Islam discussion

The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an
This topic is about The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an
104 views
الكتاب > Cruel Leaders: in view of the Arab revolutions

Comments Showing 1-50 of 52 (52 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Emily Iliani (new)

Emily Iliani (emilyiliani) | 44 comments Salam All,

I need a favor to locate Quranic verses and/or Hadith that say cruel leaders are not to be obeyed or his direction, followed. If none can be found perhaps I can get your help to discuss the same.

The background story is this: last Sunday was Eid Adha and I celebrated with my family. Whilst discussing about the sacrifices Muslims make during the eid, we also talked of the current situation in Arab countries. I opined that the rebellions are just and correctly done so to toppled cruel dictators.

My brother disagreed and said that Muslims are prohibited from going against a Muslim leader. He mentioned the time of al-Hajjaj when the people decided to host a rebellion against him and one of the people met with a sahabah to discuss the issue. The sahabah said muslims are not to rebel against a cruel muslim leader unless the leader stops them from performing their solat.

I cannot see any sound reasoning in this. I believe that Islam is just and a haven for safety. A leader who puts on his people the burden of pain and cruelty is not a Muslim leader and thus it is fair to take him down.

I seek your kind help and knowledge in identifying the evidence to support either argument.

Thanks

Surah Al-Araf
And when they forgot that whereof they had been reminded, We rescued those who forbade wrong, and visited those who did wrong with dreadful punishment because they were evil-livers. (165)



message 2: by Femmy (last edited Nov 07, 2011 06:39PM) (new)

Femmy | 120 comments I don't know about Quranic verses and hadith on this topic, but I've heard a friend made an interesting analogy between leadership of a nation and "leadership" in shalat. In shalat, the congregation *must* follow the imam. It's not allowed to move before him. But, if the imam makes a mistake (recitation, number of rakaat, etc), it is the duty of the congregation to correct him, in the way prescribed by the Prophet. And so, if a leader of a country is cruel, it is of course the duty of the people to correct him.


message 3: by Emily Iliani (new)

Emily Iliani (emilyiliani) | 44 comments Femmy wrote: "I don't know about Quranic verses and hadith on this topic, but I've heard a friend made an interesting analogy between leadership of a nation and "leadership" in shalat. In shalat, the congregatio..."

Thanks for replying. This is a very good analogy; I had never come across before. And how do you correct a cruel leader? By toppling him, correct?


Khairul Hezry Here's what Google came up with: Obligation of obedience to the Ruler in Islam.

The hadiths in that link seem to favour you brother's argument though. But this topic is too vast to be discussed in a public forum such as this by theological amateurs such as us. Nevertheless, I would like to point out Hadith number 670 in that link.

The problem is how do you define cruel leadership? What one may see as cruel is seen as not cruel by someone else. On the one hand, your brother has a point. On the other hand, even though leaders of Muslim countries today do not stop their people from performing the prayers, they do not follow the other Islamic principles of ruling. They commit corruption, theft, even murder. What to do then? In Islam, always turn to Allah while at the same time make an effort to correct the 'cruel' leader. Both must be done, supplication to Allah and making an effort.

A violent uprising to combat a 'cruel' leader is, personally, not my choice for a resolution. The Arab Spring in Libya and Egypt only succeeded because of non-Muslim help especially from USA. So Muslims today have to rely on help from the kuffar in order to change a Muslim (albeit Muslim in theory and not in practice) leader. Do you think the non-Muslims would help for free? Of course not. There is a price for their assistance and in the cases of Egypt and Libya, I don't think there will be a happy ending yet for years to come.

There is a saying, "We get the government we deserve". If we want truly Islamic leaders then stop supporting those who preach nationalism, secularism and bigotry in order to achieve power. Support those who truly preach and practice Islam. Most Muslim dominant nations today appointed leaders who showcased themselves as "heroes of the people" who promised to keep out the invaders (e.g. the European colonials). In the end, they themselves became the new oppressors.

Why am I against un-democractically toppling a cruel leader?

1) Because the Muslims will require help from non-Muslims powers who are only doing it for their own interests.

2) Because what if the people fail? We applaud Libya and Egypt for their people's victory but what about Yemen and Syria where the protesters are being massacred?

3) Who is to say that the new government will be different from the previous 'cruel' one? What to do if they turn out to be just as cruel? Go out and topple this one as well?

4)A violent uprising creates instability.

Like I wrote above, this is a vast topic that cannot be resolved in a public forum such as this one but thank you anyway for starting the discussion. An exchange of ideas is recommended in Islam.


message 5: by Emily Iliani (new)

Emily Iliani (emilyiliani) | 44 comments Khairul H. wrote: "Here's what Google came up with: Obligation of obedience to the Ruler in Islam.

The hadiths in that link seem to favour you brother's argument though. But this topic is too vast to be discussed in..."


Thank you sincerely for the reply above.


message 6: by [deleted user] (last edited Nov 10, 2011 09:04AM) (new)

