it contributes to "a virtual apartheid in parts of Britain", as opposed to people settling around their own kind in areas convenient for the mosque and the Indian (or Arab) food shop. The claim of a connection is a dubious one, to say the least.
Hargey runs a "centre" for the promotion of what is called "progressive inclusive Islam", which should ring alarm bells with anyone familiar with this type of activism in the USA and Canada. It includes some sincere people, some who want to follow their desires, and some outright traitors and political careerists. Since this programme was made, Hargey has issued a pronouncement on the supposedly non-compulsory nature of the jilbaab:
The jalabib (plural of jilbab) mentioned in this verse, moreover, refers to generic outer coverings and not to a specific dress or cultural uniform. The current fixation of some Muslims upon a particular costume is largely of modern derivation. The elective nature of the ayah is also strongly reinforced at its end by an emphatic reminder of GodâÂÂs infinite mercy and forgiveness of those who, for one reason or other, do not wear the jilbab or outer-covering. See Yusuf AliâÂÂs original translation and commentary on this ayah for further clarification.
This conflation of the promise of forgiveness with the preceding command not being compulsory is, of course, a very elementary error. Coming from a purported authority figure with an Oxford doctorate, it smacks of dishonesty. The notion that the requirements of a jilbab can be met with other loose garments is well-known, but in the Shabina Begum case, which is what brought the issue to public attention in the UK, the "Islamic" alternative offered by the school did not meet these requirements. I saw a picture of it in the Evening Standard. It included a headscarf, with a close-fitting shalwar kameez with short sleeves. It is inadequate.
Ware's attack on the Ahle-Hadeeth also contains distortions. He omits to mention that the article which so offends him was in fact not written by a member of their group at all, but by a Lebanese "Salafi" scholar named Muhammad al-Jibaly whose writings can be found on the Internet at a number of locations, including here. It takes an unusually harsh line on Muslims taking part in any celebrations associated with non-Muslim cultures, and not just religious celebrations but also things like birthdays. Opposing opinions can be found elsewhere if one cares to look, particularly if one cares to look beyond Google. Not all scholars insist that Muslims refrain from the non-worship aspects of these celebrations (I'm talking about Christmas in particular here). The quote he offers is in fact inaccurate; it consists of phrases extracted from different parts of the article duct-taped together.
As for Ware's interviews with Iqbal Sacranie, I need only repeat this comment in last Monday's Guardian:
Ware is at his most McCarthyite when he challenges Sacranie to account for an imam in Leeds who is preaching that the war on terror is really a war on Islam. Ware insists that it is Sacranie's job to "disabuse" British Muslims of this view and put this imam "right". Ware laid down his own opinion and, with extraordinary presumption, demanded that Sacranie impose it on the Muslim community. In that short exchange, Ware revealed his lack of comprehension of the Muslim community. Sacranie only has as much power as the MCB affiliate organisations allow him - the idea of him putting an imam right is ridiculous. The tiny, volunteer-run MCB doesn't have the power to police the views of its disparate membership. Sacranie and the MCB have a tightrope to walk. On the one hand, the government and non-Muslim Britain are piling on the pressure that they deliver a law-abiding, loyal ethnic minority. On the other, an increasingly restless younger generation of Muslims criticise the MCB as far too moderate, a sell-out establishment stooge cosying up to Tony Blair.
Which may well explain his "reprehensible refusal" to attend the Holocaust memorials earlier this year, something for which he may have faced much censure from within his community if he had attended. The relevance of the Holocaust to Muslims is very limited, given that it took place at a time when the ancestors of the Muslim community here still lived in India and the Arab world, and many Muslims regard reminders of the Holocaust as advocacy for Israel, as in fact it often is. As for Sacranie's attendance at the Shaikh Yassin memorial, I find this difficult to understand unless he just happened to be at Central Mosque at the time. On the other hand, a lot of those who would carp at anyone for "supporting terrorism" are selective in the sorts of terrorism they themselves oppose, as Haroon recently detailed, notably willing to excuse such actions as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombings. (I would add that they also conveniently overlook the terrorism Zionists carried out in order to establish their state, and their agencies persisted in it even after this was done, carrying out assassinations and kidnappings in both Europe and north Africa.)
