A scholar's reponse to the issue of Khilafah...

Mr_Partypooper · December 26, 2000, 8:07pm

Slayer,

I would kindly ask of you to refer to the above reply where a scholar has answered your queries in detail.

So in your view, that is a problem?

I disagree completely. I suggest that you read my replies on this subject. You will find that the direct implication of the phrase “commandment to establish” is synonymous with the direct implication of the word “obligatory”.

**

My dear brother. I suggest that you read my replies in detail. For you will find that the classical juristic scholars are on my side.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

They shoot partypoopers, don’t they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited December 26, 2000).]

Musalman · December 28, 2000, 12:00am

Dear Brothers and Sisters Asslamu Alikum,

This reply shell concentrate on the “more precise” understanding of the word “Khilaafah”.
 Br. Moiz refers to the word Khilafah as QUOTE>> Both are used in their literal meaning and implication, which is ‘rule’, ‘government’ etc<  Br. Partypooper refers to the word Khilafah as QUOTE>>If by the word Khilafah, they mean government<<UNQUOTE

According to “The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000”

The word “literal” means:
1. Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
2. Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.

The word “implication” means:
1. The act of implicating or the condition of being implicated.
2. Something that is implied, especially: a. An indirect indication; a suggestion. b. An implied meaning; implicit significance. c. An inference.

So, right away we know that there could be a literal meaning of the word “Khilaafah” and then there could be an implied meaning of the word “Khilaafah” as well. As per Br. Moiz and Br. Partypooper both literal and implied meaning of the word “Khilaafah” according to their understanding is “Rule” and
“Government”. Furthermore “etc” in Br. Moiz commentary indicates that there could be more to it. For the sake of simplicity we will only analyze the words “Rule” and “Government” as used in the modern American English to see how close these two words are in their literal and implied meaning to the Arabic word of “Khilaafah” VS the word “Vicegerency”. We also have to take into consideration the fact that we are only interested in understanding the meaning of the Arabic word “Khilaafah” in the light of Islamic context.

According to “The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000”

The word “Rule” means:
1. Governing power or its possession or use; authority.
2. An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct.

The word “Government” means:
1. The act or process of governing.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.

To enhance our understanding of the above words lets state the meaning of the words “Govern” and “authority.”

The word “Govern” means “To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in.”

The word “Authority” means “The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.”

Now lets place the various words coined by Br. Moiz and Br. PartyPooper in place of the word “Khilaafah” to see how close they are in their literal and implied meaning.

Could “Khilaafah” mean “Rule” in its literal meaning?
To “literally” use the word “Rule” for the word “Khilaafah” would then amount to consider that “Khilaafah is the governing power” therefore it can exercise as a “sovereign authority”
Here the word “Sovereign” is the key to every thing, again we refer to “The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000” to see what does the word “sovereign” means. We find out that the word “sovereign” means “One that exercises supreme, permanent authority”

But we know that Sovereignty belongs to ALLAH (SWT) alone from Al_Quran, please see the following:

Surah Al-Fatihah, Verse 2 “Praise be to ALLAH, Lord of the worlds”

The Arabic word “Rabb” is usually translated as Lord but it is poor substitute for the word “Rabb” which signifies not only Soveriegn but also the Sustainer and Cherisher of the Worlds.

Also:
Surah Yusuf, Verse 40 “The command is for none but Allah”
Surah Al-Hadid, Verse 5 “Hu’s is the Sovereignty of Havens and the Earth”
Surah Al-Mulk, Verse 1“Blessed is Hu in whose hands is the sovereignty and Hu over all things hath power”

Such and others are the Verses which establish the Sovereignty of ALLAH (SWT) beyond any doubt and nobody, not even the whole world can lay claim to Hu’s Sovereignty. Now lets go back and consider the word “Rule” for the word “Khilaafah”, we will find out that “Khilaafah as a governing power CANNOT exercise as a sovereign authority” because the Sovereign authority only belongs to ALLAH (SWT) and NOT “Khilaafah”.

Same goes with the word “Government” when substituted for the word “Khilaafah” it will be taken of “Khilaafah” as an “act or process of governing” therefore it will have the right to “govern” which will again take us to the word “govern” which means to “exercise sovereign authority”.

BUT then again it is very clear that the only Sovereign authority is ALLAH (SWT) and not the Khilaafah, therefore it will not be correct to use the word “Government” for “Khilaafah” in its literal meaning.

Khilaafah as Vicegerency:

Since “Khilaafah” is an Arabic word. To grasp a better understanding of this word first lets go to “THE HANS WEHR DICTIONARY OF MODERN WRITTEN ARABIC”

The word “Khilaafah” means:
1. Vicarship
2. Deputyship
3. Office of a Khalifa

Now obviously the word “Khalifa” has to be looked as well to understand the word “Khilaafah”. According to “THE HANS WEHR DICTIONARY OF MODERN WRITTEN ARABIC”

The word “Khalifa” means:
1. Vicar
2. Deputy

Derives from the word “Khalafa” which mean:
1. To be the successor
2. Come after

NOW

According to “The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000”
The word “Vicegerency” means:
1. The authority of a vicegerent

For better understanding we shell look for the word “Vicegerent” which means:
1. A person appointed by a ruler to act as an administrative deputy.

Now when we substitute the word “Vicegerency” for “Khilaafah” we find out that:

The “Khilaafah” as an institution should be “The authority of a vicegerent”. Substituting the meaning of the word “Authority” as described above we would get that “Khilaafah as an institution has the power to enforce laws as determined by the Vicegerent.”

Now who is this “Vicegerent”?
According to the dictionary Vicegerent is “A person appointed by a ruler to act as an administrative deputy”

Therefore two questions arises:

First question is who is The Ruler, very simple since Sovereignty belongs to ALLAH (SWT) therefore only ALLAH (SWT) has the absolute right to Rule. So, obviously “The Ruler” is ALLAH (SWT).

The second question is tricky who is this PERSON appointed by The Ruler to act as HU’s administrative deputy on this planet?

This complexity may be cleared with reference to the context.

