Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[Cappuccina]

People must be careful with ascribing infallibility to the Prophets, Allah (swt) be pleased with them, as this removes from them that which makes them aspiring in the first place, their piety and struggle in the face of temptation and sin. For them to have been perfect, they would be untouchable, unemulatable. They were not so, they were like us all, children of Allah (swt), so that we may have them to look up to and realize we can also resist sin and be ourselves righteous in the eyes of our Lord (swt). As such, we must not remove from them their human elements.

[North German Realm]

I was more referring to Banu Qurayza's massacre where all males were murdered and all females sold to slavery, but sure, the Murder of the Jews of Medina also works, if you want.

By the "Jews of Medina", I actually refer to the Banu Qurayza.
I should make it clear before.
However, the decision of collective punishment was decided by one man of Banu Aws and not the Prophet himself, as probably you have already knew. The tribe was accused of treachery during the Battle of the Pitch, and it's said that the punishment for the kind of offense was acceptable in that era.

Which is even more hilarious because by modern standards they're not moral or acceptable for any form of offense. So, either the idea that "Genocide and mass murder is wrong" is wrong, or Muhammad's inaction -as the commander of the faithful and a man of influence- and Ali's action -as a mass murderer- are. I'm willing to say Muhammad's inaction is what's wrong.

See, I've mentioned this before, I'm not sure on which thread, but I'll explain it again. Muhammad the man isn't perfect. Nobody is. Muhammad the Prophet, however, has to be. Apart from his Ismat (infallibility) he literally acts as the living (well, historical) example of the "True Muslim". If he does something, that means that's OK for any Muslim to do. Exceptions apply, sure (him marrying 20 women and girls but then forbidding his own wives to marry after him being one. Though there are theories on that, but I won't talk of them at the risk of the banhammer, as Muhammad's sexual and marital life is kind of a taboo here), but his conduct is literally the example Muslims follow. Suggesting "Muhammad wasn't perfect" doesn't work, because if Muhammad wasn't perfect, then you couldn't follow his example.

Fair, my unfortunate choice of word. Muhammad SAW as a man is not perfect, neither are his followers. The concept of Ismat, at least about what I have learned about, doesn't really suggest that he has to be perfect, free from any error about irreligious matters. He may commit errors (though not major sins), but afterwards he may repents and God has already forgave his past and future deeds.

That's... that's not how Islamic infallibility works tho. The idea of Tawbah suggests that anyone would be forgiven if they attempted to repent. Muhammad, as a prophet, simply does not do wrong. (By one argument, he's literally incapable of it. By another, he simply doesn't do wrong). That's literally how you know you can trust his word as a prophet.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

People must be careful with ascribing infallibility to the Prophets, Allah (swt) be pleased with them, as this removes from them that which makes them aspiring in the first place, their piety and struggle in the face of temptation and sin. For them to have been perfect, they would be untouchable, unemulatable. They were not so, they were like us all, children of Allah (swt), so that we may have them to look up to and realize we can also resist sin and be ourselves righteous in the eyes of our Lord (swt). As such, we must not remove from them their human elements.

I know very little about the Quran, so I don't know how applicable this is, but in the pentitude of The Bible, God's men were not only fallible humans, but seemingly far worse than the people they fought against. And God didn't call them out on it, if anything, it seemed like he approved of their ruthless murder sprees. In which case, saying they were fallible humans isn't much of a defense.

[The Alma Mater]

That's... that's not how Islamic infallibility works tho. The idea of Tawbah suggests that anyone would be forgiven if they attempted to repent. Muhammad, as a prophet, simply does not do wrong. (By one argument, he's literally incapable of it. By another, he simply doesn't do wrong). That's literally how you know you can trust his word as a prophet.

Ironically, muslims themselves seem to not really believe that since they find it necessary to rewrite history to make Muhammed look better - instead of aiming to be as accurate as possible.

[North German Realm]

That's... that's not how Islamic infallibility works tho. The idea of Tawbah suggests that anyone would be forgiven if they attempted to repent. Muhammad, as a prophet, simply does not do wrong. (By one argument, he's literally incapable of it. By another, he simply doesn't do wrong). That's literally how you know you can trust his word as a prophet.

Ironically, muslims themselves seem to not really believe that since they find it necessary to rewrite history to make Muhammed look better - instead of aiming to be as accurate as possible.

