Who Are Moderate Muslims?

[F R E S H]

There has been a lot of talk recently regarding the issue of Islam and its applicability to the modern world and how it should be adapted to fit into the mainstream, liberal, modern day lifestyle. More recently terms such as 'moderate Muslims' and 'secular Muslims' have been increasingly used in the media.
The perception of Islam to the average person in the west is seen as something backward, as something regressive. It is seen as a religion like any other with very stringent guidelines for what you can and cannot do - a direct contradiction to their existing way of life. Thus those Muslim activists who call for Islam as a complete system of life and work for its implementation on a political level are seen to be extreme and fanatical. The immediate image perceived by people in the West is a state with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

In order to understand the position of such people with regards to an 'Islamic state' one needs to understand their historical background.

If one were to look into the history of Christianity in the western world it is clearly evident that the experience of religion in the west is a bleak one. The only experience of religion they had was one where the Church as a ruling institution was used to exploit and suppress the masses. The landlords and barrens used Christianity to subjugate the people into a false sense of religion believing that they were in fact destined by god to do so, causing widespread corruption, and unhappiness. Hence when the church was abolished as a governing body by separating it from the state this brought about a vast change leading to the industrial revolution, from which mass scientific and technological progression occurred. Ever since, the church (i.e. religion) has taken a back seat when it comes to dealing with the affairs of the people, rather religion as a concept is seen as an impediment to progression in the modern world.

This secularisation of Christianity is seen to be the turning point for the western world from where it was able to advance to reach the status it has today. To the extent whereby today Christianity itself is adapted to become more flexible in order to suit modern day life by becoming more tolerant to a diversity of people within society. Secularism has been attributed to success and development whereas religion is seen as a failure in contemporary western society.

Naturally when the idea of an Islamic state is proposed, the western world cringe at the very thought of it, ideas of capital punishment, discrimination and regression come to mind. However, the history of the Muslim world is very different to that of Christianity, if one were to delve into the history of the Islamic State one would understand the stark difference between the two.

The Islamic history is full of enlightenment, development, progression and civility. The Islamic state provided security and protection for Muslims and non-muslims alike, it excelled in science and technology, in areas such as, astronomy, mathematics, architecture, calligraphy, geology, medicine, engineering etc. It provided for the people and ensured the distribution of resources amongst the masses. It was a shining example to the world, embracing peoples of differing cultures, backgrounds and races, moulding them into the Islamic State. This is in contrast to the situation of the Muslim world today, where each and every one of them fail to implement Islam as a complete system of legislature.

[hen]

Fresh,
Interesting article. I wish I could comment at length about it but I dont know enough about the Khilafah to do so (and to be honst even Christian history). I will point out that Christianity should not be confused with the "West". Their histories are entertwined and each has influenced the other no doubt but I cringe when I hear that the West = Christianity. I have alot of contact with newly arrived internationl students and I always tell them not to confuse the US with Christianity. WE are today in a post-Christian culture in the West.

Hen

[pooya]

"The Islamic history is full of enlightenment, development, progression and civility. The Islamic state provided security and protection for Muslims and non-muslims alike, it excelled in science and technology, in areas such as, astronomy, mathematics, architecture, calligraphy, geology, medicine, engineering etc. It provided for the people and ensured the distribution of resources amongst the masses. "

with all due respect, it does seem that our "worlds are going in opposite directions. the west in the middle ages was "dark" now it seems the shoe is on the other foot. what happened to all the scientific development in the islamic world you described ?

[F R E S H]

An interesting point pooya, why habve the modern muslims failed to reach the levels of their predecessors, i will tell you first of all they have become separated under the banners of Nationalism, and have gone away from Islam ( are the short answers). They have lost the two thing that unified the muslims the Islamic Aqeedah and the Khilafah and without these the muslims are nothings as is apparent today !

[AbuMubarak]

http://65.193.50.117/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=9466&dgn=2

Question:


What is meant by moderation in religion?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Moderation in religion means that one does not exaggerate and go beyond the limit set by Allaah, and that one does not neglect it and fall short of the limit set by Allaah.

Moderation in religion means following the example of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Exaggeration means trying to do more than he did, and negligence means not reaching that level.

For example, a man says, “I want to spend all night in prayer (qiyaam al-layl), and never sleep all my life, because prayer is one of the best acts of worship, so I want to spend the entire night in prayer.” We say, this is going to extremes in the religion of Allaah, and this is not right. Something like this happened at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), when a group of men got together and one of them said, “I will pray at night and never sleep.” Another said, “I will fast and never break my fast.” The third one said, “I will never marry women.” News of that reached the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said, “What is wrong with people who say such and such? I fast and I break my fast. I sleep, and I marry women. Whoever overlooks my Sunnah does not belong to me.” These people had gone to extremes in religion, and so the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) disowned them, because they overlooked his Sunnah which includes fasting and not fasting, praying at night and sleeping, and marrying women.

The one who is falling short is one who says, “I do not need to do voluntary (naafil) actions, so I will not do them. I will only do the fard actions. He may even be falling short in the fard actions, so this person is lacking.

The moderate person is one who follows the path of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his rightly-guided successors (al-Khulafaa’ al-Raashidoon).

Another example: three men are faced with an immoral man. One of them says, “I will not greet this immoral man and I will boycott him, keep away from him and not speak to him.”

The second one says, “I will go with this immoral man, greet him and smile at him. I will invite him to my place and accept his invitation. He is just like any righteous man to me.”

The third one says, “I hate this immoral man for his immoral actions, but I love him for his faith. I will not boycott him unless doing so is in his best interests. If there is nothing to be gained by boycotting him, and if that will only increase him in his immorality, then I will not boycott him.”

We say that the first man is going to extremes, the second is negligent and the third is moderate.

The same applies to all other acts of worship and dealings with others. People vary between extremism, negligence and moderation.

A third example: A man is a prisoner of his wife, who directs him as she wishes and he does not stop her from committing sin, or urge her to do good. She has taken over his reason and has become the one who is in charge of him.

Another man treats his wife in a harsh, arrogant and high-handed manner. He does not care about her and regards her as less than a servant.

A third man is moderate in his dealings with his wife, as Allaah and His Messenger commanded.

“And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable”

[al-Baqarah 2:228 – interpretation of the meaning]

[The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:] “Let no believing man hate a believing woman. If he dislikes one of her characteristics he will be pleased with another.”

This last man is the one who is moderate. The second one is extreme in his dealings with his wife, and the first is falling short.

The same applies to all other deeds and acts of worship

[AbuMubarak]

Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.



The term moderate Muslims is not only becoming important in the post September 11 discussion of Islam and the West, it is also becoming highly contested. What do we really mean when we brand someone as a moderate Muslim? Indeed the more interesting question is what does the word mean to Westerns, looking-in to Islam, and to Muslims, looking out from within Islam?



As one who identifies himself strongly with the idea of a liberal Islam and also advocates moderation in the manifestation and __expression of Islamic politics, I believe it is important that we flush out this “political identity”. In an era when who we are determines what we do politically, it is imperative that we clarify the “we” in politics.



American media uses the term moderate Muslim to indicate a Muslim who is either pro-western in her politics or is being self-critical in her discourse. Therefore both President Karzai of Afghanistan and Professor Kahlid Abul Fadl of UCLA wear the cap with felicity, the former for his politics the latter for his ideas.



Muslims in general do not like using the term, understanding it to indicate an individual who has politically sold out to the “other” side. In some internal intellectual debates, the term moderate Muslim is used pejoratively to indicate a Muslim who is more secular and less Islamic than the norm, which varies across communities. In America, a moderate Muslim is one who peddles a softer form of Islam – the Islam of John Esposito and Karen Arm Strong – is willing to co-exist peacefully with peoples of other faiths and is comfortable with democracy and the separation of politics and religion.



Both, Western media and Muslims, do a disservice by branding some Muslims as moderate on the basis of their politics. These people should general be understood as opportunists and self-serving. Most of the moderate regimes in the Muslim World are neither democratic nor manifest the softer side of Islam. That leaves intellectual positions as the criteria for determining who is a moderate Muslim, and especially in comparison to whom, since moderate is a relative term.



Both Muslims and the media are generally on the mark when they identify moderate Muslims as reflective, self-critical, pro-democracy and human-rights and closet secularists. But who are they different from and how?



I believe that moderate Muslims are different from militant Muslims even though both of them advocate the establishment of societies whose organizing principle is Islam. The difference between moderate and militant Muslims is in their methodological orientation and in the primordial normative preferences which shape their interpretation of Islam.



For moderate Muslims Ijtihad is the preferred method of choice for social and political change and military Jihad the last option. For militant Muslims, military Jihad is the first option and Ijtihad is not an option at all.



Ijtihad narrowly understood is a juristic tool that allows independent reasoning to articulate Islamic law on issues where textual sources are silent. The unstated assumption being when texts have spoken reason must be silent. But increasingly moderate Muslim intellectuals see Ijtihad as the spirit of Islamic thought that is necessary for the vitality of Islamic ideas and Islamic civilization. Without Ijtihad, Islamic thought and Islamic civilization fall into decay.



For moderate Muslims, Ijtihad is a way of life, which simultaneously allows Islam to reign supreme in the heart and the mind to experience unfettered freedom of thought. A moderate Muslim is therefore one who cherishes freedom of thought while recognizing the existential necessity of faith. She aspires for change, but through the power of mind and not through planting mines.



Moderate Muslims aspire for a society – a city of virtue -- that will treat all people with dignity and respect. There will be no room for political or normative intimidation. Individuals will aspire to live an ethical life because they recognize its desirability. Communities will compete in doing good and politics will seek to encourage good and forbid evil. They believe that the internalization of the message of Islam can bring about the social transformation necessary for the establishment of the virtuous city. The only arena in which Moderate Muslims permit excess is in idealism.



Today, the relationship between Islam and the rest is getting increasingly worse. Muslim militants are sowing seeds of poison and hatred between Muslims and the rest of humanity by committing egregious acts of violence in the name of Islam. In this precarious environment, it is important that everyone finds and nurtures the many wonderful examples of moderate Muslims one can still find.



Chandra Muzaffar in Malaysia, Tarik Ramadan in Europe, Maulana Waheeduddin Khan and Asghar Ali Engineer in India, Khalid Abul Fadl and Louay Safi in the US, Karim Soroush and Muhammad Khatami in Iran and many many more who are committed to their Jihad (struggle) to revive the spirit of Ijtihad. Fortunately the tradition is alive globally; it needs the support and the attention of all who aspire for peace and understanding.

http://www.ijtihad.org/moderatemuslims.htm

[GenN]

Moderate Islam – What is it about?
By a brother in London


London – 13 December 2002


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary
The term ‘Moderate’ as applied to Muslims by those living in the Christian lands is explained. It is a fabrication, which has no basis in Qur’aan and Hadith (authentic sayings of the Prophet). It was concocted by the West to disrespect active Muslims and to split the Ummah (Muslim Community) into ‘Moderates’ who have earned the favour of the disbelievers (Kuffar) and ‘Extremists’ who are hated by the Kuffar.

A number of hypocritical Muslims (Munafiqeen) have jumped on the ‘Moderate’ bandwagon and are working hand in glove with the Kuffar. The most prominent ‘Moderates’ in the UK include Yasmin Alibhai Brown, a journalist for the Independent newspaper, and her fellow ‘reformers’ of Islam: Zaki Bedawi and Ghiyassuddin Siddique.