I am particularly interested in exploring the 40 year reign of Gaddafi, people lay the claim he was corrupt hoarding billions for himself, yet how can one human being possibly need or want that much money for himself. The more I have researched into Gadafi and his views the more I am in awe at his intellect, his vision and the strong force libya was becoming. Libya has minimal debt compared to western countries. He was nationalistic, but isn't that the hallmark of a great leader, to protect one's national interest. Did you know he was for a one state solution in the Palestine/Israel conflict? He purposefully kept libya out of western economic trade, that exploits a country advantage and instead was able to influence some of the most powerful oil companies without coercion or deception. He blamed "alqaeda" for initial violence that was spurring up within the country and brought about the revolution. He spoke candidly about the truth of 9/11 whereas many leaders have turned a blind eye in the islamic world. His alleged crimes seem laughable when you see the number of people killed from illegal wars waged in recent years. Yet give people facebook and internet and suddenly they feel they are being opressed compared to the "west", suddenly they want everything they are being denied and want the american dream,facts suggest under Gaddafi’s rule living standards rose to surpass those of every other country in Africa. Gadafi was a true islamic leader who fought US-imperialism and capitalism, perhaps his biggest mistake was not to develop a nuclear detterant and put too much trust in Nato to be the protectors of human rights who effectively murdered him and denied him a right to trial that democracy takes so much pride in. Politics is a dirty game, whichever way you play it, and perhaps Gadafi played it too cleanly. Democracy allows markets to be opened up which the western world can exploit and use to their advantage, the only freedom it brings is you become enslaved to the bank. The libyans never had it so great, yet they got carried away in the mob mentality the demonstrations so often bring. This wasn't a revolution by the people, muslims never corrected their leaders mistake lol.... read this....

Which pro-democracy forces fought back against these oppressions?

• Qatar, an absolute monarchy, which sent guns and ammunition to Islamist rebels.

• Monarchists, still incensed at the overthrow of their king.

• Islamists, who for years had struggled to bring an Islamist regime to power in Tripoli.

• CIA-connected dissidents, who hold key positions in the National Transitional Council, and promise Western oil companies first dibs on oil concessions.

• Nato, whose warplanes and special operation forces proved decisive in toppling Gaddafi.


Plus secret forces on the ground from Britain brought about the violent clashes and uprising. The media manipulated and used it to make Gadaffi look like a monster which fuelled resentment for him on the streets.

It's a nasty world, yet from our cosey gadget filled lives, many muslims wish to remain ignorant and not research for themselves.

In recent years Saddam Hussein, Gadaffi, Bin Ladan all enemies of the west have been brutally murdered without trial, who knows what truths would have surfaced.

Open your eyes, and see the violence taking place on the streets of europe, where peaceful demonstrators are dispersed with tear gas. The inequalities in living standards bringing about riots in UK, causing proposals for water cannons to be used and more power given to the police. In Italy police using batons to control the crowds, inject these with a real tyrant's secret forces, back and fund militant groups to cause further destruction and violence, control the media to report opression by Cameron or Obama, and have control of multilateral governance in the form of NATO at your disposal to enter foreign lands on humanitarian grounds,then heads to will fall from "peaceful demonstrations" in democratic lands.


Khairul Hezry And your point is what, exactly?


message 8: by [deleted user] (last edited Nov 10, 2011 05:12AM) (new)

Taking to the streets to demonstrate is never a good idea and majority of the times leads to violence whether or not a country is ruled democratically or not. If a muslim wishes to bring about regime change then they must collectively decide to withdraw their labour, stop the country functioning and grind the economy to a halt, this can all be done by winning the hearts and minds of people by spreading the truth and providing evidences for asserted claims of cruelty. Invite people to hear your message through education, move out from where you are being opressed. We give sovereign power to democracy or dictators through our collective consent to rule on our behalf and negate our own ideas of self perservation in favor of the leaders who will provide us the security. Yet my personal opinion is that the entire world is a muslim home, our own intrinsic rule and moral code and guiding principles for life come from our Quran and Hadiths. We do not need a leader figure to whome we subordinate power too, as we should all return to being free self autonomous agents and not rely on democracy for all our providential solutions but struggle collectively, engage in world affairs locally, instead of being passive lazy ignorant consuming creatures.. as the muslim ummah may end up with dirty "democracy" rife in the world today controlled by the elite and then we will be calling for the same strong individuals and rulers we have been so keen to annihilate.


message 9: by Bradley (new)

Bradley Farless (bradleyfarless) | 35 comments Ahmed wrote: "For example not torturing a dead body or hurting a person that has surrendered."

Hmmm... I seem to recall reading something, probably in the Quran, that said that if you're in a conflict with someone, the moment they surrender or stop resisting, you should put down your weapons and proceed peacefully. I assume you're talking about Qadaffi here. What those people did wasn't Islamic. It was barbaric and disgusting.


message 10: by Emily Iliani (last edited Nov 10, 2011 06:19PM) (new)

Emily Iliani (emilyiliani) | 44 comments Bee wrote: "Taking to the streets to demonstrate is never a good idea and majority of the times leads to violence whether or not a country is ruled democratically or not. If a muslim wishes to bring about regi..."

Thanks for your comment but I see now why atheists bash Islam so arrogantly.

You take is too (I'm putting this in the most polite way I know how to) idealistic. And I shall refrain myself from commenting on your other points, for the sake of my love for amicable discussion.

Please read http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/top-t...

I understand you retorts after reading the blog but would love to discuss the same with you anyway.


message 11: by Emily Iliani (new)

Emily Iliani (emilyiliani) | 44 comments Bradley wrote: "Ahmed wrote: "For example not torturing a dead body or hurting a person that has surrendered."

Hmmm... I seem to recall reading something, probably in the Quran, that said that if you're in a conf..."


This I agree, and thanks for highlighting. As part of the culture, if Arab-Muslims fight, at the mention of salawat (praises and prayers for the Prophet Muhammad), they immediately stop. Regardless of how senseless with rage they were a second before.

But like what I wanted to point out to my bro, this was not applied by Qaddafi and his army. After years of tyranny and oppression he lashed out massacre.

Was he deserving of the assassination, that is arguable but was he deserving of the revolt against him, I wholeheartedly believe so.

But the main point I wish to sort out in this discussion is "Does Islam allow armed revolution to be taken against a Muslim leader?"