This programme's thesis is that the community's leadership is failing the community itself. My answer is that the community has for decades resisted any attempt to establish leadership, and has no structures whatsoever for doing so. Many organisations have appeared which attempted to "lead" the community, which as Q-News commented in its February 2004 edition, often amounted to a call to "unite, but follow me", which in their view included the MCB itself. I would argue that Ware is not actually concerned about the MCB's failure of the community, but its failure to protect society itself from extremist elements within it, which it actually has no power to do.
Isnt "Shaikh" Nuh Ha Mim Keller a hardcore Sufi?
You mean like ibn Taymiyyah?
but the panorama programme was never meant to be accurate , its sole purpose was to provide ta conducive environment for blairs attack on muslims and their right to carry their faith and associations without outside interference.
the programme was a sideline, it was there to point fingers away from blair and his foreign policy, to bring in more restrictive laws (at the behest of the lewish lobby) against muslims.
one should not forget that blair is a neo-conservative, he has reiterated this and their policies time and again. to be a neo-conservative one requires one qualification and that is to be pro-zionist.
nothing more needs to be said.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foi/images/0,9069,1558170,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1558130,00.html
Four quesions for Wendy:
1. What is the 'lewish' lobby? Something to do with toilets? If you mean the Jewish lobby, are you aware that there are no more than 300,000 Jews in the UK today, versus around 1.6 million Muslims? Perhaps, if inded there is a Jewish lobby, Jews are better at lobbying. In which case, Wendy and others, stop whingeing and start lobbying.
2. Name one piece of legislation that prevents Muslims carrying on their faith, insofar as this faith is compatible with a pluralist liberal democracy.
3. If it's so bad here in the UK, and Islam is so good, why do you live here?
4. Why can Muslims not accept any criticism of Islam, when they are quite happy to criticise Christianity, so-called 'decadent' Western values and so forth?
3. If itâÂÂs so bad here in the UK, and Islam is so good, why do you live here?
Don't forget that most non-Western immigrants in the West are attracted by Western wealth, not Western culture...
No Ibn Taymiyah (rahimahullah) was not a hardcore Sufi. Anonymous you wish.
Listening Kafir,
"Why can Muslims not accept any criticism of Islam, when they are quite happy to criticise Christianity, so-called âÂÂdecadentâ Western values and so forth?"
Some Muslims cant accept criticism of Islam but most cant accept the arrogance on the part of those non Muslims who by virtue of being Western, white, and Western educated they know more about Muslims and Islam than the Muslims themselves. And most are just liars and careerist freaks who should thank Islam and Muslims for giving them a life outside of writing book reviews and a dead end political career.
"If itâÂÂs so bad here in the UK, and Islam is so good, why do you live here?"
Listening Kafir, do you believe that Muslims are apart of the cultural and social fabirc of Britian? YOu cant have it both ways dear. Either British Muslims are apart of British soceity or they or not. If you believe they are not you cant complain about thier disloyalty. You have effectively made them disloyal simply for complaining about British policies towards its community. THat aint right. If Malenie Phillips complains about British society is she being disloyal, or a subversive? There are some Muslims in Britian who wish the country harm, the same rules dont apply to them, but the majority who are just political active who lobby on behalf of other British Muslims, they are entitled to the freedom and mobility to do so, regardless of whether they are willing to grant that freedom to others.
As hypocritical as it may be Listening Kafir, you have to decide which values your prefer and are willing to defend the most, the precieved ineqaulity of Islamic law, which grants the most freedom to Muslims or the precieved eqaulity of a liberal democracy which grants the most freedom to all? If you prefer the latter, you gotta be consistent even in the face of the former.
If anything Listening Kafir, the presence of such a strange religious, cultural, and ethnic element in Britian will test Britians loyalty to its principles of freedom, democracy, yadda yadda yadda... If your hatred and distrust for Muslims and thier religion proceeds your love for British institutions and society, dont blame us for the consequences of those sentiments.