Allah has already told us in the Qur’aan that the Kuffar are our eternal enemies. They curse when something good happens to Muslims and sing with joy when a misfortune falls upon the believers. The Muslim’s gain is their loss and vice versa. Anybody who takes them for friends has entered the fold of disbelief – in particular when they work with them in disrespecting active Muslims as ‘Extremists’.

What of the active Muslims (Extremists)? Allah loves them. He has placed those who fight with their lives and their wealth at a much higher level than the sedentary. Allah hates those who would sit around when they have the opportunity and means to fight in his cause. The Qur’aan has shown us the characteristics of the Munafiqs ‘Moderates’ and how much he hates them.

Not all of us can take part in actual combat for Islam (Jihad), but at the very least we can offer our moral support for the lucky ones who have earned Allah’s pleasure by sacrificing in his way. We can do our best to organise ourselves to undermine the ‘Moderate’ reformers of Islam and participate in the on-going and inevitable spread of Islam throughout the globe.

Moderate Islam – what is it?

Moderate Islam - a term often used these days. Funny, it did not exist at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon Him (pbuh)) or during the rule of the rightly guided caliphs or even 30 years ago!

It is a modern term – fabricated by Kafirs (disbelievers) in the West and now bandied about by their protégés, the Munafiqeen (Hypocrites) within the ranks of the Ummah (Muslim Community).

The opposite of Moderate is Extremist. In August 2002 some Muslims in London organised an event called ‘Rally for Islam’. The purpose was for Dawah (preaching Islam). It was meant to publicise Islam in the centre of London and invite people to belief. An admirable activity you may think if you believe in Islam. Well, not so according to the Kuffar (non-Muslim) media. According to them, Rally for Islam was an Al Qaeda show! That would have been great if that were the case as the cost of travelling to Afghanistan is too high!

I recall the newspaper headlines and the term ‘Extremist’ being used profusely to describe the rally organisers, which included Sheikh Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque.

Let me tell you about Abu Hamza. This man is an engineering graduate of a British university. He was living a comfortable life in England with his loving wife and kids. He saw on TV the suffering of our Afghani brothers and sisters, as they were being bombed and shot at by the atheist Russians. He left the comfort of life in England and joined the Afghan Mujaheddin – living in the wild, walking over dirt tracks in the dead of night, burying fallen comrades and finally suffering the excruciating pain and disfigurement of having both his hands and one of his eyes blown off! I met him recently. There was no regret at having gone to Afghanistan – it was as if losing limbs and an eye was just one of those things one does when the call of Islam beckons. He is one of the mildest men I have met and I would not only trust him with my life but would allow him to look after my money too!

Yet Abu Hamza is regularly referred to as ‘Extremist’ by the Kuffar media and their lackeys. The editor of the Sun newspaper called him ‘Captain Hook’ which shows how low the Kuffar would sink to denigrate a sincere Muslim. Their backside-smooching Munafiq toadies have followed in their wake. Before the Rally for Islam was due to take place, there was the disgraceful spectacle of Kuffar toady ‘Moderates’ such as the representatives of the ‘Muslim’ (Munafiq) Council of Britain (MCB), and Dr.Ghiyassuddin Siddique of the defunct Muslim Parliament denouncing the organisers of the Rally as ‘Extremists’. Outwardly pious ‘Muppets’ also appeared on TV outside mosques with their regulation short trousers, white skullcaps and shaggy beards and singing the Kuffar hymn of active Muslims being ‘extremists’.

The term ‘Moderate Islam’ has no currency in Islam. The one who believes in it is a liar if he calls himself Muslim! I say this with total conviction, as there is One Allah and One Prophet and One Qur’aan. Nowhere in the Qur’aan or Hadith is there any word linked with ‘Islam’, let alone the term ‘Moderate Muslim’. The word ‘Islam’ stands alone by itself as it’s meaning is unequivocal. The one who believes and accepts Allah’s revelation is simply termed ‘Muslim’. The word ‘Moderate’ to describe Muslims does not appear in the Qur’aan at all! All the Prophets – Ibrahim, Musa (peace be on them all) etc were Muslims, plain and simple. Not ‘Moderate’ Muslims!

This term ‘Moderate Muslim’ appeared in the Western Media at the time of the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. It was used to describe those who accepted Western Kafir domination of Islamic lands and opposed the Shariah (Laws) of Allah. All the supporters of the Islamic revolution were labelled ‘Extremist’ and those opposed to the Islamic government were termed ‘Moderate’ by the Kafir Christian Western media.

Since the Iranian revolution anyone who supported the Shariah of Allah was termed ‘Extremist’. Another term for Extremist is ‘Fundamentalist’. The two are used interchangeably by the Kuffar and mean the same thing – an active Muslim! Again the terms Extremist or Fundamentalist do not exist in the Qur’aan or in the Hadith! These are just fabrications invented by the Crusader West to divide the Ummah.

The Kuffar talk of practising Islam in the same way as smoking cigarettes, which is bad for you. When they equate practise of Islam with moderation it implies that Islam is also bad for your health! As if you should only practise Islam ‘moderately’. Any believer worth his salt would always say they he does not do enough to practise Islam.

Munafiqeen (hypocrites) such as the MCB who have allied unequivocally with the Kuffar have mouthed these terms so often that it has also become part of Western Muslim lexicon too. I refer you to the newspaper articles by another well-known Munafiq and apostate, Yasmin Alibhai Brown who writes for the Independent in the UK. Apparently her husband left her for another woman. This does not surprise me as Allah has promised that He will humiliate disbelievers both in this life and in the next! In Yasmin Alibhai Brown we have a good example of the veracity of Allah’s promise – face like a dog’s backside and a failed marriage to prove it! If she rented herself to a slimming centre for men she would make a fortune, as her mug is ugly enough to put a rat off its dinner!

This is what she said in her article in the Independent on 9 December 2002:

I cannot stomach Muslim leaders and writers who jump up when there are signs of injustice against us … but who never speak out to denounce outright the various discriminations which ruin the lives of non-Muslims, gays, and women in Islamic countries or in communities here.

I have had it with apologists who think that Muslims, whatever they do, only do these foul things because they are upset, humiliated, angry, despised and maltreated.

And please no more pious speeches about what "true" Islam says, as if that condones what real Islamicists all too often do.

To ignore reformist Muslims is to abandon hope for any of us in the future.

I mean risk takers such as Zaki Badawi, the wise Egyptian head of the Muslim College who offered Salman Rushdie sanctuary in his home in the week following the fatwa. Or Ghiyassudin Siddique, leader of the once infamous "Islamic Parliament"

There you have the evidence from the apostate herself! Alibhai Brown has denounced Muslims who have taken the time and trouble to fight for the rights of fellow believers (Mumineen) and have rightly not wasted their energies on sodomites (people who practise sodomy).

We know what Allah thinks of Homosexuals and what he did to the people of the prophet Lut (pbuh). If Allah in His wisdom decided to make an example by vaporising an entire populations of homosexuals at a moment in history, then who is ‘dogface’ Alibhai Brown to comment on Muslims not bothering themselves about being nice to sodomites. No doubt the old English saying, “It takes one to know one” is very apt when Alibhain Brown and sodomites are concerned!

She has had enough of Muslims who refer to the message of Allah in their arguments. Well, wake up Ms.Apostate Brown! Basic lesson in Islam – Muslims always refer to Quran and Sunnah in their actions as that is that whole point of being Muslim!

I agree with her statement, “To ignore reformist Muslims is to abandon hope for any of us in the future.” I take it that “us” in her statement refers to her fellow apostates. Therefore, by ignoring those wanting to ‘reform’ Islam we are depriving them of hope – Yippee!

Anybody even thinking of reforming Islam has entered the fold of apostasy. It shows stupidity of monumental proportions, as Islam by its very definition cannot be ‘reformed’. Allah has preserved the Qur’aan since the first Ayah (verse) was revealed and will preserve it for eternity and the same applies to the authentic Hadith of the Prophet (pbuh). As long as the Qur’aan is in existence there will always be one Islam! Allah has preserved Islam from reformation forever. Those who do not like this situation can get the hell out of the Ummah! Humanity has a choice: either to accept Qur’aan and Sunnah or not!

Allah is the best of plotters as Alibhai Brown unintentionally did the Ummah a huge service by naming her fellow Munafiqeen reformists: Zaki Bedawi and Ghiyassuddin Siddique. It gives credence to the old saying “Birds of a feather flock together” as it shows that only Munafiqeen and apostates would have a natural inclination towards each other.

“My Mate is a MI5 Officer”:

Talking of Ghiyassuddin Siddique. I attended an Iftaar (end of fast meal) organised by the City Circle on Saturday 16 November 2002. The City Circle is an organisation in London, which purports to carry out good works for the Ummah and is supposedly run by Muslims. To be fair to them they have organised some good lectures and provide a venue to meet other Muslims. Its chairman is Mr.Rehan Khan, who is also the son-in-law of the said ‘Reformer of Islam’ – Ghiyasuddin Siddique. Mr.Khan approached me after the Iftaar meal and was kind enough to tell me that he had been reading my articles. He went on to backbite Dr.Al Massari who distributes my articles and Sheikh Abu Hamza by telling me they were “extremists” who would sell me out to the British intelligence services as “extremists” usually do.

He finally commented, “I should know as my ‘mate’ is a MI5 (British secret police) officer.”

Mr.Khan seemed so proud to be associated with MI5 that I swear I could see his puny chest expanding with pride, which almost made him look more like a man and less like a weasel! I got the feeling that claiming to be the ‘mate’ of a member of the British secret police was a significant achievement. I can understand that coming from a ‘Moderate’ who would backbite during Ramadan. In my opinion Sheikh Abu Hamza sacrificed more than Mr.Rehan Khan and his whole ‘Moderate’ family put together! Yet, these ‘Moderates’ move amongst the Ummah clothed in the garb of piety while undermining the house of Islam from within. I would not be surprised if Mr.Khan’s MI5 mates paid me a visit after seeing this article. No doubt, Mr.Khan and his ‘Moderate’ ilk have probably brought other Muslims to the attention of the Kuffar secret police!

The ‘Moderates’ bandy the term ‘Extremist’ to describe pious Muslims. Yet when pressed even they cannot explain what they mean! For example in early September 2002 I was at a meeting at a mosque in Maida Vale, London. An Arab woman and her English convert friend were discussing the recent Rally for Islam. They were gloating about reports of a low turnout. I said, “Excuse me, those reports were concocted by the Kuffar media to discredit the event, which was a dawah activity. In particular they hate Sheikh Abu Hamza who sacrificed both his hands and an eye for the Ummah. The one who makes such a sacrifice deserves our respect, even if we disagree with his views. You have to respect anyone who leaves the comfort of his home to fight for the sake of Allah. Islam is all about sacrifice. How many of us can say we sacrificed anything for our faith?”

The Arab woman, who is married to a white convert called ‘Tim’ replied, “Islam forbids extremism.”

I asked, “What is an extremist.”

She replied, “Islam does not allow extremism.”

I asked the same question and received the same answer. Then I said, “The Kuffar media are biased against Muslims.”

The white convert woman retorted, “That is a sweeping statement.” They both walked off abruptly without even a salaam!