I see the hadith listed by Khairul H and I understand how it leads to my bro's stance but I believe Islam is ever progressive, to allow us to adopt the stance taken at the time of al-Hallaj and Yazid is no longer an option; the people are not fighting on equal grounds. If the people of al-Hallaj had weaponry to defeat tyranny, the weapons must have been the same with what army of al-Hallaj had but in present day, do you really believe that people in Egypt and Syria and Libya were equipped with the same guns and machinery of the armies there?

I am not in favor of violence because I believe Islam is Peace. But Islam is also about fighting for your rights and against injustice. But Islam is also about fairness and responsibility, accountability.

I dont see where people get off saying Qaddafi is intellectual and visionary.

Do I believe USA and NATO should meddle into the business? Had they not, do we really believe Malaysia Saudi and Oman would? We Muslims collectively have been taking everything lying down, do we really not expect that the task would be undertaken by someone else (regardless, or perhaps more so, of the intention true to the acts)?

I am disappointed at the rate Muslims are deteriorating as carer for one another but at the same time, perhaps this is just a sign for the Creator. This is truly the hard time when He takes back all the love and mercy we have towards one another.

All this is a reflection of what we have become. But the question remains "Is Islam protector of the sinner and cruel leaders or the savior of the oppressed (albeit that they are oppressed simply because they have FB and bunch of ungrateful lots) people"


message 12: by [deleted user] (last edited Nov 10, 2011 06:59PM) (new)

"Is Islam protector of the sinner and cruel leaders or the savior of the oppressed (albeit that they are oppressed simply because they have FB and bunch of ungrateful lots) people"


Please enlighten us how the libyans were being oppressed. All you have done is bashed Gadaffi with labels but failed to provide any concrete evidences against him. Musllim nations would not have the blood of fellow muslims on their hands, had Nato and USA not interefered the law breakers and uprising would have been quashed simply because Gadafi had the military support behind him. True revolutions are brought about by the people, not engineered or exploited by an outside force. It was upto the Libyans, to argue their case best way they could according to the rules of the land, as I said before and you may call it idealistic, but if the majority did want Gadafi out they could have toppled him peacefully, through boycotts and winning the hearts and mind of their army.

If you have decided a leader is cruel and sinning onus is on you, to prove your case by exposing the evil at work, not taking issue with ISlam, because politics has very little to do with Islam in the first place.

The greatest injustice in the world is poverty, please do your economic homework and you to will see how Gadafi's future plans would have taken many developing nations out of poverty.

It is important and good practise when entering into discussions with the intentions of information sharing and increasing knowledge, to approach things systematically and leave any preconceived notions of "cruelty, dictators, oppression" at the door and not lead the debate with your conclusions.


message 13: by Emily Iliani (last edited Nov 10, 2011 07:15PM) (new)

Emily Iliani (emilyiliani) | 44 comments Bee wrote: ""Is Islam protector of the sinner and cruel leaders or the savior of the oppressed (albeit that they are oppressed simply because they have FB and bunch of ungrateful lots) people"


Please enl..."


1-read the blog
2-you just proved my point again
3-name me an instance in history that has succeeded with your 'peaceful' ways
4-you are being repetitive, for the sake of discussion, please have the courtesy towards others to avoid doing that, again
5-perhaps a lesson in experiment 101 is needed here. but your hypothesis here is noted


message 14: by [deleted user] (new)

Making the same mistakes of history isn't progressive now is it... but I am reading the blog with great interest. In the spirit of discussion equally be respectful, and perhaps address the reasoning and logic behind the claims you have made and continue to make, rather then wasting time make ill comments of how the atheists perceive us.


message 15: by [deleted user] (last edited Nov 10, 2011 07:46PM) (new)

Bradley wrote: "Ahmed wrote: "For example not torturing a dead body or hurting a person that has surrendered."

Hmmm... I seem to recall reading something, probably in the Quran, that said that if you're in a conf..."


When you give arms to radical extremists with a grudge against Gaddafi, put a bounty on his head and offer large amounts of money to have him captured dead or alive through local businessmen, then the results are hardly suprising.... in such hostile situations, voice of reason gets suppressed.


message 16: by Emily Iliani (last edited Nov 10, 2011 08:06PM) (new)

Emily Iliani (emilyiliani) | 44 comments Bee wrote: "Making the same mistakes of history isn't progressive now is it... but I am reading the blog with great interest. In the spirit of discussion equally be respectful, and perhaps address the reasonin..."

Meaning I have not been arguing my stance based on reasoning and logic all this while?

Foremost, are you willing to concede your stance as idealistic, as I am willing to of my arrogance?


message 17: by [deleted user] (last edited Nov 10, 2011 08:38PM) (new)

Emily Iliani wrote: "Bee wrote: "Making the same mistakes of history isn't progressive now is it... but I am reading the blog with great interest. In the spirit of discussion equally be respectful, and perhaps address ..."

Not quite, you have been forceful in pushing your POV albeit under the pretext of wanting to hear all sides of the argument. If you truly, wanted to hear all arguments and be so accomodating, you would stop reading my messages as some threat to your own personal POV. You have made several claims, of cruelty and Islam and muslims nations standing idly by, others such as Khairul have usefully contributed by highlighting the importance of how you define things and the angle from which you approach this topic.

I have used case-study of Gadaffi based from knoweldge to show notions of cruelty can be challenged and often become blurred in murky politics.

Sadly though exhibiting your arrogance and own pov or conclusions take things too personally. I am merely asking for reasoning and logic BEHIND the claims you have made, so I or any other reader, can understand how you have deduced the ideas you have and in thus doing so further their own knowledge and challenge their own thinking.

This isn't a debate, or point scoring exercise, Iam not participating in this discussion to influence others to my POV, which is why when I wrote my "idealistic" novel way to bring about change, I clearly wrote IMO, it is just my own personal opinion I happen to currently hold at present, and only willingly shared because Khairul wished to probe further, hence I have no concessions to offer you, because this discussion isnt about you.