Hi, just to let everyone know that Sh. Riyad Nadwi is ill at the moment and thats why he has not written any responses lately. Please pray for him.
but the majority who are just political active who lobby on behalf of other British Muslims, they are entitled to the freedom and mobility to do so, regardless of whether they are willing to grant that freedom to others.
In that case non-Muslims are entitled to point out, when Muslims are doing this lobbying, that the intention is to get more rights for Muslims and fewer rights for non-Muslims, and that Muslims don't believe in equal rights for non-Muslims, women and so forth, and to do so without squeals of 'Islamophobia'.
You can't have it both ways. Either you participate in the democratic process and accept robust opposition and criticism without special pleading, or you reject the democratic process. If the latter, you either shut up, pack up and go, or if you resort to violence, face the consequences.Questioning Kafir,
You arent complaining about how Muslims react to criticism of thier proposed social policies, you are complaining about Muslims being politically active. Either they can be politically active because they are, after all, British citizens, or they arent really British citizens because theyre Muslims. If they cant be real British citizens because they are Muslim, then we cant exactly argue that the UK is a free society.
I dont even know what we are talking about here.
"Either you participate in the democratic process and accept robust opposition and criticism without special pleading..."
OK!
"...or you reject the democratic process."
OK!
"If the latter, you either shut up, pack up and go, or if you resort to violence, face the consequences."
OK!
Great reflections as always, Yusuf. However, I find it sad that you had to take the opportunity to have another go at "Saudi propaganda". I'm not disputing your concerns, but I think at times like this we need to rise above point-scoring in all its forms.
Let's be accurate about this: is that translation really so problematic? What is the most accurate linguistically? The verse says "aamanoo", which is in the past tense. I don't think it's shocking that the Saudi team translated it as "believed", nor is it really so significant that it differs from the rendering of Yusuf Ali. For Muslims, doctrinal disputes don't centre on subtle differences in English translations.
Assalamualaikum,
Bikhair,
Yes, ibn taimiyah rah was a great sufi.
Tassawuf is a branch of knowledge which is olbligatory to all Muslims . dalil, refer to the quran and hadith. All of us should aspire to be a "hardcore" sufis.
If i'm not mistaken, bro yusuf is the murid of shaykh Nuh (db).
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
Salsabila is correct; Ibn Taymiyya, despite the problems he ran into on aqida, was a Sufi and was in fact buried in the Sufi cemetery in Damascus (which has since been built over), and you did not get buried there unless you were a Sufi.
The term that describes my connection with Shaikh Nuh is "muntasib" not "murid"; while other groups use that term to describe anyone with bay'ah, in ours it's only used for someone much more advanced.
HERE GUYS ENJOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'
For updates visit: http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=26&Topic=4863
Orthodox Islaam's
WAR ON TERROR
Conference - London
MUSLIMS,
NON-MUSLIMS
AND MEDIA WELCOME
All lectures will be delivered in english:
AbuHakeem Bilaal Davies
Abu Khadeejah Abdul Waahid
Hasan Abdi As-Somali
Abu Iyaad Amjad
Sunday 4th September 2005
From 11am till 5pm
Venue:
Mulberry Lesuire Centre
Richard Street (opposite McDonald's)
Off Commercial Rd
E1 2JP
info@al-athariyyah.com
TEL. 0121-773-0033
www.SalafiPublications.com
www.al-athariyyah.com
www.salaf.com
The only good thing that came out from the salafis is the madinah arabic program!!!!!
Genuine questions, if anyone can help me or point me in the right direction.
I've heard that Salafists are opposed to political Islam and establishing an Islamic state, and see Islam as a personal creed only. Is this true?
What do the Salafists believe about apostasy and huddud punishments?
What do Salafists believe about democracy?
I've googled around a bit, but can't find clear cut answers.
From "Listening Kaffir":
IâÂÂve heard that Salafists are opposed to political Islam and establishing an Islamic state, and see Islam as a personal creed only. Is this true?