That's the problem with considering historical individuals infallible. Humans are -or at least should be- judged by the standards of their times. Morality -especially in cases that actually fucking matter- was really lax until like, less than 180 years ago. Even then, we as a collective didn't actually start realizing obvious stuff like "Slavery is an irredeemable evil" or "Humans are by their very nature equal" and "Don't fucking commit genocide" until way after 1945. In many cases, we still haven't.
The standards of morality in Muhammad's time were really lax. The fact that Muhammad lived in one of the least civilized territories in the known world at the time only makes it worse. You can't expect Muhammad the person to be infallible, because he was -like almost everyone of his era- extremely immoral. Muslims -like other people considering historical individuals to be infallible- understand this, and so attempt to revise history for it.

[Zizou]

Big lol when Chicago Hilal says that Eid is on the 5th...

[Negarakita]

Big lol when Chicago Hilal says that Eid is on the 5th...

We don't have it yet

[Cappuccina]

People must be careful with ascribing infallibility to the Prophets, Allah (swt) be pleased with them, as this removes from them that which makes them aspiring in the first place, their piety and struggle in the face of temptation and sin. For them to have been perfect, they would be untouchable, unemulatable. They were not so, they were like us all, children of Allah (swt), so that we may have them to look up to and realize we can also resist sin and be ourselves righteous in the eyes of our Lord (swt). As such, we must not remove from them their human elements.

I know very little about the Quran, so I don't know how applicable this is, but in the pentitude of The Bible, God's men were not only fallible humans, but seemingly far worse than the people they fought against. And God didn't call them out on it, if anything, it seemed like he approved of their ruthless murder sprees. In which case, saying they were fallible humans isn't much of a defense.

How are they worse than anyone else?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

EID MUBAARAK!!!!

[US-SSR]

EID MUBAARAK!!!!

That goes for me too, Islamic friends.

[Jolthig]

Assalaam o alakium and Eid Mubarak, brothers and sisters, as well as all of NSG,

Alhamdulilah I had a wonderful Ramadan and with the exception of four days due to having a cold, I observed all the days of the fast. During this time, I prayed a lot, I increased my knowledge of the Quran and the life of Muhammad (saw), and I did as much personal reflection as possible to increase my nearness to Allah. During my readings, I've learned a lot regarding some verses on the nature of Allah, more reading of the life of Muhammad (saw), and fiqh (jurispudence). I also read accounts of a companion of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) called Sahibzada (ra), a pious Ahmadi who was also one of the first martyrs, brutally murdered by the Afghan government, but never giving up his faith.

I also happen to both end Ramadan and celebrate Eid a day later than most Muslims in part because of Ahmadiyya methods of measuring time differing from that of Sunnis where we follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) on how to measure the moon. (I'm not sure how the Sunnis measure their time other than the fact they celebrate Islamic events a day earlier than us with some using Saudi Arabia's method of measuring the lunar time.)

As I read various references throughout the month, there are some references that made me rethink some of my views. Especially, regarding jurisprudence, where there is one signature view of mine that I've expressed in many of my posts which the community of NSG know very well: The fact that I didn't believe in Islamic Shariah in the modern world because it was no longer applicable due to a changed environment and the Messiah has come. I was very confident that this was a fact according to the views of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. I thought I was absolutely correct in my interpretation. You've all known that I've debated Amin several times over the course of the months (even as recent as when he got banned for nearly a month last month), telling him why Shariah is impossible in the modern world due to the Muslims being misguided and no one in the West wanting it, etc. Amin would challenge me to provide my Islamic daleel on that matter.

Why am I talking about this well-known view of mine that I've held for a long time? Well, it is because it turned out I was wrong all along. In part because I've been Muslim for almost 3 years and still learning, and the other is being misinformed. After reading several references sent to me by a fellow Ahmadi brother correcting me of my fallacious view, I've read that the founder of my community, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), and his Khalifas (ra), said that Shariah will be established, and that Ahmadiyya will eventually inshallah, peacefully establish this in the world through persuasion and democracy, and not through the sword or violence like the malicious mullahs in the middle east.

To illustrate, here is an essay by an imam inpersonally know that made me rethink my personal views on Shariah in the modern era:
https://askamurabbi.com/knowledge-base/ ... r-country/

I will quote one reference from this essay:

In a Sermon on the topic of Establishing a True Islamic Government in the World through Permissible and Peaceful means is our Obligation, Hadrat Musleh Mau‘ud ra said:

We have never hidden the fact that we wish to establish an Islamic government in the world. Rather, we openly say that we will establish an Islamic government over the world insha’Allah. What we deny is that we will establish an Islamic government through the sword and disorder. Rather, we will establish an Islamic government by winning people’s hearts. If I had the power to make all the people of England into Muslims, bring all of their ministers into Islam, make their members of parliament into Muslims and establish an Islamic government there, can anyone imagine that I would refuse to use this power? I would not delay even one minute, rather, I would strive to immediately make them Muslims and establish an Islamic government in England. However, since this is not in my power, so I cannot do it.
(Khutbat-e-Mahmud, 1936, p. 128–129).