Back to the topic now please. :)


message 18: by Emily Iliani (last edited Nov 10, 2011 10:33PM) (new)

Emily Iliani (emilyiliani) | 44 comments Bee wrote: "Emily Iliani wrote: "Bee wrote: "Making the same mistakes of history isn't progressive now is it... but I am reading the blog with great interest. In the spirit of discussion equally be respectful,..."

Concisely put. The only reason why I asked was because I wanted to know whether I should make a research on the idealistic way you proposed. I simply wanted to know whether this has worked before anywhere else in the world, in the modern days. In somewhat way, the way you (loosely) described worked for us Malaysians back in the 1940s to 1960s. The people worked towards reaching independence from the colony of British amicably and without bloodshed. There, another support!

I say it is idealistic but did I insult you by saying improbable? This is the reason why I did not immediately response to your first post; thought should read my own history first. I believe this can be done, but give me a proof that it has worked in the modern days against a a muslim leader in a muslim country. Malaysians did it but it was against the British. And may I point out, did I not also state what happened with al-Hallaj, or do you not see the connection? (Hallaj is history set in stone, Qaddafi’s remains debated.)

Bee, I was trying to find out whether the keep-silent-and-wait method is really as Islam provides. You have not provided this, what you did was to show your support for Qaddafi and why the people were wrong to revolt and why it is even wronger for the west to meddle. And what caught me most is you remark that simply because Muslims support the revolt and the people's revolution against Qaddafi, they are automatically those who refused to research into the matter and blindly accept the stories declared by the West. Have you not thought for a second that those who support the revolt made an informed decision? I am arrogant and I admit it, you are something of the other sort altogether, aren’t you?

I am from Malaysia and in this statement alone I seek a lot of comfort in knowing that we have the best of both worlds; as Muslim state Malaysia is sensitive and emphatic to the affairs in the Middle Eastern countries and as an economically developing county, Malaysia preserves good ties with the West by tolerating and understanding the policies expounded.

My comment was on all arab leaders in general but you brought up Qaddafi up as example perhaps because Libya is still the hot topic in town. And while I have my source to support my POV, where exactly do you get off saying that Qaddafi is intellectual and visionary? Point out your source as I have did mine, albeit it may be one and from “west”.

Have you tried reading? (And no I don’t mean from NYT) I personally find the comments and articles in Democracy Now! a good source of news piece when it comes to international affairs; no one actually takes local media as seriously as they would on international channel. I am not sorry for being arrogant because I believe you are arrogant in what you believe right. Much so against a person who has yet to prove himself/herself. Yet, I am in this forum to correct my stance and seek the nearest truth for my argument with my bro, this intention of mine is made clear right from the START.

Should you want more source and more proofs, then simply ask for it but first provide yours. I have conceded to my arrogance, thus leave it out of the discussion now and focus to support the stance my bro supported. My bro was smart enough to exclude Qaddafi’s ‘virtues’ out of our arguments, you however did not play the same card and ingratiate his history without conceding that they might not even be ultimately true.

Lastly, I leave you with my authority I held fast to during the discussion with my bro, which he arrogantly shuts down (and I retreated to this forum):
Hud 11:85 "And O my people! Give full measure and weight in justice and reduce not the things that are due to the people, and do not commit mischief in the land, causing corruption.

In my most humble opinion, when a leader caused corruption, this negates the duty for the public to follow him.


message 19: by Bradley (new)

Bradley Farless (bradleyfarless) | 35 comments Emily Iliani wrote: "My comment was on all arab leaders in general but you brought up Qaddafi up as example perhaps because Libya is still the hot topic in town. And while I have my source to support my POV, where exactly do you get off saying that Qaddafi is intellectual and visionary? Point out your source as I have did mine, albeit it may be one and from “west”. "

I thought this might be an opportune time to point out that just because something comes from the West doesn't mean it's bad. In fact, if it weren't for Persian, Byzantine and classical literary works and traditions, Islam might not have survived, at least not as a world religion.

That's conjecture, but the fact that Western learning was instrumental to the development of both secular and theological modes of thought (and art, and architecture, as examples) in the young Islamic empire and the development of the Islamic culture/identity is well documented.

Isn't it ironic that many Muslims want to automatically reject anything that's Western without realizing that many of the more complex theological issues in Islam were expounded through debating ancient Western texts?

I'm not justifying the fact that Western powers are meddling in other countries' politics; I'm simply pointing out that blind prejudice is counterproductive.

Emily,

Isn't one of the main goals of Islam to create a stable, just, and egalitarian society on earth for the ummah? If anyone endangers that, then shouldn't they be removed for the sake of creating a just society?

I always thought that Islam was a flexible religion. When Muhammad was in Mecca, he revealed surahs about God and peace and salvation and judgment. When he was in Medina, his needs and the needs of the Muslims changed. They had a community and needed regulations to provide for its stability, so the surahs revealed during that period provided that type of information. The content of the surahs changed to fit the circumstances, which implies that Islam is a living religion with the goal of providing for the stability of the community and the needs of the Muslims, even if those needs change over time. Abrogation of previous verses was used as well, to give the Muslims a more useful verse to live by, to meet changing needs.

I think this was taken into consideration when the shariah was being formed, which is why consideration was given to community consensus and local traditions. So, if community consensus was important enough then to affect the formation of shariah law, then why shouldn't community consensus count for something today? If the entire community feels that the leader is unjust, then isn't the will of the community more powerful than the will of the individual? Isn't the welfare of the ummah as a whole more important than the luxury of one man? And is that one man, Qaddafi in this case, a real Muslim anyway if he's living in luxury and oppressing his people?