Man is placed on this planet as Khalifa of ALLAH (SWT) to enforce and administer Divine law. Read following Verses of Surah Al-Baqarah in Arabic (SWT) says:

Note that occasion, When your Rabb said to the angels: I am going to place a Khalifa (the actual word used in Quran is Khalifa meaning vicegerent meaning a person appointed by The Ruler the real Sovereign ALLAH (SWT) to act as an administrative deputy) on earth. They said: “Will You place there one who will make mischief and shed blood while we sing Your praises and glorify Your name?” Allah said: I know what you know not [30] He taught Adam the names of all things; then he presented the things to the angels and said: “Tell Me the names of these if what you say is true?” (Allah did this to show Adam’s special qualities of learning and memory). [31] “Glory to You,” they replied, “we have no knowledge except what You have taught us: in fact You are the One who is perfect in knowledge and wisdom.” [32] Allah said: “O Adam! Tell them the names.” When Adam told them the names, Allah said: “Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of the heavens and earth and I know what you revel and what you conceal ?” [33]
First we notice here is that man is the Khalifa “on earth.” What should be examined secondly is the reason of being a “Khalifah.” Which properties have given the man the quality of “being a Khalifa?” as the answer to this question is “He taught Adam (AS) the names of all things.” The Man (Insan) has been brought to being along with a capacity and an aptitude to unfold and carry out as much of ALLAH (SWT) countless names as ALLAH (SWT) wished. The endowment of such a capacity and aptitude to man is what “teaching him all the names” refer to.
Before the institution of prophethood was concluded, the prophets of Allah (SWT) were HU’s vicegerents (meaning a persons appointed by The Ruler the real Sovereign ALLAH (SWT) to act as administrative deputies ) in their individual capacities, because they used to receive direct revelation from Almighty ALLAH (SWT), all prophets were HU’s representatives and deputies (Khalifa) on earth; they had responsibility for implementing HU’s Orders and executing HU’s Will. This implies that Khilaafah, before the conclusion of prophethood, was strictly individual and personal, as it used to be the prerogative of a single person, i.e., the prophet, to implement and execute the orders of the Real Sovereign. Thus, Allah (SWT) has addressed Prophet Daud (AS) in these words: "O Daud! Verily, We have made you a Khalifa (vicegerent) in the earth…." (Saad 38:26). I by the way quoted this verse in my Nov. 14, 2000 post and Br. Partypooper finally reffers to the same verse in his last post. Those who know the Arabic language will appreciate that the address here is in second person singular: Allah (SWT) is addressing only Prophet Daud (AS). Thus, Prophet Daud (AS) was a Khalifa (vicegerent) of Allah (SWT) in his personal capacity.
Allah (SWT) ended the institution of prophethood after Prophet Muhammad (SAW), Therefore Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was the last person who was a Khlifah of Almighty Allah (SWT) in his personal and individual capacity. The institution of Khilafah can no longer continue as an individual and personal affair after the termination of prophethood, as no one can claim that he is receiving direct revelation from ALLAH (SWT). Thus, after the demise of the Holy Prophet (SAW), the institution of Khilaafah must become the COLLECTIVE AFFAIR OF THE ENTIRE MUSLIM UMMAH rather than the individual affair of the prophet. Read Surah An-Nur, Verse 55 in Arabic:

"Allah has promised those amongst you who believe, and do righteous good deeds, that HU will certainly grant them SUCCESSION to the PRESENT RULERS on the Earth, as HU granted it to those before them; that HU will establish in authority their religion – the one which HU has chosen for them; and that HU will change their state, after the fear in which they lived, to one of security and peace: They worship ME alone and not associate ought with Me. IF any do reject Faith after this, they are Rebellious and Wicked."

Note that the address here is in the third personal plural, which indicates that “Khilaafah” is now for the COLLECTIVITY OF MUSLIMS RATHER THAN FOR ANY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.

We find out that instead of a SINGULAR PERSON it is the entire UMMAH now who is responsible to act as HU’s administrative deputy on this planet. Therefore to establish the institution of “Khilaafah” becomes a collective responsibility.

Now, let’s go back and substitute the word “Vicegerency” for the word “Khilaafah” we find out that:

The “Khilaafah” as an institution should be “The authority of a vicegerent”. Substituting the meaning of the word “Authority” as described above we would get that “Khilaafah as an institution has the power to enforce laws as determined by the Vicegerent.”

Now who is this “Vicegerent”?
The ENTIRE UMMAH is the “Vicegerent”.

Khilaafah therefore at best can perhaps only be the “Vicegerency” which CANNOT claim to be a sovereign entity. It’s only status is of a deputy, representative or a vicegerent of the real Sovereign ALLAH (SWT). It is obligated to obey the real Sovereign ALLAH (SWT) by enforcing the DEEN AL-ISLAM prescribed by the real Sovereign ALLAH (SWT) as the ONLY way of life on this planet.

In simple words Khilaafah is an institution which is responsible to establish the Divine DEEN of AL-ISLAM” as the only WORLD ORDER on this planet. The responsibility to establish such an institution rests on the shoulder of this UMMAH. Establishing the Khilaafah is Fard Al-Kifaya upon this Ummah.

Note: No word other then “Khilaafah” can encompass the meaning of “Khilaafah” as understood in the beautiful language of Arabic. My dear brothers and sisters this is why we should all learn Arabic, so we do not become handicap in understanding the Message of ALLAH (SWT). Even the word “Vicegerency” is not a substitution for the word “Khilaafah” but that is the best I can do at-least for now. I believe that words like “Government” and “Rule” can be used not in their literal meaning but in their implied meaning for substitution purpose only when the concept of “Khilaafah is clear cut” in the mind when they are used. Just like there is no substitute for the word “ALLAH” but often the word “God” is used as substitution, even though it does not even come close to the beautiful name “ALLAH”. Also kindly remove confusion between “Khilaafah” and “Universal Islamic State”. As I had said it in several posts that we should not confuse establishing “Khilaafah” with establishing a “Universal Islamic State”.

[This message has been edited by Musalman (edited December 27, 2000).]

Traveller · December 29, 2000, 11:51pm

Assalam Alykum,

Greetings and Salutations. May Allah bless the Muslims. Alhamdulillah, it is indeed a great sight that the muslims are discussing the issue of Khilfah, and the re-establishment of the shade of Allah on this earth.

Indeed, the issue of Khilafah is an obligation, a vital obligation. No sincere or qualified scholar will state otherwise as this issue has no scope for difference of opinion. It is said by the ones' who hold an ounce of knowledge that the one who knowingly and willingly denies what Allah swt has ordained as obligation, it takes him outside the domains of Islam.

The evidences provided by brother Jaleel and those that have contributed clearly state that the work to re-establish Khilfah is a fard. It is only stupidity to ask for explicit text from the Quran which makes it is an obligation. As the Islamic Aqeedah is not only based upon the Quran but on Sunnah,Ijmah Sahahbah and Qiyas.Therefore, if undisputeble evidence is provided from anyone of these sources, it is hukum Sharia for the believer to follow.

Clear evidence has been discussed which make this obligation, but one continues to deny then let him ponder on the verses of the Quran, that a veil has placed that renders them bling and deaf, to warn or not to warn is to no avail (this is not the exact meaning).

Therefore, it is indeed true to say that the fulfillment of this work is a vital obligation on the believer, who works to the utmost of his ability to discharge this responsiblity.

Praise be to Allh swt who revealed the Quran so that it may take mankind out of darkness into the light.