The Kuffar and the ‘Moderate’ Munafiqeen have confused the Ummah with their propaganda about ‘Extremist’ Muslims. How can we deal with this?

The answer lies in the book of revelation – the Qur’aan.

This is a little of what Allah has said about the Kuffar and their ‘Moderate’ toadies:

Surah III – Family of Imran

O you who believe! Take not for intimates other than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by the utterances of their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. (v 118)

If a lucky chance befalls you, it is evil unto them (disbelievers), and if disaster strikes you they rejoice at it (v 120)

O you who believe! If you obey those who disbelieve, they will turn back on your heels, and you turn back as losers. (v 149)

O you who believe! If you obey a party of those who have received the Scripture (Christians and Jews) they will make you disbelievers after your belief (v 100)

Surah IV - Women
They long that you disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that you may be a level with them…if they (Disbelievers) turn back to enmity then take them and kill them wherever you find them, and choose no friend or helper from among them. (v 89)

O you who believe! Choose not disbelievers for friends in place of believers. Would you give Allah a clear warrant against you? (v 144)

Surah V – The Table Spread
O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who takes them for friends is one of them. Lo! Allah does not guide wrongdoing people. (v 51)

And you see those in whose hearts is a disease race towards them saying: We fear lest a change of fortune befall us (v 52)

Your friend can only be Allah; and His messenger and those who believe. (v 55)

Surah VI – Cattle
They (Disbelievers) indeed are losers who deny their meeting with Allah (v 31)

Surah VIII – Spoils of War
Lo the worst of Allah’s beasts in Allah’s sight are the ungrateful who will not believe (v 55)

There you have it. The Kuffar are utter losers. Everything they do in this life is a loss. Whoever associates with them in the matter of faith and intimate friendship joins in that failure. Whatever is good for the enemy Kuffar is bad for Muslims and vice-versa. We have a religious obligation to disobey them and frustrate them! In fact, earning their hatred and enmity is a badge of honour for sincere Believers.

According to Kuffar terminology, an Extremist is a pious Muslim willing to sacrifice his wealth, liberty and life for the establishment of Allah’s laws. A ‘Moderate’ is a sell-out Munafiq who will do anything to not upset the Kuffar and will place personal gain ahead of sacrificing for the good of the Ummah.

To be called ‘Extremist’ by the Kuffar is a certificate of merit! Their enemy is Allah who is our friend. Anyone who takes Jews and Christians for friends is one of them! That is the final word on ‘Moderates’ engaged in making friends with the Kuffar and having them as MI5 ‘mates’!

This is a little more of what Allah says about the ‘Moderates’ who are so beloved of the Kuffar West:

Surah II – The Cow v 8 – 16:

And of mankind are some who say: We believe in Allah and the Last Day, when they believe not.

They think to cheat Allah and those who believe, and they cheat none except themselves; but they do not understand.

In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increases their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie.

And when it is said to them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only.

Are they not the mischief-makers? But they do not understand.

And when it is said to them: Believe as the people believe, they say: Shall we believe as the foolish believe? Are they (the hypocrites) not the foolish? But they do not know.

And when they fall in with those who believe, they say: We believe; but when they go apart with their devils they declare: Lo! We are with you; verily we did make fun (of the Muslims).

And Allah mocks them, leaving them to wander blindly in their stupidity.

These are they who purchase error at the price of guidance, so their efforts do not prosper, neither are they guided.

Have you noticed how all these ‘Moderates’ put themselves about as peace-loving pacifists? When they are with their MI5 or FBI ‘mates’ they say to them, “We are with you.” This is exactly what the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) did by supporting the Crusader attack on Muslim Afghanistan.

The Munafiq organisations persistently say that it is practical and pragmatic to ‘go along’ with whatever the Kuffar are doing, and they term pious Muslims as ‘Extremist’ fools for obeying the Shariah of Allah without compromise.

Ayah number 52 from Surah (V) states, the Munafiqeen run towards the Kuffar fearing that they will suffer a change in fortune unless they do so. That is the excuse the Munafiqeen have used to support the Kuffar today! They say they have to be ‘diplomatic’ to protect their economic interests e.g. the rationale used by the leaders of the American Muslim community such as Mr.Mark Hanson (Hamza Yusef) to support Bush’s crusade in Afghanistan and saying New York Fire-fighters were ‘Mujaheddin’!. At a recent conference the ISNA in Washington DC (a moderate ‘Muslim’ organisation in America) even had a FBI recruiting booth!

Allah’s book has shown us how to recognise these traitors! It is up to us to understand the characteristics of the Munafiqeen as laid out in the Qur’aan and expose these cockroaches!

This is what Allah says about Believers:

Surah III – Family of Imran

You are the best community brought forth for mankind. You enjoin the doing of right and forbid the doing of wrong (v 110)

Therefore, the active Muslims (Extremists in Kuffar and Munafiq parlance) have an obligation to speak out against what is wrong! This is the opposite of what the Moderates (Munafiqs) are doing e.g. the support given by the Muslim Council of Britain to the Crusader bombing of Muslim Afghanistan and calling for ‘Moderation’ i.e. diluting the message of Islam. They constantly look for ways to justify the breaking of Allah’s laws.

For example, Alibhai Brown said this about Muslims trying to implement Islamic Shariah in Nigeria:

Radical Muslim Nigerians are trying to impose, by any means they can, the primacy of sharia law, which Christians and others regard as hideously inappropriate for modern times.

Anyone with an ounce of belief in Islam (Imaan) knows that Islamic Shariah takes primacy over every other law! Allah has said repeatedly in the Quran that anyone who judges by any law other than Allah’s is a wrongdoer and a Kafir!

Not surprisingly ‘Apostate’ Brown has allied herself with adulterers too and would like the rest of us to do likewise. This is what she wrote in the Independent on 11 November 2002:

I wonder how many British Muslims fasting at present feel enraged by the pending stoning of Amina Lawal, the young mother accused of having sex outside marriage by a sharia court?

She said about the said Amina Lawal on 25 November 2002:

the tragic story of Amina Lawal, the mother of a toddler who is waiting to be stoned to death because she had sex outside marriage.

When you look at what Allah says about adultery and how to deal with fornicators – you do not need a PhD from Oxford University to see Alibhai Brown has no right to call herself Muslim merely by her support for adulterers:

Surah XVII The Children of Israel:

And come not near unto adultery. Lo! It is an abomination and an evil way. (v 32)

Surah XXIV – Light:

The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge each one them with a hundred lashes. And let not pity for the two stop you from obedience to Allah. (v 2)

According to Alibhai Brown, the application of Shariah punishment as commanded by Allah for Adultery is an outrage against Islam! This contradictory and nonsensical statement makes Crusader President George Bush look like a professor of philosophy at Oxford University! Wake up Ms.Apostate Brown, this is earth calling!

The fact that Apostate Brown is working to undermine the Shariah of Allah and includes Ghiyassuddin Siddique and Zaki Bedawi in her camp of ‘Reformers’ of Islam speaks volumes about their Munafiq credentials!

The Extremists
What are the characteristics of the ones referred to as ‘Extremist Muslims’ by the Kuffar and their toady mates of MI5? Pious Muslims see suffering as an opportunity to prove their faith. They would never ally themselves with the Kuffar to appear ‘pragmatic’ and ‘diplomatic’:

Surah XXIX - The Spider

Do men think that they will be left to say, ‘We believe’, and they will not be tested? And indeed, We tested those who were before them. Allah will surely mark out those who speak truly, and He will surely mark out the liars (v 2-3)

And some men there are who say, ‘We believe in Allah’. But whenever they are made to suffer in Allah’s cause, they take the persecution by man as it were Allah’s punishment. And, then, if help comes from your Lord, they will say, ‘We have always been with you.’ What! Is not Allah not aware what is in the hearts of all beings? Allah will surely mark out those who believe, and He will surely mark out the hypocrites (v 10-11)

Surah III – Family of Imran

And Allah is not such that He will leave the believers in the state in which you are, till He shall distinguish the bad from the good (v 179).

Surah IX – Repentance

Do you think you will be left alone while Allah has not seen which of you have struggled, and taken not – apart from Allah and His Messenger and the believers – any helper (v 16)

There you are: how Muslims deal with persecution and suffering in the way of Allah tells us who is a sincere believer and who is Munafiq. They would rather suffer for Allah’s sake than be diplomatic to avoid discomfort in this life.

What is the reward for those who fight in Allah’s way:

Surah IV - Women
Whoso fights in the way of Allah, be he slain or victorious, on him we shall bestow a vast reward (v 74)

Those of the Believers who sit still, other than those who have a disabling hurt, are not equal to those who strive in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives. Allah has conferred on those with those who strive with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary. Unto each Allah has promised good, but he has bestowed on those who strive a great reward above the sedentary (v 95)

Whoever opposes the Messenger after the guidance (of Allah) has been manifested unto him, and follows other than the believer’s way, We appoint for him that unto which he has turned, and expose him unto hell, a hapless journey’s end! (v 115)

Here you have the final word on how favourably Allah views ‘Extremists’ such as Sheikh Abu Hamza who fought in his way!

What else does Allah say about ‘Moderate Muslims’?

Surah LVIII – She that Disputes

Have you not seen those who would be friends with people with whom Allah is angry? They are neither of you nor of them…those are Satan’s party. Why, it is those, Satan’s party, who are the losers. Surely, those who oppose Allah and his Messenger [work against the establishment of the Religion of Truth], those are among the most abject. Allah has ordained, ‘I shall surely prevail, I and my Messengers.’ Surely Allah is All strong, All mighty (v 14-21)

Allah – plain and simple, hates the ‘Moderates’ who remain sedentary to please their MI5 ‘mates’!

How do we deal with ‘Moderates’ who make it their business to spread corruption in the earth by wilfully distorting Islam and slandering Jihadis (those who fight in Allah’s way) as ‘Extremists’?

Surah V- The Table Spread

the only reward of those who make war on Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled from the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom (v 33) except those who repent before you overpower them (v 34)

The Quran has offered some hope for the mates of MI5 – repent!

Recognising true believers

True believers have one distinguishing feature: all their efforts are geared to destroying every false way – every way other than that of Allah’s is false. They live, suffer losses, and die in His cause. Whether they succeed or fail hardly matters. If anyone accepts the superiority of any way other than Islam or helps a false way opposed to Islam then they are liars if they claim to have any Imaan (faith in Islam).

What should we do?

Before going further, we need to understand that the Kuffar and their helpers the Munafiqeen are onto a loser:

Surah (V) – the Table Spread:

Today, those who disbelieve are in despair of ever harming your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me (Allah)! This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion AL ISLAM (v 3)

Therefore, we can oppose them with confidence! We could do the following:

· Take the attitude of active involvement in the Islamic movement.

· Organise into units of Dawah groups.

· Systematically set Dawah objectives with a plan of action stating: immediate aims, methods of achieving objectives, analysis of results and setting long-term goals.

· Cooperate with other Islamists.

· Monitor Munafiqeen calling themselves ‘Moderate Muslims’ and disrespecting other Muslims as ‘Extremists’.

· Demand to know from those self-appointed Moderates how they can justify calling a Muslim ‘Extremist’ based on Quran and Sunnah. If they fail to do that then tell them they will be opposed mercilessly. They should be exposed to the Ummah and shamed.