Also, there's this:

And We made them leaders guiding (men) by Our Command and We sent them inspiration to do good deeds, to establish regular prayers and to practice regular charity; and they constantly served Us (and Us only).
(Qur’an 1, Anbiyaa, 21: 73).

If a Muslim leader isn't doing good deeds or serving Allah by practicing a Muslim lifestyle and ruling justly, has he failed the command given by the Quran? And if so, shouldn't he not be recognized as a leader, since he doesn't meet the Quran's criteria? Just giving charity and enforcing prayer isn't enough, according to this.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm studying Middle Eastern history (academically, not as a hobby), but most of what I said here is just from memory and might be flawed, though I could probably dig through my books and find direct citations for most of what I said.


message 20: by [deleted user] (last edited Nov 11, 2011 12:24AM) (new)

What a mess lol - perhaps you have decided or determined, that all arab spring leaders are "cruel" and are not flexible in discussing this. I take the view if you can't prove this convincingly enough based on hard facts, then your entire debate become superfluous.

When discussing in public and asking for peoples suggestions, one cannot also dictate the terms of the debate or the course it takes. That is the beauty of discussing online on forums, read things and take from peoples comments what you will, rather then get worked up people are drifting from what you only wish to discuss, because this isnt a private discussion between you and your brother any longer.

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

For discussions sake, I shall ignore the context or your views on current dictators and read up a little more on "how effectively to rid one of an evil muslim dictator islamically" (including from sources you have mentioned) and gather my thoughts, so I can succintly share my opinion with you in due course.

***I could not simply give you my opinion on that though by ignoring the context in which you or other readers may wish to use it because it would be improper and against my concious to do so!!! when I do not believe the "dictators" to be the monsters they are being painted out to be by mainstream media. This is exactly what western politicians did going to war with Libya without proper dialogue and stamping their view of dictators on the rest of us. The imminent threat was massacre? really? or massacre of rebels the west equipped to create the perfect conditions for invasion!!****


message 21: by [deleted user] (last edited Nov 11, 2011 12:45AM) (new)

Bradley wrote: "Emily Iliani wrote: "My comment was on all arab leaders in general but you brought up Qaddafi up as example perhaps because Libya is still the hot topic in town. And while I have my source to suppo..."

I still think if the majority of the country wanted Gadaffi out there could have been better ways to go about it then have a stand off with the army. The army comprises of human beings, all human beings have brain if their is wide consensus, and public support they too will eventually relent and Gadaffi would have been forced out off office.


"Isn't it ironic that many Muslims want to automatically reject anything that's Western without realizing that many of the more complex theological issues in Islam were expounded through debating ancient Western texts?"

I have read some of your previous comments in the Islam group, where you have written of similar fears.. please stop using this as an axe to grind in every discussion because I see no need for it here as there is little evidence anyone has dismissed western intellect or carried forward such prejudices.

This is a discussion from my understanding on how islamically to topple muslim leaders in muslim nations once it has proven that they are corrupt and the Majority want them out.


message 22: by Emily Iliani (last edited Nov 11, 2011 01:50AM) (new)

Emily Iliani (emilyiliani) | 44 comments Bee wrote: "Bradley wrote: "Emily Iliani wrote: "My comment was on all arab leaders in general but you brought up Qaddafi up as example perhaps because Libya is still the hot topic in town. And while I have my..."

I give up on you and your contradicting statements.

My last words to you: read more or listen more. Salam


message 23: by Emily Iliani (new)

Emily Iliani (emilyiliani) | 44 comments Bradley wrote: "Emily Iliani wrote: "My comment was on all arab leaders in general but you brought up Qaddafi up as example perhaps because Libya is still the hot topic in town. And while I have my source to suppo..."

Thanks Bradley! You just gave me a splendid IDEA! I will now try to focus on Meccan verses and try to see if I can find my answer within the verses.

Also, splendid splendid argument; more precise than what I had argued on. I did point out to my bro that it is the people's collective choice and as such there must be something intinsically wrong with the government. I think the problem in any society is much deeper than the surface. To simply scratch the surface and invalidate the problems that lie beneath is beyond arrogant.

In truth the issue here is very close to everybody's heart. For example in Malaysia, 4-months back we had a peaceful demonstration organized and mostly participated by the left-wing party; many stretched the initial purpose of the demo, which is to demand for a more transparent election system and people started making allegations stating that the demo was actually a revolution against the right-wing governing party. Many felt that it is the right thing to do since it is a general knowledge the politicians are corrupt or involve in corrupt practices, and yet many still maintained that there is no need for it.

The question again boiled down to the rights citizens have as muslims, especially, in a muslim state (note: NOT an Islamic state - this is declared by law).

That all being said, I was pointed of this verse from an office mate and thought it provides a great challenge to my own point.

Shaykh Abdul-Azeez was asked, "Is it from the manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf to criticise the Rulers from the minbar (the pulpit)? And what is the manhaj of the Salaf with respect to advising the Rulers?" He responded: It is not from the manhaj of the Salaf to publicise the faults of the Rulers and to mention such things from the pulpit because that leads to confusion/disorder and the absence of hearing and obeying the ruler in what is good. It also results in (the people) becoming engrossed (with these matters, arguing and debating) which causes harm and produces no benefit. The followed path with the Salaf, however is to give advice with respect to the matters which are between themselves and the leader, writing to him or by reaching him through the scholars who keep in touch with him (to advise him) until the ruler is directed towards the good. Repelling the evil occurs without mentioning the doer of the evil. So fornication, drinking of intoxicants and the taking of usury are curbed without mentioning the one who does such things. Warding off the evil and warning and the people against it is sufficient without it being mentioned that such and such a person does it, whether he is a ruler or other than the ruler.