Slayer · December 30, 2000, 6:19pm

salam,
yes i agree with jalal udeen and travellor that khilafah is a fard duty upon us and if we do not work to resume the islamic way of life then we would be sinful hence which would lead us to the hell-fire.but the world we live in now is being dominated by the western culture and this sometimes (the western culture)defeats and entertains those who r muslims and there basis which is the islamic aqeeda.following the west is not part of our aqeeda but following the prophet saw is the best and ONLY option for us.onesjazakallah khair.wasalam.

stunned · January 7, 2001, 10:32am

Thank you Mr. Partypooper for your post of December 26...

It is a thorough answer to all the false ideas promoted by the 'revolutionists'. An interesting outcome of the whole discussion which may go unnoticed is the point that those who do not recognize the established Muslim states are actually guilty of not abiding by the Bayah of their rulers and are therefore subject of the warning that whoever dies without a bayah, dies a death of ignorance (jahiliyyah)...

is it still not a point to pondeer?

Mr_Partypooper · January 7, 2001, 7:13pm

My dear brother stunned… thank you kindly for your remarks. I have to agree with you that it certainly is a point to ponder. As you have rightfully pointed out, unfavourable consequences arise when such matters are not thought through properly. Instead, it seems to be the fashion for people to try to justify their beliefs by looking for things within the Islamic literature - including the Qur’an and Sunnah - that are actually not there. When verses or narratives are used as a tool to further an individual’s or a group’s false propaganda, they are too often mistranslated, misquoted, and quoted completely out of context. We have seen many instances of this unconstructive behaviour within this thread alone. Even when the truth of the circumstances surrounding the issue at hand is presented, these groups of people have a tendency to either go into complete denial or try to further rationalise their beliefs. In short, my correspondents are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions of muslims are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty.

It should be kept in mind that declaring something to be obligatory is not the jurisdiction of the scholars and students of Islam. It is the sole authority of the Almighty. Declaring something to be obligatory, without the authority of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, is a great transgression and a person guilty of such transgression shall be accountable for it on the Day of Judgment. It is for this reason that I would generally have no objections on what a movement plans to do, as long as its actions are morally and legally justifiable. However, when a movement declares something to be Haraam (prohibited) or Fardh (obligatory) or even a nafl (supererogatory), it is my duty to ask for the basis of such declaration in the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh), as without such basis, all such declarations are a condemnable invention in the body of Islam.

If I may say so, this is the ultimate satisfaction for being the rebel - having the facts right.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

They shoot partypoopers, don’t they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited January 08, 2001).]

Slayer · January 8, 2001, 12:07am

As salamu alay kum brothers and sisters,
jazakallah for the reply Mr party pooper,however u seem to still deny that khilafah is fard after all the CLEAR explainations given before hand.

All i can say u can intellectually weave ur way out of the rest of the muslims but u cant and will not weave ur way out of Allah swt on the day of judgement.Fear Allah for whoever u r and where u r getting ur knowledge from is a incorrect source and all i can say is that the Kuffar and their allies r really cheering and clapping their hands for the likes of u,being the policeman of the kuffar is a great sin and u should open ur eyes and witness the real world oh muslim.

Can u justify what u have said to Allah when UR sisters face u on the day of judgement while being scarred by the semen of the filthy serbs?can u?Ask ur self Mr party pooper.Can u say to Allah"oh my lord?oh the ruler of the universe?al_khaliq and al_malik?i didnt see any "clear evidences in the book that u revealed,u could have made it clearer for me,why didnt u make it clear for me Allah?".

Fear allah,as u dont understand ur very belief or is it u dont want to understand it?A child can see that all the discussions that have taken place r as clear as water bu t u still dont seem to understand.Astagfirillah,this is not a game,this is not a cat and mouse chase,to say ur better than me and im better than u.This is for all of us and Allah swt will account u and me and the whole mankind.What did we do for him and his deen,is islam just five pillars?is islam just for the mosque?like the other manmade moulded religions?Then if the answer of u is yes then Allah should have just sent FIVE PAGES OF THE QURA'N TO US.

And one question comes to my head Mr partypooper,U explain to what is islam?ur defintion i would like to hear.How do u understand islam?U r a very indivdualistic person and may Allah forgive u because u just cant or wont see the difference between islam and the other religions and manmade systems that we r witnessing today.WAKE UP whoever u r.u seem to have a personal problem with jalal_ud_deen,but i can tell u that u seem to have a personal problem with Allah and his messenger!
The ball is in ur court my muslim friend,and u can chuck it back to me and the other people out there who r participating in these discussions but u cant chuck it back to the Rabill alla meen.
Sada kallahu a' theem.
As salamu alay kum.
May Allah forgive me if i have said anything wrong.
For Allah swt said"for every atoms weight of good u shall see it,and for every way of bad u shall see it on that day".

jalal_ud_deen · January 11, 2001, 4:12am

[quote]
**
PartyPooper posted on November 15, 2000 12:19 PM :

I have read all your posts. When I ask you to give me one one directive which categorically and unambiguously states that it is fard upon every Muslim to establish the Khilafah, you ask me to go back and read your posts again. I have been asking this question from the beginning. I have read all your posts. I was not convinced. I have even asked a scholar to read your posts. He is not convinced that you have answered my question. If he is not convinced, then I am not convinced. And I can tell you that I have never been convinced from the beginning about this issue. You may say that my or the scholar's interpretation of Islam is wrong. But let me tell you: I am more confident with a scholar's mistakes than yours.
**

[/quote]

So originally PartyPooper, said that he is more confident with the scholars mistakes. So when I and other quoted tons of scholars....what does he do ?
er....er....Mioz Amjad becomes his scholar.

He could not find any of the classical scholars of Islam, in the history of Islam to back his point, so he uses Moiz Amjad-a guy with a web page-wow!!

Even the Actions of the sahaba as a whole, were not for him-he rejected their Ijma[PS Quran is established from Ijma-rejection of sahaba's ijma=rejection of Quran].

Time and Time again this happened:

On one side you had the Quranic Texts, the Hadiths, the Actions of the Companions unanimously acting upon thes hadiths and the numerous classical scholars understanding of these hadiths and on the other side : PartyPooper and Mioz Amjad.

Hence the formation of a new Kafir Sect took place. PartyPooper and Mioz have just with their own shallow/weak/.... understanding
rejected definite Quranic Text-the only thing that may save them from hellfire, would be their ignorance-that does exist.

[quote]
**
PartyPooper originally posted:

If examined closely, the argument presented may (sequentially) be summarized thus:

It is obligatory for a Muslim to live a life of obedience (bay`ah) toward the Khaleefah;
No Muslim can fulfill this obligation unless a ‘Khilaafah’ is established;
Till the time that a ‘Khilaafah’ is established, every Muslim is dying the death of Jahiliyyah;
Thus, to save the Muslims from dying a death of Jahiliyyah, it is obligatory to strive for the establishment of the Khilaafah.