It was a shocking discovery for me because I failed to know this information until recently, and the fact that when defending Shariah in the future, I would be defending it against those who bitterly oppose some of its prescriptions for the Muslims who've agreed to follow it.

This is definitely a U turn in my views regarding Islam and government, and it will become a bit of a shock for those of both the Islamic and non-Islamic communities here on NSG. As I am now informed on this matter, I will no longer be advocating for Western secularism in my personal views, but Islamic injunctions in its place while also continuing to acknowledge since the majority of the west aren't Muslim nor are the Muslims in the middle east capable of a true Shariah, such an establishment is impossible nor will I be on the level of brother Amin in his advocacy for Shariah.

Nevertheless, I won't be saying this is grounds for Islamic Shariah not to be established in the modern world as I have the past year as they went completely against the teachings of Islam, but that as an Ahmadi, we should strive to do our best to do preaching to those in the West and if they accept and become Muslim, and if through democracy Shariah is established, then can modern Shariah be put in place in its proper form, of course, somehow overriding the constitutions and charters of these nations through democratic process.

Again, this can only happen with the guidance of the Khalifa at the time, and if the majority become righteous Muslims as the present environment makes our proposal near-impossible. Same with in the middle east as the Muslims there are hard-hearted like the Jews before them.

I still support candidates, people, and nations whom I feel are most just according to the Holy Quran and Sunnah, even if they aren't Muslim and aren't advocating for Shariah. Even with no Shariah in the government now, Islam commands me to enjoin justice and to serve humanity. I will continue to vote or support whomsoever I feel is, inshallah, most just in the eyes of Allah in our elections.

With this change in my personal views of mine, some people may ask me, knowing the controversial posts some Muslims on here make, when advocating for Shariah if I commend the atrocities committed by several middle eastern nations both past and present? No. I'm pretty firm they don't truly observe the spirit behind the Shariah because why else would they be so oppressive? Religion, even in government, isn't supposed to be a burden for people. It's supposed to be made easy. Religion shouldn't be forced on people, but that the majority peacefully establish it.

Some people will be understandably disappointed in me as they knew for a long time I wasn't for Shariah in this era, but Islam has commandments for how to operate a government in secular matters, and the Quran in our belief, is an eternal book meant to last until the day of judgement. As a Muslim, I am one who completely submits to the will of Allah.

People are constantly changing their views from time to time whether in religion or in politics. We have all experienced this.

You have all known that for a long time, I was a social Democrat, and I still respect the tenants of this ideology, but now I am neither a social democrat, capitalist, communist, nor socialist, but one who judges from the perspective of the Quran and Sunnah on anyone (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) who is most just in the eyes of Allah for the time being.

This does not mean I am going complete fundamentalist, and now, I'm a die-hard fanatic, and falling downhill. I'm still the same, reasonable person as before I made my discovery last Ramadan. I am an Ahmadi Muslim after all. I do not advocate for injustice nor crimes against humanity as the Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran do. Rather, as my Book tells me, I must be just in all my actions and sayings. I must fulfill the rights of God and humanity to utmost of my abilities. I will not force my views on anyone as this also goes against my faith (Quran 2:256) nor will I make controversial posts, disrespecting other people. Even with no Shariah, I should still try my best to be just and support those who are most just according to the Quran. I respect the laws of the nations I am in, as this is also obligatory on me by the Quran, and because of the fact, they give me the right to practice my individual faith.

If there was a nation that would truly have Shariah in the near-future, it would be The Gambia with its increasing ahmadi population and if they democratically turn into an Islamic state.

Regardless of my disagreements with Amin on many of his views, controversial posts, and his debating style, there is no more disagreement between him and I regarding the establishment of Shariah in the modern world. The Quran and Sunnah are clear it is for all times regardless of the circumstances of those eras. We now only disagree how it should be implemented, as well as interpretations of certain passages in Quran and hadith on certain fatwas.

Otherwise, I remain the same in most of my other views. And like I said, I'm not going fanatic. Rather, I'm only explaining what Islam is and advocates.