· The British Home Secretary has asked Muslims to snitch on fellow Muslims to the Kuffar Authorities. We ought to set up a database of Home Office snitches and make it widely available to the Ummah. Recently the Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim News, Zaki Bedawi and the Al Khoei Foundation attended a free dinner at the embassy of the Crusader States of America during Ramadan 2002. I would nominate these as the first names in the list of snitches along with all self-confessed ‘mates’ of MI5.

· Attend events organised by those denouncing pious believers as Extremist and heckle them. Never leave them in any doubt they will get away with allying with the Kuffar and hoodwinking the Ummah!

· Give recognition help and support for those fighting for the sake of Allah. Be proud to call yourself Muslim, as are Sheikh Abu Hamza, Mujahid Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can start by contacting the apostate Alibhai Brown on her e-mail address: y.alibhai-brown@independent.co.uk

[F R E S H]

Salaam btw never read all the post about half but a "moderate" muslim to me is all about integration into the western way of life, that isn't about eating fish and chips, but about the vales and thoughts that are held, like democracy, human rights is part and parcel of Islam, we should work with this government. Forget all about sharia, pledge alledgiance to the Queen.

anyways did you watch newsnight sheik Abu Hamza was on that and he did very well when paxman teased and twisted, even when paxman asked, "IF YOU HATE IT SO MUCH HERE WHY DON'T YOU GO ELSE WHERE " errrm the answer was along the lines, i have no where else to go? but building up to leave something like that? i think he meant no dar ul Islam to go to !

[MalcomBanned4?]

It was concocted by the West to disrespect active Muslims and to split the Ummah (Muslim Community) into ‘Moderates’ who have earned the favour of the disbelievers (Kuffar) and ‘Extremists’ who are hated by the Kuffar. OK, if not moderate and extreemist, what names would you give to A. The Iranian Muslim sentenced to death for telling people to think for themselfs, and B. The "leaders" that sentenced him? Allah has already told us in the Qur’aan that the Kuffar are our eternal enemies. Someone who believes that all nonMuslims are kurfers is an extreemist.

[HAMZAA]

OK, if not moderate and extreemist, what names would you give to A. The Iranian Muslim sentenced to death for telling people to think for themselfs, and B. The "leaders" that sentenced him?
___________________

Dont make stuff up MC, you dont even know what he said.

[MalcomBanned4?]

Originally posted by HAMZAA
_________________

Dont make stuff up MC, you dont even know what he said. Mr Aghajari had said in a speech that each generation should re-interpret aspects of Islam rather than blindly follow religious leaders. So what would you use insted of moderate and extreem?:eek: http://www.ummah.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=10484&highlight=iran+death+sentence

[GenN]

Assalaamlaikum Muslims
Peace kufaar

Fresh, na i didnt see it to tell truth i barely watch tv.


originally posted by malcombanned4?

Someone who believes that all nonMuslims are kurfers is an extreemist.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA
what the hell is that supposed to mean, of course all non muslims are kaifrs ask the most "moderate" muslim that and he'll tell you. A kafir is the arabic word for non-muslim. What you just said malcolm is that anyone who thinks a cat is a cat is an extremist, a dog is a dog is an extremist HAHAHAHAHAH

you don't know what u talking about malcom.

[MalcomBanned4?]

:confused: Please explane: Allah has already told us in the Qur’aan that the Kuffar are our eternal enemies. of course all non muslims are kaifrs Mohamad (PBUH) allowed Jews and christians to live freely within Muslim cities, befriended Jews (probably christians too). If they were "Eternal enemies" why did he allow it?:eek: Kafir a person who refuses to submit himself to Allah (God), a disbeliever in God.

[AbuMubarak]

malcom, its not a derogatory term, its a descriptive term

and unlike the interpretations i hear on the radio and see on tv, when Allah says do not take them for friends and protectors, it doesnt mean be harsh towards them or alienate yourself from them

i am around kafirs all day long and i look at myself as a fairly typical musliml, if i had the attitude that some imply, i would kill all of them and go get my 72 virgins

but this is not islam, and i do not think anyone at ummah.com thinks this is islam

first off, we wish all of the kafirs to accept islam

secondly, we wish for muslims to be in control of the lives of muslims, in accordance with islamic shariah

thirdly, we are trying to get to heaven, not by killing kafirs, but by being good muslims, that means treating everyone nicely, muslim and kafir included

and lastly, but not leastly, we should all have a desire to fight and die in the cause of Allah

[MalcomBanned4?]

Raafi, good answer but how do you explane Allah has already told us in the Qur’aan that the Kuffar are our eternal enemies. ? seems to be a contradiction. Gen would probably call you a moderate. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) And The "Kafir" Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was a very kind person. He never got angry or upset and never treated anyone badly – like calling people “kafirs” or insulting them even if they were not Muslim. His kind treatment of “kafirs” is what led people to become Muslims.

There was once an old Jewish woman who hated the Holy Prophet so much that she used to throw her garbage on the Holy Prophet whenever he passed her house. She would wait with the trash by the window and throw it at the Prophet as he passed every morning on his way to the mosque.

Muhammad’s companions would get really upset and wanted to punish the woman. How dare she treat the Prophet of Islam like that? But the Holy Prophet always held them back and made them promise they would never harm her or her property.

One day as the Holy Prophet (SAW) was passing the old woman's house, no one threw trash on him from the window. He stopped and asked the old woman's neighbor if she was all right since she wasn’t there to throw trash on him.

The neighbor told him that the old woman was feeling ill and was in bed. So the Holy Prophet (SAW) was concerned and went to see the old woman to see if there was anything he could do for her or if there was anything she needed.

When the old woman first saw the Holy Prophet (SAW) come in with her servant, she thought he had come to confront her because she kept throwing trash at him. She said "Why did you wait until I was ill to come here, why didn't you come when I was well and strong? I would have taught you a lesson or two then or were you scared of an old Jewish woman?”

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) told the old woman that he had not come to quarrel or argue but to see her and look after her because she was not well. God tells us to look after people who are not well.

The old Jewish woman was so surprised that the Holy Prophet (SAW) instead of complaining about the trash she threw at him, was being so kind to her and came to serve her, especially after she had treated him so badly. She felt guilty and also curious to find out more about Muhammad (SAW). She started learning about the teachings of Islam (SAW) and eventually became a Muslim.

Such was the respect Muhammad (SAW) gave even to “Kafirs”. We should remember that God created all human beings and he considers all humans as equals.

End http://www.ummah.com/forum_phpbb/viewtopic.php?topic=3259&forum=29

[Kaiser]

The westerners should understand, that it is impossible to djust Islam to western standards, but it is possible to adjust the west to Islamic standards, so hopefully when the west relizes that, they will do it also, or find someone to do it for them.

[Consider]

Different types of muslims in the west

muslim (moslem)
Fundamentalist
Terrorist
extremist
radical islamist
moderate muslim
liberal muslim
fanatics
arab
reformists
mainstream
HT
Muhajiroon
Wahhabies
...

Hmmm...................

[AbuMubarak]

Moderate Muslims (http://www.clearguidance.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=80365)

[Saleh Ali]

The term Moderat Muslim is used by Western-influnced Evil Munafiks Who want " to " evolve" Islam as Christianaty was Evolved, Allahs Religion can Not evolve, The words of God is strict and Absolute,

May Allah enlight us All and Save us from Munafik, May Allah Bless Turkiye, Va Sallahu Ela Sayyadina Muhammat Ashrafil Kalkil Azim Va'ala Aalihi Va Sahbihi Va Salim

[Islam Rose]

As muslim living in the west, i have been asked this question several times which i was amuzed by but not anymore due to the events carried out by so called muslims around the world, and am not talking about the Palestinians and their struggle but about those who will committed Bali-like targets.

Anyway, my answer always was that Islam is tolerant and moderate by it's nature, Islam is in the middle, not extermist nor too lose, it's fair, just, tolerant and peacful. Whoever commit crimes against innocents is not muslim, Allah will punish him/her and whoever leave Islam's law in the name of democracy is again not muslim, but the later didn't hurt another soul by his/her decision but himself unlike the first one.

Turkey, unfortunately choosed Western over Islamic Laws, to me i don't see it islamic nation anymore, butthe public are muslim, it's their government that i don't see as muslims.

Western Media either intentionally or unintentionally encourages such behaviour, these unislamic behaviour as it "portayed" as civilized democractic values, and again unfortunately some muslims would copy these values like puppets without realizing that Islam offer us such honor and democracy within our inner souls and society even with the fact that our societies aren't democratic, but this is our fault by letting this happen.

May Allah help us and give us strength to save our society and people.

[Saleh Ali]

Turkey, unfortunately choosed Western over Islamic Laws, to me i don't see it islamic nation anymore, butthe public are muslim, it's their government that i don't see as muslims.
.

May Allah help us and give us strength to save our society and people. [/B][/QUOTE]

Va Nusalli Ala Rasolihi Kerim,


Turkiye Is having Problems With The Western-inspired Government, But Acording to the Kuran Ve Sunnet You can Not sya that the Rulers like Bulent and Dervis Cilik are Not Muslim, In a authentic Hadiz-Serif Sayyadina Muhammat saw
Said';

"man kaffara musliman faqad kafar" which means "whoever calls a Muslim a kaafir, he is a kaafir." Sahih Muslim,


I can understand Your anger But Let your Anger be within the Kuran Ve Sunnet,
Wa Sallahu ALa Sayyadina Muhammat Ashrafil Kalkil Azim

[Islam Rose]

That it's forbidden to say "Kafir" to muslim, but when these muslims or so called muslims bare their Islamic Law and oppose it they are not muslims any more.

Look at these so called muslims in Algeria with their brutal killings to their brothers and sisters in the villages, undiscriminating between old, infant or women killing ALL, these murderes are not muslims any more, they should be punished and no mercy should be upon them.

Am not extremist or narrow minded, i know that no one is perfect and Islam is a very merciful and peacful religion, but nowadays the enemy of Islam aren't disbelievers but among muslims themselves, when they go around exploiting Islam's image and teachings, making us look like terrorists and violence followers, they made all of us look bad, and what really hurt when the majority of muslims who oppose such actions are silent and do anothing about it. we should wake up before everything goes out of control, and very sadly things are starting to go out of control. May Allah help all of us.

Peace,
Islam Rose

[Asada Haq]

asalaamu alaykum Islam Rose

beware of believing everything you read in the westren zionist controlled press about your brothers and sisters elsewhere on the globe

as far as WTC we still dont know everything there is to know and there is every indication that it was fostered by the zionist

as far as algeria it was more than just muslims acting badly

read a little more here on ummah.com and believe a little less of what you read in your newspaper

there are muslims from all over the world here

do not be so quick to believe the worst about your brothers and sisters (if you are really a muslim)

Wasalaams

[Islam Rose]

No Brother, i don't believe everything in the western newspapers, otherwise you will see me as hater to my brothers & sisters.