Although the argument may seem quite logical at first sight, yet with a little scrutiny, it shall be seen that it is completely unfounded.

To understand the fallacy of the argument, let us take a look at a few directives of the Shari`ah, which are clearly conditional upon the circumstances of the individuals.

We know that it is obligatory upon the Muslims to pay Zaka’h, if their total wealth exceeds a certain limit. Regarding those who do not pay Zak’ah, the Prophet is reported to have said:

For every person who does not pay Zaka’h, God shall throw around his neck a great snake on the Day of Judgment.

Now one may derive thus:

Zaka’h is obligatory if the wealth of a person exceeds a certain limit;
Those who do not pay Zaka’h, shall be severely punished on the Day of Judgment;
Thus, it is obligatory upon every poor person who is not paying Zaka’h, to strive to increase his wealth to the Zaka’table limits, to save himself from the severe punishment of those who are not paying Zaka’h.

The whole argument is clearly absurd. The fact, contrary to the argument, is that the payment of Zaka’h is an obligation only IF the wealth of a person exceeds a certain limit. This does NOT impose an obligation of trying to improve one’s financial position to be able to pay Zaka’h. In other words, the law of Zaka’h and the punishment mentioned in the referred narrative is conditional upon the financial position of the individual.

In exactly the same manner, the warning ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) regarding living a life devoid of obedience (bay`ah) toward the ruler (Khaleefah) is actually conditional upon the existence of the ruler (Khaleefah) as well as the rule (Khilaafah). This warning does not, by itself, impose an obligation upon the Muslims to establish the rule (Khilaafah) and appoint a ruler (Khaleefah).
**

[/quote]

So again PartyPooper uses Moiz ! So, according to PARTYPOOPERS understanding, as, he points out above, Mr PartyPooper and Moiz DO NOT PRAY SALAH or JUMA:

So since Prayer needs wudu and that need opening the tap of water, Mr PartyPooper and Mioz say that since they don't have wudu nor that the tap is open, they do not pray Salah.

According to PartyPooper and Mioz, the opening of the tap does not have any "Clear directive" from the Quran, hence they do not Pray.

See, the making of a Kafir Sect.

We, the Ahle-Sunnah wal Jamaah-the ones with the true understanding obviously, use the principle, as quoted by many classical scholars "Whatever leads to a Wajib is Wajib".
And so we the Muslim Ummah, pray our salahs, since we know it also obliges us to open the tap of Water.

In the same way that we know that if Allah(swt) has made implementing his laws an obligation, then whatever leads to that is also an obligation eg election of Khaleef, his appointment, creation of structure of state that rules by Islam

analyze_it · January 11, 2001, 5:44am

Jalal:
Here lies the problem infiltrated into muslim debates and their minds. Whenever someone attempts to present an intelligent debate, fanatics start calling him Kafir rather than answering in a logical way.
There is no point in comparing partypooper's assertions to wudu or salah.
He may be wrong or right but it does not qualify you or anybody else to call him Kafir, Beacause;

Belief is not what mind possesses, it is what possesses the mind!

jalal_ud_deen · January 12, 2001, 12:48pm

Firstly, apologies for posting the above message twice-it didn't appear on the board when I posted it.

Bro, I did not call anybody a kafir.[since I know, as i pointed out above, that ignorance may save them from that]

Mr_Partypooper · January 20, 2001, 10:32pm

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
According to PartyPooper and Mioz, the opening of the tap does not have any "Clear directive" from the Quran, hence they do not Pray.

See, the making of a Kafir Sect.
**
[/quote]

I have always wondered why, in our discussions, do we tend to lose our cool and become incited by differences of opinions. Whereas, if it was purely a matter of searching for the truth, a difference in opinion should only have encouraged us to review our own opinions, rather than provoke us. In my opinion, the reason is that we, generally do not go through the process of ‘understanding’. We only follow what has previously been (presumably) understood by our ancestors. Thus, in our minds, the understanding of our ancestors is no longer, merely, an ‘understanding’ with a chance that it may be incorrect, but is as authentic as the Qur’an itself (that is, only if we believe the Qur’an to be authentic at all).

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
He could not find any of the classical scholars of Islam, in the history of Islam to back his point, so he uses Moiz Amjad-a guy with a web page-wow!!

Even the Actions of the sahaba as a whole, were not for him-he rejected their Ijma[PS Quran is established from Ijma-rejection of sahaba's ijma=rejection of Quran].

Time and Time again this happened:

On one side you had the Quranic Texts, the Hadiths, the Actions of the Companions unanimously acting upon thes hadiths and the numerous classical scholars understanding of these hadiths and on the other side : PartyPooper and Mioz Amjad.
**
[/quote]

If you would kindly study the responses given to you by The Learner you will see that there is absolutely no basis for your assertion that the scholars disagree with him. In fact, it has already been categorically demonstrated that the classical juristic scholars support he view of The Learner on this issue. Who of us said the classical juristic scholars got it wrong on this issue? You have interpreted something other than what the classical scholars were trying to say. As has been shown above, it seems that the issue of saying that establishing a universal Islamic State is fard in order for your own or your group's political ends – is a concept, which has no basis in Islam. However, to make it more acceptable, it is normally disguised in the cloak of religion. Therfore your above comments are baseless. I suggest that you read and understand what The Learner has been trying to say to you instead of making baseless and emotional comments.

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
Hence the formation of a new Kafir Sect took place. PartyPooper and Mioz have just with their own shallow/weak/.... understanding
rejected definite Quranic Text-the only thing that may save them from hellfire, would be their ignorance-that does exist.
**
[/quote]

So... you are calling me and The Learner both Kafirs? No? C'mon... what else could you possibly mean by that? If me and The Learner have created a sect full of Kafirs then by a natural corollary that makes us Kafirs too by definition. Why don't you just say it? Go on... you know you want to so I'm giving you a chance to call me and The Learner Kafirs as much as you like.

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
So again PartyPooper uses Moiz ! So, according to PARTYPOOPERS understanding, as, he points out above, Mr PartyPooper and Moiz DO NOT PRAY SALAH or JUMA:

So since Prayer needs wudu and that need opening the tap of water, Mr PartyPooper and Mioz say that since they don't have wudu nor that the tap is open, they do not pray Salah.

According to PartyPooper and Mioz, the opening of the tap does not have any "Clear directive" from the Quran, hence they do not Pray.

See, the making of a Kafir Sect.
**
[/quote]

I really do not see that this comment deserves any response on my part. I am therefore, quoting it in my reply without any comments.

Overall as I said earlier, I am very disappointed with some of the responses that I have seen. Clearly, this is a dialogue in which has clearly been far too heavy to handle for some groups of people and as a result they have resorted to unprofessional and baseless attacks on the credibility of others.