People may wonder why I have this sudden U-turn in my religious and personal views after saying Western secularism in worldly affairs is okay. The answer is because of my commitment to my faith. Obedience is a big thing in Islam, and a great virtue. I've always said during my entire time on NSG since my conversion, that if I am demonstrated to be wrong in my views from passages in my Scriptures or books subservient to them, or if my Khalifa or Jammat say something otherwise, I would immediately change my views as I have done during the controversy around a girl being banned from the UK for marrying an ISIS member three months ago, and having a child with him. I advocated for her ban, but I immediately changed my views after reading the stance of the UK Ahmadiyya Muslim Jammat, calling for the ban to be lifted. It is the same for today's post, declaring my change in a common view of mine regarding Islam and government. Had I not have a firmness of my faith, and had a great love for Allah and His Messenger (saw), I would've not done this.

May Allah forgive me of my ignorance, and for giving people misinformation (unintentionally of course) on His Eternal Law. Ameen.

I hope you all have a great day!

Wa salaam,
Humbly,
Jolthig

[El-Amin Caliphate]

And make things worse? No, the only solution is to make it a real Islamic republic, not an "Islamic" republic.

What practical policy difference would that entail?

Not oppressing non-Muslims for one.

And make things worse? No, the only solution is to make it a real Islamic republic, not an "Islamic" republic.

I don't think it would be practical in Iran. Aside from the fact that many Iranians are not religious nowadays, what defines a true "Islamic" Republic?

A republic that governs according to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah of course.

You do realize ISIS is the opposite of everything Islam is, right? How could those heretics be considered peaceful at all?

There are plenty of Imans who will say ISIS is the one true form of Islam. How does an outsider decide which khutba-wearing spiderman pointing at another khutba-wearing spiderman is correct?

Evidence based on the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah of course. Also, khutbahs aren't articles of clothing, they're religious talks held by an imaam.

ISIS is islam in its purest form.

Except it contradicts Islam's pacifist nature.

Eh, Al-Islam has a lot of nature's (which all fall under the "submission" nature of Al-Islam). So while Al-Islam does have a pacifist nature I wouldn't say it's its only nature.

Islam literally doesn't have a pacifist nature though. Or are you claiming Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali weren't Muslims?

Islam, like many other religions, has a violent history. Though, I believe that in the case of Prophet Muhammad, it's more of self-defense. You do know that before the Hijra, warfare is not known to Islam, I suppose?

Oh it is, but even the broken clock says the correct time twice a day. (And maybe not "Purest" form, but it is Islam as Muhammad intended it.)

I'm not a master of Islamic law, but doesn't the Islamic war ethics prohibit the murder of women, children, and the elderly, that I believe was done by Daesh?
“Do not kill any old person, any child, or any woman.” (Abu Dawud)

And if Daesh believe that their terror attacks were/are part of their warfare, they are crossing this hadith:
“Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship.” (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal)

Exactly.

Islam, like many other religions, has a violent history. Though, I believe that in the case of Prophet Muhammad, it's more of self-defense. You do know that before the Hijra, warfare is not known to Islam, I suppose?


I'm not a master of Islamic law, but doesn't the Islamic war ethics prohibit the murder of women, children, and the elderly, that I believe was done by Daesh?
“Do not kill any old person, any child, or any woman.” (Abu Dawud)
“Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship.” (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal)

Does that mean adult men who aren't in Church are fair game?

As long as they're fighting us, yes.

Big lol when Chicago Hilal says that Eid is on the 5th...

That's when my masjid (and city pretty much) are celebrating.
Well technically Eid starts tonight (June 4th), Eid day starts on the same 5th.

[Zizou]

Eid Mubarak for everyone that’s celebrating Eid today, and Salam Jolthig

Actually, reading through your post reminded me of a Hadith I found, which said:

Hudhayfa b. al-Yaman (RA) reported that the Prophet ﷺ said,
“Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allah wishes. Then Allah will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it, and there will be a caliphate upon the prophetic methodology. It will last for as long as Allah wishes it to last, then Allah will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it. Then there will be an abiding dynasty, and it will remain for as long as Allah wishes it to remain. Then Allah will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it. Then there will be tyrannical (forceful) kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allah wishes it to remain. Then He will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it, and then there will be a caliphate upon the prophetic methodology.”