And brother, i am a real muslim, a devoted faithful to my religion Islam, i don't want to believe anything bad about some of my so called brothers, but actions speak more than words. WTC doers may be NOT muslims, but as long as muslims didn't prove it othjerwise, then i cannot challenge and say it was by the zionists. i know you have these info. in this site, but not everybody read this site, but everybody read newspapers and watch TV, and both these resoucres confirm the involvement of muslims, of couse not fogetting OBL always proud of appearing in tv with his threatining speeches & confimation of some terrorists actions, this left little room for us to defend ourselves from these actions. I am sure in my heart, that the doers of sep 11 weren't muslims, i know there are conspiracy behind it, and i know all of these so called muslims that appear in tv and news confirming their involvement are nothing but traitors, trying to hide the real doers and evil goals behind them, which some started to rise; hating and fearing Islam IS one goal.

and finally am really patient to believe the worst about my brothers and sisters, but as i told you above, some traitors made it so difficult to defend Islam.

[AbuMubarak]

murder doesnt remove one from islam

mass murder doesnt remove one from islam

saying "i dont have to pray" does remove one from islam

saying "there is a prophet after muhammad" removes one from islam

saying "the quran is not complete" removes one from islam

and there is debate regarding "judging by other than what Allah reveals" as to whether that removes one from islam

but even if the muslims who did the wtc attacks did it, and believed it was within islam, that does not remove them from islam

[fides]

November 20, 2003
Larry Elder
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/printle20031120.shtml

A "religion of peace," says President Bush about Islam. But investigative journalist Robert Spencer, in his new book "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West," argues that what we call "Islamic extremism" stems from a straightforward reading of the Koran and interpretative Islamic texts.

On Nov. 10, 2003, I interviewed Spencer.

Larry Elder: Is Islam a religion of peace that's been hijacked by Islamic extremists, as George W. Bush says?

Robert Spencer: There are millions of peaceful Muslims . . . but the fact is that radical Muslims are using core texts of Islam that are deeply rooted in Islamic theology, tradition, history and law to justify their actions, and those radical Muslims are able to recruit and motivate terrorists around the world by appealing to these core Islamic texts. . . . As far as the radical, violent elements of the religion go, they are very deeply rooted, and we are naive in the extreme if we don't recognize that and try to get moderate Muslims to acknowledge it so that real reform can take place.

Elder: Have some translations of the Koran taken out the more extreme statements?

Spencer: The only Koran that really matters is what's in Arabic, because as far as traditional Islamic theology goes, Allah . . . was speaking to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, and the language is intrinsic, can't be separated from the message. The fact is that what's in Arabic is very clear . . . but in two opposite directions. What you have are very many verses of peace and tolerance, and also very many verses sanctioning and mandating violence against non-believers. . . .

You find many moderate Muslim spokesmen and American-Muslim advocates in this country, who quote you the peaceful and tolerant verses, and no reference to the violent verses. . . . When you read Islamic theologians themselves . . . you find they actually confront this problem directly. . . . Some of the most respected thinkers in Islamic history say that when you come upon these kinds of disagreements -- where you see peace in one place and violence in the other -- you have to go with what was revealed last, that cancels out what was revealed before. Unfortunately, for the moderates, the violent verses were revealed later and they cancel out the peaceful ones -- but you won't hear this from the American Muslim advocacy groups. . . .

What we need to see is a forthright acknowledgement of it and reform from moderate Muslims themselves, the same way that the Pope has apologized for the Crusades and Christianity at large . . . has repudiated the theology that gave rise to them. So we need to see . . . moderates on a large scale repudiating the theology that has led to violent jihad, which the radicals are using to justify their actions.

Elder: You write, "Muslims must present non-Muslims with the three choices of Sura 9:29 of the (Koran): conversion, submission with second-class status under Islamic rule, or death."

Spencer: Correct. This is a deeply rooted tradition in Islam. Islam is unique among religions in having a developed doctrine theology in law that mandates violence against non-believers. Not all Muslims take it seriously, but the radicals do, and they are working to recruit and motivate terrorists. So . . . whenever anybody says we want to institute Sharia Islamic law in a country, they mean these laws. They do not provide for the equality of rights and dignity of non-Muslims in a Muslim society . . . (but) mandate just the opposite -- that non-Muslims are not to be given equality of rights, but denied various jobs because they're not allowed to hold authority over Muslims.

They must pay a special tax called the jizya, which is referred to in the verse you mentioned. . . . Their humiliation and inferior status is enforced with numerous other regulations, still part of Islamic law, and liable to be enforced by radical Muslims and who want to gain power and institute Islamic law. . . .

Anybody who is concerned about human rights would be resisting and be happy to join in the War on Terror.

Larry: So, when the president says that Islam is a religion of peace, is he saying that because it's a politically correct way of phrasing it so that people don't get the impression that we are at war against a religion?

Spencer: Your guess is as good as mine in terms of what the president is thinking. . . . He's aware that radical Muslims are trying to make this into that kind of a war . . . and he's trying . . . to keep that from happening. . . . The problem with what he's saying is that it's misleading. If it's followed through, it might hinder law enforcement efforts against radical Muslims who are operating in the United States . . . and it could have very serious consequences.

Elder: What should he say?

Spencer: I think he should say nothing. As Pat Robertson said, he wasn't appointed the Chief Theologian of the United States . . . he doesn't have to tell Americans what Islam is all about. All he has to do is fight against the enemies that are threatening . . . our freedom and our continued life in the United States.

[abu yusaf]

Who are the Islamic Moderates (neo-mods)?

In 1925, shortly after the symbolic destruction of the Ottoman State, Ali Abd Ar-Raaziq, a graduate from the distinguished institution of al-Azhar University of Cairo, issued a controversial religious edict (Fatwa). He claimed that the institution of the Islamic State (Khilafah) is not an integral part of an Islamic society. Many of the readers might be forgiven for assuming that the current infamous Sheikh Tantawi of the same al-Azhar was inspired by the likes of Ali Abd Ar-Raaziq for approving the recent French governments decision to ban the Islamic scarf (Hijab). Prior to this no genuine Islamic scholar endorsed the abolition of the Islamic State or the ban on the Hijab. It would be superficial and hasty to consider such incidents as merely isolated events in history.

The contentious Fatwa of Ali Abd Ar-Raaziq represented the apex of the reformist movements, which began campaigning for reformation since the early eighteenth century or earlier, in order to halt and revive the declining Ottoman State. In contrast, during the early period of the Islamic history, the various movements were primarily confined to debating the various interpretations of the Islamic texts. Not a single scholar or a movement of that period ever advocated the need to reform Islam.

This contrast can be explained by the observation of the eminent Islamic Historian, Ibn Khaldun. He stated that, it is natural for the conquered subjects to look up to their conquerors for solutions to their problems. The defeated will naturally seek to identify the causes of their defeat and often attribute it to their way of life (ideology). Hence, the result is either reformation or abandonment of their ideology. Either route will lead to a level of emulation of the conquerors ideology. Thus, the reformist movements began to imitate the West by approving the imposed European model of nation states and eventually deserted the concept of an unified Islamic State.

In line with historical trend, new reformers best described as the neo-moderates (neo-mods) have arisen, as the Islamic world faces renewed vigorous aggression from the Capitalist-Zionist-Christian axis (neo-colonialists). Palestine, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq are the most recent examples. The neo-mods (reformists) unlike their forerunner are primarily the product of US led initiatives rather than emanating from within the Islamic world with the aspiration to revive the Islamic society. Similarly, the neo-colonialists are also distinct from their predecessors. They are primarily focused in colonising the minds rather then just the rich resources. A nation mentally enslaved has very little willpower, and the capability to resist subjugation.

The quest for colonising the minds of the masses has necessitated in pursuing an intellectual battle. The aim is not to eradicate Islam, which failed miserably in the past and proved impossible, but to secularise (marginalise) it in the minds of the Muslim masses. As a consequence eradicate Islam as an ideology for shaping and reunifying the Muslim societies. Simultaneously, the neo-colonialists are advocating “democracy and freedom” as a suitable alternative. Since “democracy and freedom” plays the predominant role in shaping society, which obliges any functioning religion to be secularised, as two people can not occupy the same seat at the same time. Therefore, “democracy and freedom” can easily coexist only with a secularised version of Islam.

Secularised Islam is also conveniently termed as ‘moderate’ Islam. The US government has initiated a drive to manufacture ‘scholars’ and ‘experts’ to promote a ‘moderate’ version of Islam, simultaneously recruiting and promoting those existing ‘moderates’ (neo-mods) that are wittingly or unwittingly campaigning for the same. If the policy fails, the US has already issues threats to enforce “democracy and freedom”. It is certainly a mystery as to how the Western intelligentsia can talk about enforcing “democracy and freedom”, without noticing the inherent contradiction or hypocrisy of “enforcement” with the values of “democracy” and “freedom”.

Apart from the carriers of ‘moderate’ Islam, everyone else simply falls into the radical camp. They are often scorned by labelling them as fundamentalists, fanatics, and extremists. Where as the neo-mods are given a positive image as ‘liberals’, ‘modern’, and ‘free thinking’, regardless of the strength of their argument. The different types of the neo-mods are briefly examined below:

a) Radical Reformists

These radical neo-mods vociferously argue that “democracy and freedom” as defined and practiced by the West are totally compatible with Islam. As stated above, this is only possible under a secularised version of Islam, where Islam would only have any relevance in the individual’s personal sphere of activity at his/her discretion.

How is it that two ideologies emanating from different sources can have the same principles and values, unless it is a monumental historical coincidence! Furthermore, how can they remain distinct but yet have identical principles and values! Of course, that is not the case in reality and hence the Islamic laws are ‘reinterpreted’ when there is an overt conflict with the principles of “democracy and freedom”. The outcome is that the Islamic laws are replaced with secular laws, whilst keeping up the Islamic pretensions. Therefore, it is no surprise that these neo-mods always evaluate Islam by measuring it up to the yardstick of “freedom and democracy”.

If the two ideologies are totally compatible, thus identical in their values and principles, then surely there is no need for divine revelation? Since the Greek Philosophers invented Democracy well before the advent of Islam.

This process of ‘reinterpreting’ Islamic texts in areas that is well established leads to a level of absurdity. As an example, they view polygamy with disdain even though the Prophet (SAW) fully practiced it along with his companions. Who decided in the first place that polygamy is inherently wrong? These self appointed ‘intellectuals’ (neo-mods) do not for once recognise that those in the West attacking polygamy are the most polygamous people around, with their culture of “freedom” placing very few limitations to the sexual practices. Any form of sexual behaviour is acceptable as long as it is not a second wife! If you are accustomed to Jerry Springer, the pretexts is often, “it is because you are not home”, and so I slept with your stepson or your dad!

One obscure neo-mod alleges that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was in reality a monogamous person and polygamy was primarily a mere convenience to acquire tribal allegiance, amongst other reasons. He elaborates on the point: -


"“If Muslims chose to ignore 25 years of Prophet’s monogamy and chose 12 years of his polygamy as a benchmark for Islamic principles and values, then this is a sad commentary on Muslims and not on the Prophet of Islam. If Muslims chose to forget the 25 years and remember only the last 12 years then yes Muhammad was a polygamist. After all Muhammad is what we remember of him.” "




What an astonishing analysis and reasoning! No other Islamic scholar in the last 1500 years had the ‘intellect’ to deduce such an amazing conclusion. Why must the Muslims choose the first 25 years of the Prophets (SAW) life over the last 12 years? If anything it is the latter part of a person’s life that has more importance, as he develops and matures through life. In the case of the Prophet (SAW) certain laws revealed changed with the elapse of time. Therefore, the subsequent revelations have greater importance, as it can abrogate the earlier revelations but never the reverse (Read Niskh and Mansukh).