I would like to repeat something I had said earlier:

"These are **limits (set by) Allah, and **whosoever obeys Allah and His Messenger* will be admitted to Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise), to abide therein, and that will be the great success. And whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, and transgresses His limits, He will cast him into the Fire, to abide therein; and he shall have a disgraceful torment. (Qur’an 4:13-14)*

Please see the bold phrases. It should be quite obvious that in the cited verse God wants us to adhere to the directives of the Qur’an (Obedience to Allah and His messenger). I would like to remind you that the whole point of our discussion is ‘what are the stipulations regarding the establishment of a universal Islamic state with respect to the Qur’an and Sunnah?’. Please note that I have tried to confine myself to the verses of the Qur’an and Sunnah, while you are consistently asking me to review my opinion in the light of the opinion ascribed to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and to Muslim jurists. I ask you and all my Muslim brethren, what, in your opinion, is the criteria of determining God’s directives? Is it the words of the Qur’an or the interpretation of these words ascribed to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Muslim jurists? If the former is the case, then all interpretations, irrespective of who is presenting them, should be judged on this criterion. While, if the latter is the case, then my whole discussion is out of place. Not only that, then our claim of adherence to the Qur’an is also out of place, and then the fact that God has, Himself, secured the Qur’an from any and all adulterations is also of no use, for rather than the Qur’an, God should then have guaranteed keeping the opinion ascribed to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh), clear of all adulterations and mistakes.

My dear brothers and sisters, I have presented the explanation of this issue of the Qur’an and Sunnah, which I hold to be correct, not on the basis of the person(s) who ascribe to this explanation, but on the basis of the words of the Qur’an. I would sincerely appreciate, if someone would take a look at my explanation, on merit, and let me know what is wrong with this explanation. I assure you, and God be witness on this, that if I someone can adequately explain the mistake in my explanation, I would not hesitate for even a minute in accepting and amending it. However, extremely sad as it is, all the criticism that I have yet received on my explanation is only to the effect that it is different from the generally held view. My answer to this is just that if what I have understood is truly what the Qur’an says, then the overwhelming numbers on the other side hold no importance in my eyes, whatsoever. And, on the other hand, if that is not what the Qur’an says, then may Allah give someone, from these overwhelming numbers, the knowledge and the ability to help me correct my understanding.

My dear brothers and sisters, assuming that my explanation is incorrect, when I meet God, on the Day of Judgment, and He asks me why I differed from the ‘generally held’ interpretation, I would present the excuse that I only presented that, which I had honestly understood from the Qur’an. There was no one who took the pains of communicating my mistakes to me, no one who told me, where I had gone wrong. Every one just kept telling me that my explanation was ‘different’ from the ‘generally held’ view. I adhered to my understanding of Your book and ignored the ‘generally held’ view in relation to Your book. This is precisely what You had directed me to do. Therefore, please forgive me for my ignorance and for my inability to find coherence in the directives of Your book and the ‘generally held’ opinion.

Now, however unlikely it may sound, for a moment, let us assume that my explanation is correct. What excuse would you have before God, when He asks you why you did not consider my explanation on pure merit? I must remind you, my brothers, that what I am presenting is not merely an opinion, it is my understanding of the words of the Qur’an. Please give it the attention that it deserves. Reject it, if you feel that it is incorrect, but at least reject it on merit, not merely on the grounds that it is against the ‘generally held’ view.

Thus I leave it to the reader to decide whose opinion is the correct one.

They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited January 20, 2001).]

Slayer · January 21, 2001, 1:47am

As salamu alaykum everyone,

Mr party pooper whoever u maybe,i assume u r a muslim alhamdulilah and that u recongnise the duties that Allah swt has bestowed upon u and me and everyone else.

We r human beings and human beings tend to make mistakes
and from their mistakes we learn and repent to Allah swt,as muslims we do have the revelation coming down to us just like the prophet saw had and also we cannot communicate with Allah swt coz rassoolah saw was last and final messenger.
So therefore when we do certain actions in this life we need the hukm from islam to allow us to do that and to say we r correct we need the definete
evidences from islam to say me or u r correct.
Brother or sister,Allah swt revealed to us a deen that is the truth and for us to say that we cant and cannot or work to revive this deen in lifes affairs is very very wrong,coz from that understanding we r saying Allah swt revealed a in-pratical way of life.Astagfirillah.
Verily Allah swt said clearly in the the verse of quran in surah taub'a"We have sent u(muhammad)as a messenger with the deen of(haq)truth that it may prevail over any other way of life(systems).
I dont know why u dont seem to understand the evidences given b4 hand but
inshallah i pray that u will realise that u were wrong in this issue.
Theres no more left to say on this issue oh muslims and the matter is closed.
May Allah grant us the victory and grant us the Khilafah and make the people who r working for this noble call steadfast.Ameen.
As salamu aly kum wa rahma tullahla hi wabarkatuu huu.
Ever since the Khilafah was destroyed and the situation of the Muslims began to decline from bad to worse, after being an Ummah that had held together like one body - if a part were to hurt then the entire body would call out to the part with sleeplessness and fever, and being of the same blood, as one hand against the rest- (despite this) they became divided and disunited. When the Kuffar attacked some of them the rest stood as bystanders as if the problem did not concern them. And after possessing a single powerful state which the world used to regard with fear and apprehension they came to live as numerous statelets, as week, dependent and hired entities, sought after by those who desire (to use them) and their resources exploited by the Kafir colonialists.

Most certainly the corrupt situation and weakness of the Muslims is due to their abandonment of Islam as a system of life and thereafter their silence concerning the rule of secular/man made systems over their relationships. Indeed, changing the corrupt situation of the Muslims is not a miracle but a (distinct) possibility within the ability of Muslims to undertake. Allah ta'ala has legislated a method and rules for this objective and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessing be upon him and his family) and his companions proceeded according to its guidance until they changed the jahili society to an Islamic society by establishing the Islamic state which at that time transformed most of the inhabited world from dar al-kufr to dar al-Islam.

There are many Shari'a texts which demonstrate that changing the corrupt and munkar situation is fard on the Muslims. Allah ta'ala said : 'The believers, men and women, are Awliya (helpers) of one another, they enjoin the good (ma'ruf) and forbid the evil (munkar)'. [9:71] And the Prophet (saw) said : 'Whoever of you sees a munkar let him change it by his hand, and if he could not then let him do that by his tongue, and if he could not do that let him deny it by his heart (i.e. hate it), and this is the weakest (degree of) Iman.' And he (saw) said : 'There will be leaders (Ameers) where you acknowledge true some of their actions and deny some others whosoever hated (the wrong) he will free himself (of the sin), and whosoever denied he will be safe but what of the one who accepted ( their wrong) and followed !' (ie. they will not be free of the sin). And he (saw) said : 'O people ! Verily, Allah 'azza wa jalla says Enjoin the good and forbid the evil before you supplicate to me or I will not answer your call, before you ask of me for something and I will not grant it, before you turn to me for assistance and I will not help you.'