No. There are different groups of Salafis and some of them very much support overthrowing the present leaders because they see them as disbelievers. Another group are opposed to organising political action to get rid of the present rulers (particularly the Saudis) in the manner of the Muslim Brothers, Hizbut-Tahreer and similar groups. From those I've spoken to, they believe that our duty is to establish "tawheed" (monotheism), or rather, their version of it, not an Islamic state. Critics would say that they have this position because of their connections to the Saudi regime.
What do the Salafists believe about apostasy and huddud punishments?
They take very much the classical position. This isn't what defines a "salafi" anyway; what defines a "salafi" is that they follow the religious authorities in the Najd, which is in central Saudi Arabia, rather than those of Syria, India or anywhere else. In their present form they are against following the traditional schools of thought, are implacably opposed to Sufism and have certain unusual theological positions.
What do Salafists believe about democracy?
They are very much against it. In particular, al-Albani was said by his followers to have believed that the efforts to contest elections in Algeria, for example, would come to nothing, as indeed happened.
Many thanks.
Salsabila,
Dont give me an ulcer.
Brother Yusuf,
"Critics would say that they have this position because of their connections to the Saudi regime."
Yes people like Hizbut Tahrir, and the Ihkwanis. Is the masjid in Birmingham recieving any funding from any prominent figure in Saudi Arabia? Certainly the only Salafi Masjid in California isnt. King Fahd Masjid in Culver City California isnt a "Saudi Salafi" masjid but was financed and named after the respective ruler. The connection you speak of is the connection and relationship a Salafi had with any Muslim government. As I have mentioned before I have never heard any of the Salafi brothers make disparaging statments about any other ruler in the Muslim world. In fact if you listen to some of Abu Khadeejahs talks about the Muslims relationship with thier rulers, he has made the Ihkwanis responsible for the thousands of deaths in Syria and the political landscape in Egypt.
"This isnâÂÂt what defines a âÂÂsalafiâ anyway; what defines a âÂÂsalafiâ is that they follow the religious authorities in the Najd, which is in central Saudi Arabia, rather than those of Syria, India or anywhere else."
This is a grave accusation Yusuf. I dont know how you can substantiate it with anything any of those brothers have said. Or am I just confused about who is who in England?
Yusuf, I am very disappointed in your analysis of the Salafis. You didnt do them any justice simply because you dont agree with them theologically and that isnt right. Now you have probably tainted Listening Kafirs opinions of them.
I haven't really got an opinion on them to be tainted; I just wanted to know, as I'm getting conflicting opinions on them. I'd got a negative view of Wahabis because they are the ones Bin Laden belonged to. My understanding had been that the Salafis were strict, rather narrow but not violent. But I seem to be wrong about this.
My perception is that many Muslims want to impose Islam on the world. If there are groups that don't, but see Islam as a personal faith, alongside others and living in harmony, I'd like to hear about those groups or movements.
Listening Kafir,
"My understanding had been that the Salafis were strict, rather narrow but not violent. But I seem to be wrong about this."
There are many groups who have Salafi in their name who are in fact down with Al Q, bin Laden, and others. I am speaking specifically about the Salafis in Birmingham, England. Yusuf knows exactly who I am talking about which is why I am so so disappointed in most of the comments he makes about them.
"My perception is that many Muslims want to impose Islam on the world."
Mostly like your perception is wrong. Most sincere Muslims would like the world to be Muslim. Similarly I am sure you would like most of the world to ascribe to your world view. The fact of the matter is, and you can check with many hadith about this is that the world will not be Muslim until the Mahdi (alaihi salam) defeats the dejjal.
"If there are groups that donâÂÂt, but see Islam as a personal faith, alongside others and living in harmony, IâÂÂd like to hear about those groups or movements."
I dont know what you mean by harmony. That isnt code for justice is it?
The fact of the matter is, and you can check with many hadith about this is that the world will not be Muslim until the Mahdi (alaihi salam) defeats the dejjal.
I thought that was a Shi-ite thing.
What would it mean in practice?
King Fahd Masjid in Culver City California? Isn't that the masjid which Kahanist terrorists of the JDL plotted to blow up in late 2001?
Question.
Offsprings. Why does Islam consider offsprings as one of its maqasid shariah (objectives of the shariah)?