It seems that “Muslim” countries have been stuck in a state of tyranny for a long while now. Inshallah, true Ahmadiyya Islamic governance soon comes.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Eid Mubarak for everyone that’s celebrating Eid today, and Salam Jolthig

Actually, reading through your post reminded me of a Hadith I found, which said:

Hudhayfa b. al-Yaman (RA) reported that the Prophet ﷺ said,
“Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allah wishes. Then Allah will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it, and there will be a caliphate upon the prophetic methodology. It will last for as long as Allah wishes it to last, then Allah will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it. Then there will be an abiding dynasty, and it will remain for as long as Allah wishes it to remain. Then Allah will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it. Then there will be tyrannical (forceful) kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allah wishes it to remain. Then He will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it, and then there will be a caliphate upon the prophetic methodology.”

It seems that “Muslim” countries have been stuck in a state of tyranny for a long while now. Inshallah, true Ahmadiyya Islamic governance soon comes.

Is that Haidth SaHeeH? And can you link it pls?

[Zizou]

Eid Mubarak for everyone that’s celebrating Eid today, and Salam Jolthig

Actually, reading through your post reminded me of a Hadith I found, which said:

It seems that “Muslim” countries have been stuck in a state of tyranny for a long while now. Inshallah, true Ahmadiyya Islamic governance soon comes.

Is that Haidth SaHeeH? And can you link it pls?

Nah, al-Albani deemed it Hasan.
https://blog.islamiconlineuniversity.co ... d-of-time/

[Jolthig]

I'll be joining the debate with NGR to refute his claims later tonight after work despite being 4-5 days late

[Jolthig]

Eid Mubarak for everyone that’s celebrating Eid today, and Salam Jolthig

Actually, reading through your post reminded me of a Hadith I found, which said:

Hudhayfa b. al-Yaman (RA) reported that the Prophet ﷺ said,
“Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allah wishes. Then Allah will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it, and there will be a caliphate upon the prophetic methodology. It will last for as long as Allah wishes it to last, then Allah will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it. Then there will be an abiding dynasty, and it will remain for as long as Allah wishes it to remain. Then Allah will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it. Then there will be tyrannical (forceful) kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allah wishes it to remain. Then He will remove it whenever He wishes to remove it, and then there will be a caliphate upon the prophetic methodology.”

It seems that “Muslim” countries have been stuck in a state of tyranny for a long while now. Inshallah, true Ahmadiyya Islamic governance soon comes.

Walakium salaam bro

[Zizou]

Eid Mubarak for everyone that’s celebrating Eid today, and Salam Jolthig

Actually, reading through your post reminded me of a Hadith I found, which said:

It seems that “Muslim” countries have been stuck in a state of tyranny for a long while now. Inshallah, true Ahmadiyya Islamic governance soon comes.

Walakium salaam bro

How did your Ramadan go (besides the cold of course)? Also looking forward to your debate with NGR later.

[Jolthig]

Walakium salaam bro

How did your Ramadan go (besides the cold of course)? Also looking forward to your debate with NGR later.

Alhamdulilah and yours?

[Kowani]

Welcome back, Jolting!
Although I may end up jumping into the debate later on.

[Czechmate bro]

I'll be joining the debate with NGR to refute his claims later tonight after work despite being 4-5 days late

except evrytuigbhes said is true, and Islam and peace go together as well as oil and water
I’ll be happy to debate you now

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I'll be joining the debate with NGR to refute his claims later tonight after work despite being 4-5 days late

except evrytuigbhes said is true, and Islam and peace go together as well as oil and water
I’ll be happy to debate you now

I mean there's a bunch of ayaat and aHaadith about peace, so Al-Islam and peace go hand in hand.

[Czechmate bro]

except evrytuigbhes said is true, and Islam and peace go together as well as oil and water
I’ll be happy to debate you now

I mean there's a bunch of ayaat and aHaadith about peace, so Al-Islam and peace go hand in hand.

I’ll quote something I said in a region I was in, before I was banned for free speech:
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/88/5
Yeah, not peaceful at all

[Kowani]

except evrytuigbhes said is true, and Islam and peace go together as well as oil and water
I’ll be happy to debate you now

I mean there's a bunch of ayaat and aHaadith about peace, so Al-Islam and peace go hand in hand.

Much Hadith, much ayat, little history.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I mean there's a bunch of ayaat and aHaadith about peace, so Al-Islam and peace go hand in hand.

I’ll quote something I said in a region I was in, before I was banned for free speech:
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/88/5
Yeah, not peaceful at all

Quoting 1 Hadith doesn't prove your point. There's over 3,000 narrations of varying authenticity in Sunan Ibn Majah alone.

Also, when a (far) right winger says "free speech" it turns out to be something hateful. So forgive me if I take that with a few grains of salt.