These texts decisively request the Muslims to change any munkar which they see : by hand and action, by the tongue and speech, and by the heart and aversion depending on their ability. However there are some which are of the greatest munkars the corruption of the life of the Muslims resulting from the rule of non-Islam. Allah ta'ala has ordered the Muslims to work to change it and He has made the work for change an obligation of sufficiency (fard 'ala al-kifaya). He ta'ala said : ' Verily ! Allah will not change the condition of a people as long as they do not change what is within themselves'. [13:11] It is a request which has come in the form of a statement to indicate its certainty and importance. Thus, it has become one of the laws of the universe which Allah ta'ala has created. This law demands that people work for change as a community until Allah changes what is within themselves. This is indicated by the wording of the ayah which has come in the plural : 'people, they change, themselves'. And he (saw) said : 'Any people amongst whom sins are committed, and they could change them but they did not (change), Allah will be about to bring a punishment which envelopes all.' It is a decisive request for the community to change the corrupt reality in which it lives. If they do not do that Allah will punish them all irrespective of whether they were amongst those who committed the transgressions or not since they did not involve themselves with the obligation of sufficiency despite their ability to engage in change. Thus, the changing of the munkar is fard on the Muslims. And there is a munkar which no individual on his own or separate individuals can change and that is the reality such as the one we live today which is due to the absence of the Khilafah state. Thus, Allah has legislated a method for the community to change this munkar by obliging on the Muslims to form a group from amongst them which will work for the return of the Khilafah state. He ta'ala said : 'Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to the good (khayr), enjoining the good (ma'ruf) and forbidding the evil (munkar). And it is they who are the successful'. [3:104] The definite order in this verse is directed towards the forming of a group from amongst the Muslims which will invite the people to Islam and enjoin the good (ma'ruf) and forbid the evil (munkar). The call to Islam requires that Islam is brought into the reality of life in terms of its creed and system, and this cannot take place without a state which will implement and carry Islam to the rest of the people. So the obligation of this group which is required (by the text) is to work to bring about this state, the Khilafah state.

There are hadiths of the Prophet (saw) which decisively require the Muslims to enjoin the good and forbid the evil as a community otherwise Allah will punish them in this life and in the Hereafter. He (saw) said : 'By the One in Whose hands my soul rests, you have to enjoin right and forbid the wrong, other wise Allah will be about to send upon you a punishment from Him, then you would pray to Him but He would not answer you'. He (saw) said : 'Any people amongst whom sins are committed, and they could change them but they did not (change), Allah will be about to bring a punishment which will reach everybody'. And he (saw) said : 'Nay, by Allah, you have to enjoin the good and forbid the wrong, and to hold against the hand of the tyrant, and to force him on the truth and restrict him to the truth, otherwise Allah will strike the hearts of some of you against others, then He will curse you as He cursed them.'

So it is incumbent on the Muslims who wish to be saved from the punishment of Allah in this dunya and in the Hereafter to embark upon the work to change the evil situation in which they live, following the lawful path towards change, to re-establish Islam in life as a state and system.

And this method which Allah ta'ala has made obligatory and clarified to His Messenger cannot be accomplished by the building of mosques and Qur'an memorisation classes and nor by increasing the number of times one performs the hajj, Umra or gives in charity even though these actions are required by the Shari'ah from the state and individuals. Rather it should be according to the method Allah ta'ala has obliged and clarified to His Messenger (saw) which is the structuring of a bloc/group from amongst the Muslims which will work to resume the Islamic way of life by establishing the Khilafah state. And that is undertaken by the intellectual and political struggle. By intellectual struggle is meant the challenge to all non-Islamic creeds, thoughts and concepts and as well to the existing relationships in society which are based on anything other than Islam. And then the clarification of the thoughts, concepts and rules of Islam which should prevail in the society in order for it to become an Islamic society. And by political struggle is meant the challenge to the rulers who do not implement Islam in all spheres of life, and the exposing of the plans and conspiracies which they weave against the Islamic Ummah, and fearlessly accounting them without compromise or partiality/favouritism. And this is so that Ummah gains awareness of Islam and embraces the group which works to re-establish Islam in life by the establishment of the Khilafah state. So just as Allah ta'ala addressed His messenger (saw) by His saying : 'Read!' He has addressed him by saying : ' O you (Muhammad [saw]) enveloped (in garments) ! Arise and warn'. [74:1-2]. And by His saying : 'Therefore proclaim openly that which you are commanded, and turn away from the Mushrikin'. The address to the Messenger (saw) in these verses is an address to the Muslims for all time. So it is incumbent on them to undertake the actions which the Messenger (saw) undertook until he established the state. So that they can reclaim their authority which was usurped from them and then give bay'a to a Khalifah to rule by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.

And despite the presence of an aware party - Hizb-ut-Tahrir - which has responded to the decisive request in His ta'ala's saying : ' Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to the good (khayr), enjoining the good (ma'ruf) and forbidding the evil (munkar)...' [3:104] Thus, it has structured itself on the Islamic thought and has passed through the stages in the method which Allah ta'ala has made obligatory and clarified to His Messenger. However, the realisation of the objective for which it works has not been completed the re-establishment of the Khilafah state, which means that the decisive request on the Muslims still stands. Thus, they should hasten to respond to it and structure themselves with a group which satisfies the Shari'a requirements in order to change, together, the corrupt reality in which they live or else they will be sinful and deserve the punishment of Allah in this life and in the Hereafter.

And in spite of the fact that it is obligatory to follow this method, those who followed a path other than it have clearly failed which has made the Ummah to suspect every movement and dismiss the possibility of change occurring at their hands, even at the hands of the sincere movements amongst them, without realising that the sincere movement is a part which cannot be separated from the Ummah. And without realising that the Ummah is not able to engender radical change or revive without a sincere ideological movement which the Ummah embraces and to which she grants her leadership, in order to work together to change the corrupt reality by establishing the Khilafah state.

As for the fear of losing the possessions of the dunya in terms of the rizq (provision) and other such things resulting from the work for change. Indeed Allah is the one who provides : 'To Him belongs the keys of the heavens and the earth, He enlarges the provision for whom He wills'. [42:12] There is no provider (raziq) except Him : 'Who is he that can provide for you if He should withhold His provision ?'. [67:21] And He has divided the provision (rizq) between His servants : 'It is We Who portion out between them their livelihood in this world'. [43:32] And He ordered them to have taqwa (God fearing) : ' And whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make a way out for him (from his difficulty) and He will grant him provision from whence he could never imagine'. [65:2-3] So let us fear Allah ta'ala and let us begin the serious work to change the corrupt situation in which we live by joining forces with the sincere and aware carriers of the da'wa to re-establish the Khilafah, until we attain the honour and dignity in this world and the reward of the Hereafter. And we are from those Allah ta'ala has intended in the hadith of His Messenger (saw) : Verily, the deen began strange and it will return strange. So, blessed are the strangers who make good what the people after me have corrupted of my Sunnah'.