Furthermore of the first 25 years, 15 years was prior to him receiving revelation, therefore not acquired the Prophet status? So even by the neo-mod’s reasoning the Prophet (SAW) as a Prophet was monogamous for the first 10 years but polygamous for the next 12 years, hence polygamy should be preferred. In any case, why should anyone advocate such reasoning unless one is ashamed of the Prophets polygamous acts, as he states it is “sad”? So, there is already a preconception about Polygamy in the neo-mods ‘scholarly’ mind. I suppose if he were around at the time of the Prophet (SAW), he would have ‘guided’ the Prophet (SAW) and his companions exclusively to monogamy.

It is only rational and consistent to examine all of the Prophets (SAW) life not to select only part of it to formulate an opinion. The Prophets (SAW) entire life coupled with the Quranic verses indicate that both monogamy and polygamy are permissible. No evidence to indicate that one is preferred over the other, unless you have already formed an opinion about it and interpret the evidence to justify the preconception! These are not scholarly arguments but an attempt by a defeated mindset to reconcile the irreconcilable.

b) Apologists

The apologists are either fervently pragmatists or isolationists. The former are politically active and operate with a defensive mindset. The latter are mostly non-political, their focus is primarily confined to individual activity in gaining knowledge, spiritual enlightenment and some confine to theological issues such as the nature of the Creator.

The isolationist neo-mods by their own conduct are behaving like the medieval monks living in caves, oblivious to the reality, and by de facto promoting a secular version of Islam.

However, a few of these isolationists unexpectedly transformed after 9/11, and suddenly they were advisors to the likes of George Bush, participating fully in the political arena. As the US began a new wave of brutal attacks post 9/11, instead of confronting, the language employed was one of reconciliation and apology. They even resorted to using their Islamic knowledge of the technical terms to justify their (neo-mods) conduct.

As an example they claimed that, the Mujahideen led by Shaikh Usamah Bin Laden are not entitled to declare Jihad in the absence of the Islamic State (Khilafah). The subject of Khilafah has been conveniently avoided and now, it has suddenly becomes important! Since, when does anyone need permission to declare or fight a defensive war (Jihad)? When the slaughter of the defenceless Muslims is rampant, even common sense dictates that permission is not required, not even from the Khalif. No matter how much ‘scholarship’, or ‘knowledge’ or ‘wisdom’ one claims to posses, the truth cannot be hidden under such pretexts.

The pragmatists on the other hand usually resort to provide a convenient interpretation of the legal texts in certain areas, so that it has an acceptable meaning to the non-Muslims and the Muslim secular elite around them. This has dual purpose in seeking to avoid conflict and attaining certain material benefits. As a consequence, this leads to the constant erosion of the Islamic values with the ongoing apology for Islam and being Muslims. In addition, their lack of perception and analysis of the implications of their actions has often resulted in scoring political own goals.

The recent statement issued by the infamous Sheikh Tantawi of al-Azhar is an example of this defensive mindset and lacking the full political awareness of the subject. He used the underpinning ‘principle’ of “obeying the laws of the land” above the divine laws to approve the French governments decision to ban the Islamic scarf. Many of the followers of these neo-mod principles are too embarrassed to explain the statement of the Sheikh and hence the silence.

Some in the name of seeking to influence, every year eagerly attend the Iftar parties at the embassies, where they dine with those who have just murdered so many innocent and defenceless Muslims and non-Muslims. To the contrary, these neo-mods have become useful showpieces in legitimising the actions of these imperialist governments, to the Muslims at home and abroad.

Despite the Iftar parties and the picture shots, were they able to have any influence on the current US policies regarding the captives in Guantanamo Bay, or the war in Afghanistan or Iraq? Only people who are upright, altruistic and principled can engage in political discourse on behalf of their community. Consider the recent example from the poet Benjamin Zephaniah, who refused the knighthood on the basis of British governments current policy in Iraq and her colonial history. How many of these neo-mods would turn down such an opportunity on the basis of their self proclaimed leadership and principle?

Conclusion

The neo-mods do not have a consistent position and are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable by twisting evidences, along with their illogical ‘principles’. A position that has caused more confusion, and harmed the Muslims and the non-Muslims. Whilst some may have good intentions but others, and in particular the radical neo-mods clearly have malicious intent, evident by their overt cooperation with those seeking to undermine Islam. Some of these radical neo-mods are using pretexts that are so absurd that it is laughable, (see the polygamy section above) and then they parade themselves as Islamic ‘scholars’, with credentials from institutions that are operating to undermine Islam from its basis.

Yamin Zakaria
London, UK

[suspiro]

Abu Yusaf,

Please spare us your Hizb ut Tahrir ranting. The truth is that there is a whole spectrum of belief within the ummah, much of which is thankfully far away from the intolerance and bitterness displayed in your piece, presumably lifted wholesale from Khilafah or some other such hate-site.

Give us all a break!

[abu yusaf]

"The truth is that there is a whole spectrum of belief within the ummah"

Akhi, would you please elaborate on the spectrum of beliefs with in the ummah. Does your statement imply that they are derived from more than one source? I do not like to rant, so enlighten me detailing the evidences from the Quran and Sunnah!

[suspiro]

Yawn, yawn, yawn.

I quote the liberal evidences, and you quote the hardline evidences. Tedious in the extreme.

Get a life, my sad friend!

[laurelandhardy]

Originally posted by suspiro
Yawn, yawn, yawn.

I quote the liberal evidences, and you quote the hardline evidences. Tedious in the extreme.

Get a life, my sad friend! Right after you dance in your little pink TUTU

[sajid]

u like tutus eh laurel? ROFL!

[laurelandhardy]

Yeah WHat color Do you put on Sajid? ROFL!

[laurelandhardy]

Oh Thats Mr Laurel. rofl!!:)

[sajid]

wheres ur buddy hardy? ROFL!

[laurelandhardy]

Originally posted by sajid
wheres ur buddy hardy? ROFL! DOnt know maybe at Blasters crib. Hey going tosend you a pm and you better answer. ;) :p

[sajid]

ok gonna logg off il check 2moro dude have fun..btw whats teh alert level set at? ROFL

ws
s

[laurelandhardy]

Originally posted by sajid
ok gonna logg off il check 2moro dude have fun..btw whats teh alert level set at? ROFL

ws
s DOnt know man been lurking but i guess the spud became bored with it. ROFL

[sajid]

lol yeh we all lurk here and tehre i lurk alot they do the same spying on each other...kinda reminds u of something

this guy from america once said to me.. "we have to spy on our right hand man" meaning (isreal)
ROFL!

[laurelandhardy]

LOL yeah oh yeah i will pm you later on there is something i am going to fill you in on that would make you laugh. but for now you have a good night there at your end of the world.

[suspiro]

Sajid,

I can't help but feel that laurelandhardy is not a serious poster.

Can we get rid of him please?

Thanks

[laurelandhardy]

Originally posted by suspiro
Sajid,

I can't help but feel that laurelandhardy is not a serious poster.

Can we get rid of him please?

Thanks

Can we slap you in your little pink tutu and get rid of you. who or what gives you the right to tell anyone who can post here or not? and as how you feel do i Look like someone that would care about your feelings?

[Mahdi]

Stop starting fitna people.


Subhannallah

[mohabdul]

In the Name of Allah, Most Beneficent, Most Merciful
Who are the Islamic Moderates (neo-mods)?
In 1925, shortly after the symbolic destruction of the Ottoman State, Ali Abd Ar-Raaziq, a graduate from the distinguished institution of al-Azhar University of Cairo, issued a controversial religious edict (Fatwa). He claimed that the institution of the Islamic State (Khilafah) is not an integral part of an Islamic society. Many of the readers might be forgiven for assuming that the current infamous Sheikh Tantawi of the same al-Azhar was inspired by the likes of Ali Abd Ar-Raaziq for approving the recent French governments decision to ban the Islamic scarf (Hijab). Prior to this no genuine Islamic scholar endorsed the abolition of the Islamic State or the ban on the Hijab. It would be superficial and hasty to consider such incidents as merely isolated events in history.



The contentious Fatwa of Ali Abd Ar-Raaziq represented the apex of the reformist movements, which began campaigning for reformation since the early eighteenth century or earlier, in order to halt and revive the declining Ottoman State. In contrast, during the early period of the Islamic history, the various movements were primarily confined to debating the various interpretations of the Islamic texts. Not a single scholar or a movement of that period ever advocated the need to reform Islam.



This contrast can be explained by the observation of the eminent Islamic Historian, Ibn Khaldun. He stated that, it is natural for the conquered subjects to look up to their conquerors for solutions to their problems. The defeated will naturally seek to identify the causes of their defeat and often attribute it to their way of life (ideology). Hence, the result is either reformation or abandonment of their ideology. Either route will lead to a level of emulation of the conquerors ideology. Thus, the reformist movements began to imitate the West by approving the imposed European model of nation states and eventually deserted the concept of an unified Islamic State.



In line with historical trend, new reformers best described as the neo-moderates (neo-mods) have arisen, as the Islamic world faces renewed vigorous aggression from the Capitalist-Zionist-Christian axis (neo-colonialists). Palestine, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq are the most recent examples. The neo-mods (reformists) unlike their forerunner are primarily the product of US led initiatives rather than emanating from within the Islamic world with the aspiration to revive the Islamic society. Similarly, the neo-colonialists are also distinct from their predecessors. They are primarily focused in colonising the minds rather then just the rich resources. A nation mentally enslaved has very little willpower, and the capability to resist subjugation.


The quest for colonising the minds of the masses has necessitated in pursuing an intellectual battle. The aim is not to eradicate Islam, which failed miserably in the past and proved impossible, but to secularise (marginalise) it in the minds of the Muslim masses. As a consequence eradicate Islam as an ideology for shaping and reunifying the Muslim societies. Simultaneously, the neo-colonialists are advocating “democracy and freedom” as a suitable alternative. Since “democracy and freedom” plays the predominant role in shaping society, which obliges any functioning religion to be secularised, as two people can not occupy the same seat at the same time. Therefore, “democracy and freedom” can easily coexist only with a secularised version of Islam.



Secularised Islam is also conveniently termed as ‘moderate’ Islam. The US government has initiated a drive to manufacture ‘scholars’ and ‘experts’ to promote a ‘moderate’ version of Islam, simultaneously recruiting and promoting those existing ‘moderates’ (neo-mods) that are wittingly or unwittingly campaigning for the same. If the policy fails, the US has already issues threats to enforce “democracy and freedom”. It is certainly a mystery as to how the Western intelligentsia can talk about enforcing “democracy and freedom”, without noticing the inherent contradiction or hypocrisy of “enforcement” with the values of “democracy” and “freedom”.



Apart from the carriers of ‘moderate’ Islam, everyone else simply falls into the radical camp. They are often scorned by labelling them as fundamentalists, fanatics, and extremists. Where as the neo-mods are given a positive image as ‘liberals’, ‘modern’, and ‘free thinking’, regardless of the strength of their argument. The different types of the neo-mods are briefly examined below:



a) Radical Reformists



These radical neo-mods vociferously argue that “democracy and freedom” as defined and practiced by the West are totally compatible with Islam. As stated above, this is only possible under a secularised version of Islam, where Islam would only have any relevance in the individual’s personal sphere of activity at his/her discretion.