Obvious, so that the human civilisation (or islamic civilisation) can be carried forward by properly raised children who are balanced and ethical. Who will not harm the planet, their souls, or other co-inhabitants of the earth.
Just something I felt like elaborating on. Nasl (Offsprings) is listed as one of the maqasid of shariah, how beautiful and important, especially in these days of child abuse/pornography.
Listening Kafir said:
âÂÂMy perception is that many Muslims want to impose Islam on the world.âÂÂ
This perception is not true, as muslims are only interested in implementing Islam in their countries.
The reverse however can be said to be very true: That, non-muslims in general particularly westerners do want to impose secularism and "democracy" on the world. And they are actively imposing it. History testifies to this in an irrefutable way, and the present situation in the world is also a testimony.
Islam was never spread by the sword. Never imposed. It goes against the core teaching of this religion. True, The Islamic message can become "confrontational" when it is under threat, when values are presented, not only to challenge it (challenges are fine, that's part of life as the Koran mentions), but to colonise and subjugate it (this is injustice). At which point it not only desireable but it is obligatory to conquer those challenges and have them completely subdued. This is the only way that Religion (any religion) and its message can be preserved. However not by blowing up innocent people and terrorising the world.
If we all get passive, then the world would have been destroyed (as it is close to). Filled with deadly weapons and the likes ...for the sake of what? The prophet (peace be upon him) gave the parable of the people at the top of the ship and the people at the bottom of the ship. When the imbeciles at the bottom of the ship go thirsty they decided to bore a hole in the ship to get water. If no one stops them, everyone will sink. Such move however should not be one to change their idea about boring a hole in the ship. This is not Islamic, cos God is not looking for Robots. He is looking for purity and sincerity, not imposed conscience.
The Islamic response to threat is not designed to change peoples ideas that they hold cherish [109.6] Say....You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion. . Rather it is only strategic response and it is only wise that you defend yourself against harm....in order to protect Religion (whatever religion it may be),
human life,
wealth (both private, public, and natural wealth),
the intellect (i.e. keep the athmosphere free of those things that will erode the greatness of the human mind/spirit),
and offsprings (i.e. to ensure the Islamic world is conducive for raising ethical and physically sound human beings...through nurture of good food (yes, good food!) and good ideas).
When any of these are under threat, Islam can become a militant force, to confront and conquer any opposing force that will erode these old time human moral values.
Sorr for the waffle.
George Carthy,
"King Fahd Masjid in Culver City California? IsnâÂÂt that the masjid which Kahanist terrorists of the JDL plotted to blow up in late 2001?"
Probably, but thankfully they were either too incompetent or didnt have the stuff to grow through with it. There were a few others on thier list also. They also wanted to assasinate, Darrel Issa who I think is a Arab republican politician who lead the charge against our then governor Grey Davis who lost in a recall election to Arnorld Schwarzenegger "The Governator" LOL, we will never get over it.
Listening Kafir,
"I thought that was a Shi-ite thing."
No. As I understand it Shias dont have the same books of hadith as Sunnis do because they dont like anyone except Ahlul bait- people of the house, Prophet Muhammed (sallalhu alaihi wa salams) house, i.e. Fatima, Ali, not Aisha.
"What would it mean in practice?"
I dont know. By that time it will be out of anyones control.
"Didn't have the stuff" is right - it was when they attempted to procure the explosive that they got nabbed by the FBI.
i want to see his prayer
hello.
i just wanted to say - if anyone wants to know about salafis, then why dont you ask salafis or specifically research on salafi websites? sounds logical to me. go to salafipublications.com, if u dont find what u want there, research on their links as they are the most accurate places to read.
as for reading what sufis have to say about salafis or salafi scholars, then it goes without saying that the distortions and blatant LIES are immense and apparant. obviously hurt by the realities that salafis have extracted from the way of the prophet and the quran, having your desires extinguished by facts, you feel it's okay to slander and lie. you know who you are, so pls pls pls, as bikhair said, dont give me an ulcer.
Want to know more about Taj Hargey? See http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=45
Salaam,