I feel that this is worth noting. I agree that Islam is a religion of peace but I also believe Islam is a religion of honor. Perhaps, the way to correct a leader must be done without imputing humiliation on him. Hrm...how? revolt without stating why? Or if democratically, by tarnishing his campaign, as someone suggested earlier? Where is the road less traveled?


message 24: by [deleted user] (last edited Nov 11, 2011 06:42AM) (new)

being accused of blind prejudice(i read the blog fully and remain unconvinced) and contradictions without evidence, rather fitting theme of the discussions so far when you make sweeping generalisations that bcos Gaddafi live in a palace he was corrupt.... lol sorry thats the only evidence put forward. Or how he oppressed his people by maintaing law and order by being heavy handed with criminal rebels where there is strong evidence to suggest was funded from outside that I have alluded to albeit briefly. If you have researched extensively the grievances of the Libians you are yet to share your knowledge, no body is denying societies change and people have a right to certain freedoms, nor that libians wanted change, however to call all leaders and tarnish them as cruel oppressors is beyond arrogant in itself. Perhaps the majority are in need of Listening and reading more... look into reasons why developing countries have traded themselves into a poverty trap to meet the needs of western econmy. Liberalisation doesnt work, Gaddafi was investing in his own nascaent industries and protecting his infant industries ..proven ways for countries to grow economically and rely less on asymmetric policies of the west. This isn't prejudicial reasoning these are sound econmic principlies being applied by Gaddafi which would have hurt the west coffers.


message 25: by Bradley (new)

Bradley Farless (bradleyfarless) | 35 comments Bee wrote: "Bradley wrote: "Emily Iliani wrote: "My comment was on all arab leaders in general but you brought up Qaddafi up as example perhaps because Libya is still the hot topic in town. And while I have my..."

Nice. You tell Emily it's ok for you to go off topic, but then slam me for veering a little off course. I also don't recall ever bringing up anything even remotely like that before in any group, since I've only ever posted in two other threads, one of which I started. It was also about finding info from the Quran. Also, you didn't respond to anything I said about the topic here. You just took the opportunity to slam me and try to shut me down.

Emily, the thing you quoted reminded me of what goes on in Turkey. They've created a separation between church and state, somehow, even though religious officials are still appointed by the government. Ya, how does that work? But anyway, talking about politics during the Friday sermon is not allowed and can result in removal from office. Through history, the role of local leaders was reduced to a secular level, with religious authority residing originally in the caliphate, and then in the ulema. If a distinction between secular leadership and religious leadership has been established by the community consensus, then is it still necessary to find a religious justification for changing the person that occupies a secular office?

Sitting in class now. I may add something to this later. =D


message 26: by [deleted user] (new)

A woman shutting a man down, don't be silly Brad, you are free to veer the discussion in any direction you see is relevant without personally accusing others of prejudices. Sorry I am baffled how or why you chose to bring that up on here. Have muslims dismissed your essays or writings in the past or something and you are harbouring some resentment, I do feel sorry for you if thats the case. Not every muslims is so dismissive you know. Relax.

I am still reflecting and digesting your comments so chose not to reply in a adhoc fashion, but rather address the bad attitude and lack of respect of users on here, from arrogance, dogmatic self beliefs, to dictorial shutting down of other views and launching personal attacks, rather worring but slowly becoming accustomed to some of the hostility on here and just poor bad attitude.

Interesting what you wrote with regards to Turkey, I've always had thoughts that perhaps religion should be kept out of politics the two just dont seem to mix and cause more friction than good. It does seems if a muslim leader does something wrong, the response is disproportional and people want his blood though just my observation.

Enjoy the class.


message 27: by Bradley (new)

Bradley Farless (bradleyfarless) | 35 comments Bee was a special person...


message 28: by Emily Iliani (new)

Emily Iliani (emilyiliani) | 44 comments OMG! BIMBO MOMENT: I wanted to swerve fartest away from Turkey as possible. I believe that Muslims in Malaysia are turning to be Turks. But reality hits and perhaps there is a good point to venture into Turkey and its politics.

In a good spirit thus printing what @Khairul H. linked up; will use the hadith to a professor of mine and will see if he cn convince me a good way to see this issue.

Bradley, sorry you have to defend your status all the time. Perhaps if you put Islam as your surname it gives you more credence.

Love all the special people out there!


message 29: by Bradley (new)

Bradley Farless (bradleyfarless) | 35 comments Hmmm. Maybe, but people shouldn't assume that only people with Arabic names are knowledgeable about a topic. I know it's common for people to assume an Arabic name on conversion (or reversion, depending on perspective), but I don't think everyone would do that. I wouldn't.


Khairul Hezry Perhaps if you put Islam as your surname it gives you more credence.

Meh. That's not important. A rose by any other name is still a rose. We Malaysians are obsessed with this particular bugaboo, unfortunately. Shah Kirit Kalkulal Govindji, Lim Jui Soon & Ann Wang See are at least three Malaysians who didn't change their names after embracing Islam. I especially love Shah Kirit's name. It is so obviously 'non-Islamic' sounding that many Malaysians (read: Malays) are surprised when this guy stands up and begins his lectures on Islam in an articulate manner.