How is it that two ideologies emanating from different sources can have the same principles and values, unless it is a monumental historical coincidence! Furthermore, how can they remain distinct but yet have identical principles and values! Of course, that is not the case in reality and hence the Islamic laws are ‘reinterpreted’ when there is an overt conflict with the principles of “democracy and freedom”. The outcome is that the Islamic laws are replaced with secular laws, whilst keeping up the Islamic pretensions. Therefore, it is no surprise that these neo-mods always evaluate Islam by measuring it up to the yardstick of “freedom and democracy”.



If the two ideologies are totally compatible, thus identical in their values and principles, then surely there is no need for divine revelation? Since the Greek Philosophers invented Democracy well before the advent of Islam.



This process of ‘reinterpreting’ Islamic texts in areas that is well established leads to a level of absurdity. As an example, they view polygamy with disdain even though the Prophet (SAW) fully practiced it along with his companions. Who decided in the first place that polygamy is inherently wrong? These self appointed ‘intellectuals’ (neo-mods) do not for once recognise that those in the West attacking polygamy are the most polygamous people around, with their culture of “freedom” placing very few limitations to the sexual practices. Any form of sexual behaviour is acceptable as long as it is not a second wife! If you are accustomed to Jerry Springer, the pretexts is often, “it is because you are not home”, and so I slept with your stepson or your dad!



One obscure neo-mod alleges that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was in reality a monogamous person and polygamy was primarily a mere convenience to acquire tribal allegiance, amongst other reasons. He elaborates on the point: -



“If Muslims chose to ignore 25 years of Prophet’s monogamy and chose 12 years of his polygamy as a benchmark for Islamic principles and values, then this is a sad commentary on Muslims and not on the Prophet of Islam. If Muslims chose to forget the 25 years and remember only the last 12 years then yes Muhammad was a polygamist. After all Muhammad is what we remember of him.”



What an astonishing analysis and reasoning! No other Islamic scholar in the last 1500 years had the ‘intellect’ to deduce such an amazing conclusion. Why must the Muslims choose the first 25 years of the Prophets (SAW) life over the last 12 years? If anything it is the latter part of a person’s life that has more importance, as he develops and matures through life. In the case of the Prophet (SAW) certain laws revealed changed with the elapse of time. Therefore, the subsequent revelations have greater importance, as it can abrogate the earlier revelations but never the reverse (Read Niskh and Mansukh).



Furthermore of the first 25 years, 15 years was prior to him receiving revelation, therefore not acquired the Prophet status? So even by the neo-mod’s reasoning the Prophet (SAW) as a Prophet was monogamous for the first 10 years but polygamous for the next 12 years, hence polygamy should be preferred. In any case, why should anyone advocate such reasoning unless one is ashamed of the Prophets polygamous acts, as he states it is “sad”? So, there is already a preconception about Polygamy in the neo-mods ‘scholarly’ mind. I suppose if he were around at the time of the Prophet (SAW), he would have ‘guided’ the Prophet (SAW) and his companions exclusively to monogamy.



It is only rational and consistent to examine all of the Prophets (SAW) life not to select only part of it to formulate an opinion. The Prophets (SAW) entire life coupled with the Quranic verses indicate that both monogamy and polygamy are permissible. No evidence to indicate that one is preferred over the other, unless you have already formed an opinion about it and interpret the evidence to justify the preconception! These are not scholarly arguments but an attempt by a defeated mindset to reconcile the irreconcilable.



b) Apologists



The apologists are either fervently pragmatists or isolationists. The former are politically active and operate with a defensive mindset. The latter are mostly non-political, their focus is primarily confined to individual activity in gaining knowledge, spiritual enlightenment and some confine to theological issues such as the nature of the Creator.



The isolationist neo-mods by their own conduct are behaving like the medieval monks living in caves, oblivious to the reality, and by de facto promoting a secular version of Islam.



However, a few of these isolationists unexpectedly transformed after 9/11, and suddenly they were advisors to the likes of George Bush, participating fully in the political arena. As the US began a new wave of brutal attacks post 9/11, instead of confronting, the language employed was one of reconciliation and apology. They even resorted to using their Islamic knowledge of the technical terms to justify their (neo-mods) conduct.



As an example they claimed that, the Mujahideen led by Shaikh Usamah Bin Laden are not entitled to declare Jihad in the absence of the Islamic State (Khilafah). The subject of Khilafah has been conveniently avoided and now, it has suddenly becomes important! Since, when does anyone need permission to declare or fight a defensive war (Jihad)? When the slaughter of the defenceless Muslims is rampant, even common sense dictates that permission is not required, not even from the Khalif. No matter how much ‘scholarship’, or ‘knowledge’ or ‘wisdom’ one claims to posses, the truth cannot be hidden under such pretexts.



The pragmatists on the other hand usually resort to provide a convenient interpretation of the legal texts in certain areas, so that it has an acceptable meaning to the non-Muslims and the Muslim secular elite around them. This has dual purpose in seeking to avoid conflict and attaining certain material benefits. As a consequence, this leads to the constant erosion of the Islamic values with the ongoing apology for Islam and being Muslims. In addition, their lack of perception and analysis of the implications of their actions has often resulted in scoring political own goals.



The recent statement issued by the infamous Sheikh Tantawi of al-Azhar is an example of this defensive mindset and lacking the full political awareness of the subject. He used the underpinning ‘principle’ of “obeying the laws of the land” above the divine laws to approve the French governments decision to ban the Islamic scarf. Many of the followers of these neo-mod principles are too embarrassed to explain the statement of the Sheikh and hence the silence.



Some in the name of seeking to influence, every year eagerly attend the Iftar parties at the embassies, where they dine with those who have just murdered so many innocent and defenceless Muslims and non-Muslims. To the contrary, these neo-mods have become useful showpieces in legitimising the actions of these imperialist governments, to the Muslims at home and abroad.



Despite the Iftar parties and the picture shots, were they able to have any influence on the current US policies regarding the captives in Guantanamo Bay, or the war in Afghanistan or Iraq? Only people who are upright, altruistic and principled can engage in political discourse on behalf of their community. Consider the recent example from the poet Benjamin Zephaniah, who refused the knighthood on the basis of British governments current policy in Iraq and her colonial history. How many of these neo-mods would turn down such an opportunity on the basis of their self proclaimed leadership and principle?



Conclusion



The neo-mods do not have a consistent position and are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable by twisting evidences, along with their illogical ‘principles’. A position that has caused more confusion, and harmed the Muslims and the non-Muslims. Whilst some may have good intentions but others, and in particular the radical neo-mods clearly have malicious intent, evident by their overt cooperation with those seeking to undermine Islam. Some of these radical neo-mods are using pretexts that are so absurd that it is laughable, (see the polygamy section above) and then they parade themselves as Islamic ‘scholars’, with credentials from institutions that are operating to undermine Islam from its basis.



Yamin Zakaria, London, UK

[Napoleon]

The recent statement issued by the infamous Sheikh Tantawi of al-Azhar is an example of this defensive mindset and lacking the full political awareness of the subject. He used the underpinning ‘principle’ of “obeying the laws of the land” above the divine laws to approve the French governments decision to ban the Islamic scarf. Many of the followers of these neo-mod principles are too embarrassed to explain the statement of the Sheikh and hence the silence.

I don't get it. I mean I respect women who cover themselfs for the sake of God.

But how can you give any say in laws of a foreign country?

I personally think this ban on religious symbols is whack, but Sheikh so-and-so doesn't have a right to give out legislation on another country simply because he has no power.

[abdulhakeem]

Who are the Islamic Moderates? (http://www.world-crisis.com/more/405_0_1_0_M/)

[Truth Seeker]

You always hear the media and politicians talking about the moderate Muslims in a favourable light but what differentiates these moderates from ‘extremists’.

[Peace]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
You always hear the media and politicians talking about the moderate Muslims in a favourable light but what differentiates these moderates from ‘extremists’.

A Moderate Muslim is an ordinary, normal Muslim since Islam is a religion of moderation. The Prophet said "The best of all matters is the Middle Way" and Allah said "I made you a Middle Nation"

Extremists are those who take things to extremes! But I usually use it to refer to those who have gone astray and mis-interpreted their religion to justify their hatred and violence.

Hassan

[Huja Usman]

Originally posted by hassanradwan
A Moderate Muslim is an ordinary, normal Muslim since Islam is a religion of moderation. The Prophet said "The best of all matters is the Middle Way" and Allah said "I made you a Middle Nation"

Extremists are those who take things to extremes! But I usually use it to refer to those who have gone astray and mis-interpreted their religion to justify their hatred and violence.

Hassan

Hassan do you mean "moderate" under western terms or muslim?

Western "moderate muslim is:

- A man that lifes for dunya not akhirah

-lives about secular life doesnt care about Allah and his prophet but thinks his a muslim by name

- doesnt care about the ummah

-sometimes prays to god

- SHAVES HIS BEARD

under muslim term "moderate muslim"

The on who establishes Islam in his heart and isnt a extremist by making things beyond what the shari'a have done

The one who is THE MUSLIM as muhammad saw was!

[mohabdul]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
You always hear the media and politicians talking about the moderate Muslims in a favourable light but what differentiates these moderates from ‘extremists’.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the media and politicians, who always have their won agenda, a moderate Muslims is the one who do whatever he or she feels like and an extremists or fundamentalists are those who try to follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (swt). So, if you pray 5 times a day and specially if you grow a beard or wear hijab or go to the mosque for fajr prayer, you are most likely to be labeled an extremist. By the way, this is how the tyranical governments in the Muslim land view things.

[AbuMubarak]

:)

[AbuMubarak]

mohabdul, i merged this thread with some earlier ones

[Truth Seeker]

I think the west and its media protray two aspects of Islam as extremeist - Jihad and Sharia Law, if you believe in these then you are an extremeist. If however you should not call for these then you are a moderate, hence some people say that Jihad is against oneself (fighting your inner desires) and redefining the Sharia to comply with western tastes.

[Daleel]

Chandra Muzaffar in Malaysia, Tarik Ramadan in Europe, Maulana Waheeduddin Khan and Asghar Ali Engineer in India, Khalid Abul Fadl and Louay Safi in the US, Karim Soroush and Muhammad Khatami in Iran and many many more who are committed to their Jihad (struggle) to revive the spirit of Ijtihad. Fortunately the tradition is alive globally; it needs the support and the attention of all who aspire for peace and understanding.

http://www.ijtihad.org/moderatemuslims.htm [/B]

Khalid Abul Fadl is the man in the monkey suit who tried to testify against the niqab sister with the driver's license court case. So much for ijtihad when you're in a courtroom trying to inflict your religious beliefs on the sister. Yeah, he's a sell-out as the article explains about those who call themselves "moderate muslims", and he shouldn't be on any list as someone who is trying to "revive the spirit of Ijtihad." He prays about hadith to determine their authenticity (he feels that dogs should be allowed in the house and prayed about it and decided the hadith just couldn't be authentic because it's ugly and there is no ugliness in Islam, according to him). So anyway, I was surprised to see this man praised in an article posted by Abu Mubarak, who probably didn't know who the guy was, but now he does.

[Ali_Khan]

its all a game of words to me.

[Daleel]

it's about shirk. putting trust in man's laws and non-Muslim traditions, etc. Thinking that the laws of Allah swt are extreme. etc.