[This message has been edited by Slayer (edited January 20, 2001).]

Mr_Partypooper · January 21, 2001, 3:45am

[quote]
Originally posted by Slayer:
*I dont know why u dont seem to understand the evidences given b4 hand but
inshallah i pray that u will realise that u were wrong in this issue.
*
[/quote]

With great respect, maybe it is because I understand the "clear" evidences far too well for your liking? Maybe I understand that the classical juristic scholars do not actually ascribe to your view at all. Maybe it is because you have interpreted something other than what they were trying to say? Does the possibility of that not arise at all? I am afraid that going into complete denial and making emotional remarks is simply not going invalidate the beliefs that I hold.

May Allah guide us to the path of his liking.

They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

jalal_ud_deen · January 23, 2001, 1:59am

[quote]
**
PartyPooper posted:I ask you and all my Muslim brethren, what, in your opinion, is the criteria of determining God’s directives? Is it the words of the Qur’an or the interpretation of these words ascribed to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Muslim jurists? If the former is the case, then all interpretations, irrespective of who is presenting them, should be judged on this criterion. While, if the latter is the case, then my whole discussion is out of place. Not only that, then our claim of adherence to the Qur’an is also out of place, and then the fact that God has, Himself, secured the Qur’an from any and all adulterations is also of no use, for rather than the Qur’an, God should then have guaranteed keeping the opinion ascribed to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh), clear of all adulterations and mistakes.**
[/quote]

The issue at hand is not the "Quran and Sunnah" against the "Companions and the scholars". This was never the case and will never be the case.
**
The issue at hand is rather "Your and Mioz's twisted misconceptions about the Quran and Sunnah" against the Quran and Sunnah and extractions of the Scholars along with the Ijma as Sahaba" on this issue**

So in fact the issue is whether you and Moiz Amjad have the ablity to understand the Qur'an and Sunnah better than the Classical Scholars along with the Sahaba.

This is the issue, and this is exactly what I proved. I proved that your understandings were completely incorrect and absurd. If you remember the discussion, you tried to proved that whatever leads to a Wajib is NOT a wajib. And to show you how absurd this is, I used your own principle to prove that therefore in fact you do not even pray, quoting from my last post:

[quote]
**
You posted:

If examined closely, the argument presented may (sequentially) be summarized thus:

It is obligatory for a Muslim to live a life of obedience (bay`ah) toward the Khaleefah;
No Muslim can fulfill this obligation unless a ‘Khilaafah’ is established;
Till the time that a ‘Khilaafah’ is established, every Muslim is dying the death of Jahiliyyah;
Thus, to save the Muslims from dying a death of Jahiliyyah, it is obligatory to strive for the establishment of the Khilaafah.

Although the argument may seem quite logical at first sight, yet with a little scrutiny, it shall be seen that it is completely unfounded.

To understand the fallacy of the argument, let us take a look at a few directives of the Shari`ah, which are clearly conditional upon the circumstances of the individuals.

We know that it is obligatory upon the Muslims to pay Zaka’h, if their total wealth exceeds a certain limit. Regarding those who do not pay Zak’ah, the Prophet is reported to have said:

For every person who does not pay Zaka’h, God shall throw around his neck a great snake on the Day of Judgment.

Now one may derive thus:

Zaka’h is obligatory if the wealth of a person exceeds a certain limit;
Those who do not pay Zaka’h, shall be severely punished on the Day of Judgment;
Thus, it is obligatory upon every poor person who is not paying Zaka’h, to strive to increase his wealth to the Zaka’table limits, to save himself from the severe punishment of those who are not paying Zaka’h.

The whole argument is clearly absurd. The fact, contrary to the argument, is that the payment of Zaka’h is an obligation only IF the wealth of a person exceeds a certain limit. This does NOT impose an obligation of trying to improve one’s financial position to be able to pay Zaka’h. In other words, the law of Zaka’h and the punishment mentioned in the referred narrative is conditional upon the financial position of the individual.

In exactly the same manner, the warning ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) regarding living a life devoid of obedience (bay`ah) toward the ruler (Khaleefah) is actually conditional upon the existence of the ruler (Khaleefah) as well as the rule (Khilaafah). This warning does not, by itself, impose an obligation upon the Muslims to establish the rule (Khilaafah) and appoint a ruler (Khaleefah).

So I posted in reply:

So again PartyPooper uses Moiz ! So, according to PARTYPOOPERS understanding, as, he points out above, Mr PartyPooper and Moiz DO NOT PRAY SALAH or JUMA:

So since Prayer needs wudu and that need opening the tap of water, Mr PartyPooper and Mioz say that since they don't have wudu nor that the tap is open, they do not pray Salah.

According to PartyPooper and Mioz, the opening of the tap does not have any "Clear directive" from the Quran, hence they do not Pray.

See, the making of a Kafir Sect.

We, the Ahle-Sunnah wal Jamaah-the ones with the true understanding obviously, use the principle, as quoted by many classical scholars "Whatever leads to a Wajib is Wajib".
And so we the Muslim Ummah, pray our salahs, since we know it also obliges us to open the tap of Water.

In the same way that we know that if Allah(swt) has made implementing his laws an obligation, then whatever leads to that is also an obligation eg election of Khaleef, his appointment, creation of structure of state that rules by Islam
**

[/quote]

Hence we can clearly see your twisted understandings from the opinions of the scholars/sahaba. They all prayed Salah.

[quote]
**
PartyPooper posted:
I adhered to my understanding of Your book and ignored the ‘generally held’ view in relation to Your book. This is precisely what You had directed me to do.
**
[/quote]

[Allah] the Exalted has said, (translated), "So, ask the Ahludh-Dhikr (People of Remembrance/Knowledge) if you (yourselves) do not know." [Surah Nahl:43]

Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud and Ahmad have narrated, through their chains [of narration], on the authority of Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), that a man sustained an injury to his head during the time of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Then, he became sexually impure, and was ordered [by people] to perform ghusl. He therefore performed ghusl, contracted tetanus, and died [as a result]. This was then conveyed to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who said, "They killed him. May Allah kill them. Could they not have asked, since they did not know? The only remedy for incompetency is asking." [Sunan Ibn Majah, vol. I, p. 189.]

Hence, the issue is this, how many sciences of Islam do you know ? Jack !!!
What do you know about usul ul Fiqh ? Jack
What do you know about the rules of Qarina?
Or about Mafhoom or Mantuq ?
Or Arabic ? Or anything for that matter ?
Nothing, Nada, Zero, Zilth will be your reply.

Need I say more ?