Sorry. Out of topic, I know.


message 31: by Zino (last edited Nov 12, 2011 01:45AM) (new)

Zino | 5 comments i am so proud of you Allah does not look at our names and our faces Allah looks into our hearts be who you are whatever your name and your skin color you just need to believe in god and have a good heart thats all


message 32: by Zino (last edited Nov 12, 2011 01:56AM) (new)

Zino | 5 comments i am so sorry but you are wrong Islam is not a concern of a particular people or race islam for all the people all the races what ever their names their nation its for all human being i am arab and Muslim but there is no deference between me and another muslim from another place and other race i am not the spoks man of islam i can not possess it just because i have arabic name this is silly idea . you are welcome even in my home my friend if you want to know more about islam you are welcome just contact me if you want ok bradly


message 33: by Zino (new)

Zino | 5 comments




message 34: by Zino (new)

Zino | 5 comments to emily listen my friend the islamic point of view in this case is obvious every muslim must not obey who disobeys allah even your parents .these dictators are thieves they helped in spreading corruption and they do not govern us under the islamic law they used laws that just served them selves so we have to rebel against them


message 35: by Bradley (new)

Bradley Farless (bradleyfarless) | 35 comments Nice. Zino just summed up my entire argument in his last, short message.

If the leader is only claiming to be Muslim, but isn't leading his life or 'ruling' according to Islamic law, then why follow him? Just because he says he's Muslim? Actions speak louder than words.


message 36: by Bradley (last edited Nov 12, 2011 12:49PM) (new)

Bradley Farless (bradleyfarless) | 35 comments Hi Rob.

I'm not aware of what, if any, concessions states make in terms of sovereignty when they join the United Nations, but the UN is not like the federal government of the US. I know that much. So, to assume that the will of the people is somehow subject to the decisions of an international body is to take away their nationhood and right to self-determination. If a country wants to be governed by shariah law, that's their choice to make. It's not the UN's choice to make for them, unless the UN is willing to initiate a war and dissolve a sovereign state through violent takeover.

"a dichotomy to argue because a leader is turning away from Islam we shall respond in kind"

By, this, do you mean to say that you think that responding in an un-Islamic way (violence) to the rule of an un-Islamic leader is ironic? I think that's the point of the conversation here, to determine whether or not it's Islamic to remove an un-Islamic leader from a position of authority. Also, judging a leader based on religion is perfectly legitimate, if that's the will of the people.

Democracy is the will of the people. Democracy is not a cookie cutter model of Western government. If people vote to have a law system based on religious codes, then that is a democratic decision...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Could you elaborate more on your ideas?


message 37: by Bradley (new)

Bradley Farless (bradleyfarless) | 35 comments Rob, you make some good points. It's kind of like wanting to play FIFA but then getting mad that your team can't wear a hijab. If you jump into the game, you have to play by the established rules.

It's too bad Muslim countries are too busy fighting with each other to realize that together they're wealthy enough to form their own coalitions and economic blocs. If Muslims are really upset about what Westerners did, then why not remove the lines imposed by the end of WWII and recreate an Islamic super-state? Of course, that would require certain leaders to give up power, which they may not want to do any more than some recent leaders have wanted to give up power to their own people.

The UN answers to no one, like the Wall Street bankers that destroyed the world economy and got million dollar bonuses the following year. XD

I don't think the original question was about the actions of any particular ruler. That's something Bee added on her own. Instead, I think the question was just one of principle, of whether it's right or wrong for Muslims to remove a Muslim from a position of authority if that Muslim is seen to be abusing the people, or engaged in corrupted, un-Islamic practices.


message 38: by Bradley (new)

Bradley Farless (bradleyfarless) | 35 comments Rob wrote: "@ahmed being lawful by who's standard though, what are you using as your basis as to what is acceptable and what is not? Who has installed the right upon anyone to play judge, jury and executioner. You wish to hold leaders to account then hold all leaders to account regardless of religion, according to human right violations and not selectively purge into islamic ones because YOU have deemed them unfit of their religion (astagfirullah), without ever presenting a case."

Your logic is contradictory. You say that no one has the right to set a standard of conduct, but then ask that leaders be held to account by a standard of human rights violations. Who gets to make the rules of what constitutes a human rights violation? And how is it any more or less 'right' than making a standard based on religious preferences? Isn't letting a group of people self-determine (pure democracy) best?


message 39: by Bradley (new)

Bradley Farless (bradleyfarless) | 35 comments Or maybe you should just write more clearly?

For example, what exactly is the "moral high ground that is highly dubious and contentious at best" and why is it "highly dubious and contentious"?

Why not just say what you mean in plain English?

Anyway, you seem like you're trying to back out of the conversation, so I don't expect you to answer. I'm through with this too. It's not even relevant to the original topic anymore.


message 40: by Zino (new)

Zino | 5 comments you are wrong bradly islam is a religion of actions not says the leaders claim that they are muslims but they are not following the islamic law which based on the following points; the governor must have a strong relationship with his people he must discuss with them about the surrounding issues and the important thing is justice in islam the sovereignty is based on justice if any governor follows that we will say that he is practicing isla;ic laws if no we will say that he is a muslim by nature and by says ni more


message 41: by Bradley (new)

Bradley Farless (bradleyfarless) | 35 comments Zino wrote: "you are wrong bradly islam is a religion of actions not says the leaders claim that they are muslims but they are not following the islamic law which based on the following points; the governor mus..."

Are you replying when I said this:

"If the leader is only claiming to be Muslim, but isn't leading his life or 'ruling' according to Islamic law, then why follow him? Just because he says he's Muslim? Actions speak louder than words."


message 42: by Nada (new)

Nada Elfeituri (nelfeituri) Hey there, I'm sorta new to this group, and I wasn't going to reply to this thread until I read what someone wrote about Gadhafi. I don't want to get into a huge rant or anything, but I want to give my view on this particular tyrant, since I've witnessed first hand what it was like living under his rule.

*takes a deep breath*

Alright, I'm a Libyan whose lived under Gadhafi for about 8 years. My parents have lived in Libya their whole lives. Let me tell you about Gadhafi:

1. People who prayed fajr (dawn prayer) were monitored, and many of them were imprisoned, tortured and usually killed. Being a pious Muslim was very difficult here.