[Al-Nasser]

Who are the Muslim Moderates (neo-mods)?

Yamin Zakaria

In 1925, shortly after the symbolic destruction of the Ottoman State, Ali Abd Ar-Raaziq, a graduate from the distinguished institution of al-Azhar University of Cairo, issued a controversial religious edict (Fatwa). He claimed that the institution of the Islamic State (Khilafah) is not an integral part of an Islamic society. Many of the readers might be forgiven for assuming that the current infamous Sheikh Tantawi of the same al-Azhar was inspired by the likes of Ali Abd Ar-Raaziq for approving the recent French governments decision to ban the Islamic scarf (Hijab). Prior to this no genuine Islamic scholar endorsed the abolition of the Islamic State or the ban on the Hijab. It would be superficial and hasty to consider such incidents as merely isolated events in history.

The contentious Fatwa of Ali Abd Ar-Raaziq represented the apex of the reformist movements, which began campaigning for reformation since the early eighteenth century or earlier, in order to halt and revive the declining Ottoman State. In contrast, during the early period of the Islamic history, the various movements were primarily confined to debating the various interpretations of the Islamic texts. Not a single scholar or a movement of that period ever advocated the need to reform Islam.

This contrast can be explained by the observation of the eminent Islamic Historian, Ibn Khaldun. He stated that, it is natural for the conquered subjects to look up to their conquerors for solutions to their problems. The defeated will naturally seek to identify the causes of their defeat and often attribute it to their way of life (ideology). Hence, the result is either reformation or abandonment of their ideology. Either route will lead to a level of emulation of the conquerors ideology. Thus, the reformist movements began to imitate the West by approving the imposed European model of nation states and eventually deserted the concept of an unified Islamic State.

In line with historical trend, new reformers best described as the neo-moderates (neo-mods) have arisen, as the Islamic world faces renewed vigorous aggression from the Capitalist-Zionist-Christian axis (neo-colonialists). Palestine, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq are the most recent examples. The neo-mods (reformists) unlike their forerunner are primarily the product of US led initiatives rather than emanating from within the Islamic world with the aspiration to revive the Islamic society. Similarly, the neo-colonialists are also distinct from their predecessors. They are primarily focused in colonising the minds rather then just the rich resources. A nation mentally enslaved has very little willpower, and the capability to resist subjugation.


The quest for colonising the minds of the masses has necessitated in pursuing an intellectual battle. The aim is not to eradicate Islam, which failed miserably in the past and proved impossible, but to secularise (marginalise) it in the minds of the Muslim masses. As a consequence eradicate Islam as an ideology for shaping and reunifying the Muslim societies. Simultaneously, the neo-colonialists are advocating “democracy and freedom” as a suitable alternative. Since “democracy and freedom” plays the predominant role in shaping society, which obliges any functioning religion to be secularised, as two people can not occupy the same seat at the same time. Therefore, “democracy and freedom” can easily coexist only with a secularised version of Islam.

Secularised Islam is also conveniently termed as ‘moderate’ Islam. The US government has initiated a drive to manufacture ‘scholars’ and ‘experts’ to promote a ‘moderate’ version of Islam, simultaneously recruiting and promoting those existing ‘moderates’ (neo-mods) that are wittingly or unwittingly campaigning for the same. If the policy fails, the US has already issues threats to enforce “democracy and freedom”. It is certainly a mystery as to how the Western intelligentsia can talk about enforcing “democracy and freedom”, without noticing the inherent contradiction or hypocrisy of “enforcement” with the values of “democracy” and “freedom”.

Apart from the carriers of ‘moderate’ Islam, everyone else simply falls into the radical camp. They are often scorned by labelling them as fundamentalists, fanatics, and extremists. Where as the neo-mods are given a positive image as ‘liberals’, ‘modern’, and ‘free thinking’, regardless of the strength of their argument. The different types of the neo-mods are briefly examined below:

a) Radical Reformists

These radical neo-mods vociferously argue that “democracy and freedom” as defined and practiced by the West are totally compatible with Islam. As stated above, this is only possible under a secularised version of Islam, where Islam would only have any relevance in the individual’s personal sphere of activity at his/her discretion.

How is it that two ideologies emanating from different sources can have the same principles and values, unless it is a monumental historical coincidence! Furthermore, how can they remain distinct but yet have identical principles and values! Of course, that is not the case in reality and hence the Islamic laws are ‘reinterpreted’ when there is an overt conflict with the principles of “democracy and freedom”. The outcome is that the Islamic laws are replaced with secular laws, whilst keeping up the Islamic pretensions. Therefore, it is no surprise that these neo-mods always evaluate Islam by measuring it up to the yardstick of “freedom and democracy”.


If the two ideologies are totally compatible, thus identical in their values and principles, then surely there is no need for divine revelation? Since the Greek Philosophers invented Democracy well before the advent of Islam.

This process of ‘reinterpreting’ Islamic texts in areas that is well established leads to a level of absurdity. As an example, they view polygamy with disdain even though the Prophet (SAW) fully practiced it along with his companions. Who decided in the first place that polygamy is inherently wrong? These self appointed ‘intellectuals’ (neo-mods) do not for once recognise that those in the West attacking polygamy are the most polygamous people around, with their culture of “freedom” placing very few limitations to the sexual practices. Any form of sexual behaviour is acceptable as long as it is not a second wife! If you are accustomed to Jerry Springer, the pretexts is often, “it is because you are not home”, and so I slept with your stepson or your dad!

One obscure neo-mod alleges that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was in reality a monogamous person and polygamy was primarily a mere convenience to acquire tribal allegiance, amongst other reasons. He elaborates on the point: -

“If Muslims chose to ignore 25 years of Prophet’s monogamy and chose 12 years of his polygamy as a benchmark for Islamic principles and values, then this is a sad commentary on Muslims and not on the Prophet of Islam. If Muslims chose to forget the 25 years and remember only the last 12 years then yes Muhammad was a polygamist. After all Muhammad is what we remember of him.”

What an astonishing analysis and reasoning! No other Islamic scholar in the last 1500 years had the ‘intellect’ to deduce such an amazing conclusion. Why must the Muslims choose the first 25 years of the Prophets (SAW) life over the last 12 years? If anything it is the latter part of a person’s life that has more importance, as he develops and matures through life. In the case of the Prophet (SAW) certain laws revealed changed with the elapse of time. Therefore, the subsequent revelations have greater importance, as it can abrogate the earlier revelations but never the reverse (Read Niskh and Mansukh).

Furthermore of the first 25 years, 15 years was prior to him receiving revelation, therefore not acquired the Prophet status? So even by the neo-mod’s reasoning the Prophet (SAW) as a Prophet was monogamous for the first 10 years but polygamous for the next 12 years, hence polygamy should be preferred. In any case, why should anyone advocate such reasoning unless one is ashamed of the Prophets polygamous acts, as he states it is “sad”? So, there is already a preconception about Polygamy in the neo-mods ‘scholarly’ mind. I suppose if he were around at the time of the Prophet (SAW), he would have ‘guided’ the Prophet (SAW) and his companions exclusively to monogamy.

It is only rational and consistent to examine all of the Prophets (SAW) life not to select only part of it to formulate an opinion. The Prophets (SAW) entire life coupled with the Quranic verses indicate that both monogamy and polygamy are permissible. No evidence to indicate that one is preferred over the other, unless you have already formed an opinion about it and interpret the evidence to justify the preconception! These are not scholarly arguments but an attempt by a defeated mindset to reconcile the irreconcilable.

b) Apologists

The apologists are either fervently pragmatists or isolationists. The former are politically active and operate with a defensive mindset. The latter are mostly non-political, their focus is primarily confined to individual activity in gaining knowledge, spiritual enlightenment and some confine to theological issues such as the nature of the Creator.

The isolationist neo-mods by their own conduct are behaving like the medieval monks living in caves, oblivious to the reality, and by de facto promoting a secular version of Islam.



However, a few of these isolationists unexpectedly transformed after 9/11, and suddenly they were advisors to the likes of George Bush, participating fully in the political arena. As the US began a new wave of brutal attacks post 9/11, instead of confronting, the language employed was one of reconciliation and apology. They even resorted to using their Islamic knowledge of the technical terms to justify their (neo-mods) conduct.

As an example they claimed that, the Mujahideen led by Shaikh Usamah Bin Laden are not entitled to declare Jihad in the absence of the Islamic State (Khilafah). The subject of Khilafah has been conveniently avoided and now, it has suddenly becomes important! Since, when does anyone need permission to declare or fight a defensive war (Jihad)? When the slaughter of the defenceless Muslims is rampant, even common sense dictates that permission is not required, not even from the Khalif. No matter how much ‘scholarship’, or ‘knowledge’ or ‘wisdom’ one claims to posses, the truth cannot be hidden under such pretexts.

The pragmatists on the other hand usually resort to provide a convenient interpretation of the legal texts in certain areas, so that it has an acceptable meaning to the non-Muslims and the Muslim secular elite around them. This has dual purpose in seeking to avoid conflict and attaining certain material benefits. As a consequence, this leads to the constant erosion of the Islamic values with the ongoing apology for Islam and being Muslims. In addition, their lack of perception and analysis of the implications of their actions has often resulted in scoring political own goals.

The recent statement issued by the infamous Sheikh Tantawi of al-Azhar is an example of this defensive mindset and lacking the full political awareness of the subject. He used the underpinning ‘principle’ of “obeying the laws of the land” above the divine laws to approve the French governments decision to ban the Islamic scarf. Many of the followers of these neo-mod principles are too embarrassed to explain the statement of the Sheikh and hence the silence.

Some in the name of seeking to influence, every year eagerly attend the Iftar parties at the embassies, where they dine with those who have just murdered so many innocent and defenceless Muslims and non-Muslims. To the contrary, these neo-mods have become useful showpieces in legitimising the actions of these imperialist governments, to the Muslims at home and abroad.



Despite the Iftar parties and the picture shots, were they able to have any influence on the current US policies regarding the captives in Guantanamo Bay, or the war in Afghanistan or Iraq? Only people who are upright, altruistic and principled can engage in political discourse on behalf of their community. Consider the recent example from the poet Benjamin Zephaniah, who refused the knighthood on the basis of British governments current policy in Iraq and her colonial history. How many of these neo-mods would turn down such an opportunity on the basis of their self proclaimed leadership and principle?

Conclusion

The neo-mods do not have a consistent position and are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable by twisting evidences, along with their illogical ‘principles’. A position that has caused more confusion, and harmed the Muslims and the non-Muslims. Whilst some may have good intentions but others, and in particular the radical neo-mods clearly have malicious intent, evident by their overt cooperation with those seeking to undermine Islam. Some of these radical neo-mods are using pretexts that are so absurd that it is laughable, (see the polygamy section above) and then they parade themselves as Islamic ‘scholars’, with credentials from institutions that are operating to undermine Islam from its basis.

The Independent Centre for Strategic Studies and Analysis (ICSSA) (http://icssa.org/neo_mods_zakaria.htm)

[AbuMubarak]

Different types of muslims in the west

muslim (moslem)
Fundamentalist
Terrorist
extremist
radical islamist
moderate muslim
liberal muslim
fanatics
arab
reformists
mainstream
HT
Muhajiroon
Wahhabies
...

Hmmm...................jihadis
salafis
hizbis