Mr_Partypooper · January 23, 2001, 7:55pm

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
The issue at hand is not the "Quran and Sunnah" against the "Companions and the scholars". This was never the case and will never be the case.

The issue at hand is rather "Your and Mioz's twisted misconceptions about the Quran and Sunnah" against the Quran and Sunnah and extractions of the Scholars along with the Ijma as Sahaba" on this issue
**
[/quote]

If I may say so, I would be most interested to see the basis for your baseless accusation. What exactly do you mean by the statement me and my teacher are categorically against the Qur'an and the Sunnah? If you believe that we are against the classical juristic scholars then I am afraid that you better quit this discussion or you better go back and read everything that I have written in its correct context. If you are finding this discussion difficult to handle then I think it is better for you to back off and actually think about what this is all about.

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
So in fact the issue is whether you and Moiz Amjad have the ablity to understand the Qur'an and Sunnah better than the Classical Scholars along with the Sahaba.
**
[/quote]

The Learner is my teacher. I learn from him becasue he knows what the Qur'an and the Sunnah and the classical juristic scholars are saying. And you will find that they actually support my teachers beliefs. It has been demonstrated above that what they have said on this issue is not at all what you have interpreted them to say. You are still somewhat confused and hazy on this issue despite me demonstrating this and repeating this several times.

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
This is the issue, and this is exactly what I proved. I proved that your understandings were completely incorrect and absurd. If you remember the discussion, you tried to proved that whatever leads to a Wajib is NOT a wajib. And to show you how absurd this is, I used your own principle to prove that therefore in fact you do not even pray, quoting from my last post:
**
[/quote]

It gives me great amusement to think that you have been extremely happy and therefore celebrating the notion that you "proved" something what I had said to be categorically wrong. Yet I must confess that I completely and utterly failed to see what you "proved". According to you, my reply dealt with the contention that anything that leads to wajib is wajib itself. Hmmm... So where exactly where did I mention this issue about wajib? And what does that have to do with me and The Learner praying?
If you read the the response in its proper context, then you will find that the basis for your belief that establishing a universal Islamic State is enjoined upon every Muslim is logically incorrect. Or have you forgotten what this discussion is all about and instead started to make personal attacks on me and my teacher?

If I remember correctly you studied mathematics and computer science and so you must have studided logic. Yet I find it difficult to belive that your concept of logic is extremely deficient. In fact, it makes a discussion with you difficult. So why is it then that The Learner knows more about the correct use of logic than you?

Oh I see. So your wonderful founder Taqiudine al-Nabhani urged muslims to avoid using logic. His rejection of logic in matters of faith was absolute was it not? In fact your man says:

"The science of logic has nothing to do with the Islamic doctrine and has no part in proofs of it. During the early Islamic period Muslims had no knowledge of logic. They propagated Islam and elaborated definitive proofs for their beliefs without need for it. This proves that the science of logic has no place in Islamic culture, and that there is no need for it in any of the proofs of the Islamic doctrine."(Nazarat Siyasiyya li-Hizb al-Tahrir, 1969, page 41)

No wonder your idea of "logical proof" is so lacking in in intellectual content and therefore deficient. If I may ask, is this one reason why you don't know how to use it? So according to your main founder al-Nabhani you should not actually believe in it at all. It is certainly true that you don't know how it works but yet you still make an attempt to use logic to "prove" what my belief is. Since "proof" is a logical concept, your own teacher hangs himself above by using it in order to "prove" that logic is useless. It goes without saying what a complete contradiction your teacher has made above. He obviously didn't know about it enough before deciding to criticise it.

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
Hence we can clearly see your twisted understandings from the opinions of the scholars/sahaba. They all prayed Salah.
**
[/quote]

Again, if I may ask, what has this got do with what I have been saying? I know that you have been calling me Kafir, even worse you have saying that I actually have been party to creating a Kafir sect so you must be looking for some justification for those statements. So therefore you want me to say that I do not pray Salah? And therfore you would be categorically wrong in saying that I do not pray Salah. In fact, I found these remarks very amusing, if you only knew how stupid you are making yourself look to all participants by insisting on saying such baseless statements.

So why don't you just call me Kafir then? That's what you obviously want to believe is it not? I dare you.

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
[Allah] the Exalted has said, (translated), "So, ask the Ahludh-Dhikr (People of Remembrance/Knowledge) if you (yourselves) do not know." [Surah Nahl:43]

Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud and Ahmad have narrated, through their chains [of narration], on the authority of Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), that a man sustained an injury to his head during the time of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Then, he became sexually impure, and was ordered [by people] to perform ghusl. He therefore performed ghusl, contracted tetanus, and died [as a result]. This was then conveyed to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who said, "They killed him. May Allah kill them. Could they not have asked, since they did not know? The only remedy for incompetency is asking." [Sunan Ibn Majah, vol. I, p. 189.]
**
[/quote]

By your own admission, it is obvious that you should start asking in order to make up for your unprofessional incompetence.

[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
Hence, the issue is this, how many sciences of Islam do you know ? Jack !!!
What do you know about usul ul Fiqh ? Jack
What do you know about the rules of Qarina?
Or about Mafhoom or Mantuq ?
Or Arabic ? Or anything for that matter ?
Nothing, Nada, Zero, Zilth will be your reply.
**
[/quote]

Who is Jack? Is he some teacher friend of yours that I should know about?

[quote]
Oroinally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
Need I say more ?
**
[/quote]

Yes you do. In fact, I would actually request you to say something that actually makes some sense this time other than the emotional attacks and logically incorrect beliefs that you have been trying to stuff down my and other peoples throat. Good luck.

They shoot partypoopers, don't they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited January 23, 2001).]

Musalman · January 23, 2001, 8:13pm

Br. Partypooper QUOTE>> "The science of logic has nothing to do with the Islamic doctrine and has no part in proofs of it. During the early Islamic period Muslims had no knowledge of logic. They propagated Islam and elaborated definitive proofs for their beliefs without need for it. This proves that the science of logic has no place in Islamic culture, and that there is no need for it in any of the proofs of the Islamic doctrine."(Nazarat Siyasiyya li-Hizb al-Tahrir, 1969, page 41)<<UNQUOTE

Can you kindly point out the logic behind creation of Insaan. ALLAH (SWT) created Insaan solely for the purpose of HU’s servitude; or is there any other logic or can the creation of Insaan be even explained through any other logical means.

Mr_Partypooper · January 23, 2001, 8:22pm

My dear brother Musalman, I fully agree with your statement. Kindly check this link:
http://www.understanding-islam.com/ri/mi-082.htm

The above quote from Taquidine al-Nabhani is intended to show that it is actually inconsistent with jalals own beliefs and previous remarks. You should also direct your question to jalal and his friends.

They shoot partypoopers, don’t they?

[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited January 23, 2001).]