2. Your house was searched if it was suspected that you owned religious books or cassettes. If found, you were imprisoned, tortured and usually killed.

3. Tahajud prayers during Ramadan were forbidden by the Gadhafi regime. This Ramadan, for the first time, me and my parents prayed Tahajud in our country, because of the Revolution.

4. I can't remember when, but during one Eid-ul-Adha, Gadhafi ordered us to slaughter A DAY before everyone else i.e. on the waqfa, when the rest of the Muslim world was fasting. To enforce this, he locked up every mosque on Eid day so there would be no Eid sermon.

5. Gadhafi had once tried to change the Quran. Yes, you read that right, HE TRIED TO REWRITE THE QURAN. He said, (قل هو الله احد)'qul huwa allahu ahad' was something the Prophet was told, we should say ( الله احد)'allahu ahad', Istagfirallah. The same thing with the rest of the surats which begin this way. Take a moment and let that sink in, Muslim Gadhafi supporters.

6. By now anyone familiar with the Libyan uprising should also be familiar with Gadhafi's children. Now, I don't want to resort to vulgar language here, let's just say that Gadhafi's children were very heavily into drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, torture, etc. These are the children of the so called Muslim leader.

I could write a book about Gadhafi's injustices to the Libyan people, but I just wanted to list *some* of the anti-Islamic things Gadhafi has done over the years, because it's relevant to the topic. Everything that the pro-Gadhafi posts here have said are completely untrue, and I'm deeply offended by how they try to downplay our suffering.

Now, I'm not trying to label anyone here or anything, but I've noticed that people who support Gadhafi usually do so because he's 'anti-West'. Here's a newsflash, NO HE WASN'T. Not only that, he was also pro-israel. He started sucking up to the West after the sanctions on Libya became too difficult to deal with. The anti-West mentality is way too simplistic. It's not a black-and-white issue.

And neither is 'revolting against a Muslim leader'. Honestly, Islam is about justice and common sense. If you have a leader who routinely imprisons people for growing a beard, or harboring beliefs contrary to the regime, do we really have to obey them because they pray?


Khairul Hezry Gadhafi = bad, National Transitional Council = good.

Okay, got it! Thanks!


Khairul Hezry Gadhafi = bad, National Transitional Council = also bad.

Okay, definitely got it this time! Thanks!


message 45: by Nada (new)

Nada Elfeituri (nelfeituri) So the NTC is haraam because they like the transparency and governance of the IMF? Yeah, I guess we should follow the example of the 'halaal' Muslim countries and practice corruption instead.

The NTC also said that they want to base the government on Islamic Shariah, and Mustafa Abdul-Jalil(the president) stated that banking was to be done the Islamic way, e.g. no interest

Libyans know what they want their country to be, we don't need the judgement and accusation of people who had never even heard of the country before the revolution. We're finally free, and if that's not Islamic I don't know what is.


message 46: by Emily Iliani (new)

Emily Iliani (emilyiliani) | 44 comments Bradley wrote: "Hmmm. Maybe, but people shouldn't assume that only people with Arabic names are knowledgeable about a topic. I know it's common for people to assume an Arabic name on conversion (or reversion, de..."

I meant it sarcastically towards certain deleted member; sorry it was in great jest. I of course dont believe in names except the 99. Cant believe the jest spiraled into good serious discussion. (BIG lol!)


message 47: by Bradley (new)

Bradley Farless (bradleyfarless) | 35 comments Emily Iliani wrote: "Bradley wrote: "Hmmm. Maybe, but people shouldn't assume that only people with Arabic names are knowledgeable about a topic. I know it's common for people to assume an Arabic name on conversion (..."

The 99? http://www.the99.org/


message 48: by Emily Iliani (new)

Emily Iliani (emilyiliani) | 44 comments Zino wrote: "to emily listen my friend the islamic point of view in this case is obvious every muslim must not obey who disobeys allah even your parents .these dictators are thieves they helped in spreading cor..."

Holler that! Debated with my bf and he quoted Surah Maidah
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even if it be against yourselves, your parents, and your relatives, or whether it is against the rich or the poor.
(135)

Thanks for putting it so succinctly Zino!

Bradley wrote: "It's too bad Muslim countries are too busy fighting with each other to realize that together they're wealthy enough to form their own coalitions and economic blocs. "

We do. It's called Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC); the effectiveness of the OIC is practically naught but hey, good try – lets pat the Muslim leaders on their backs now (a bit of jest and a bit of sarcasm but with just a tinge of respect)


Robert wrote: "It doesnt make sense then to argue if a muslim leader is "not leading islamically" (and the people have willed for an islamic leader) then the islamic people have some legitimate right to judge their leader on religion as thats not how politics works internationally. "

THIS IS A GREAT POINT! thank you; i have not argued based on factual fabric of international politics. Thank you. Now that I have gone through our other posts, I beg you to tone down the derision especially towards Nada. Where we come makes up for our worldview, I don’t know where are you from but trust me there is a bigger world than that little corner of your world.

I understand your arguments and I honestly respect them but at the same time, what we are looking for isn’t all in black and white. I’ll elaborate later on this point.


Ahmed wrote: "The thing about this question is that being a Muslim leader doesn't make you better than a Non-Muslim and it doesn't give you more rights. I believe that it is our duty as citizens to check if our ..."


Beautifully put.

Nada wrote: "Hey there, I'm sorta new to this group, and I wasn't going to reply to this thread until I read what someone wrote about Gadhafi. I don't want to get into a huge rant or anything, but I want to giv..."

Thank you for sharing; I dont think I can thank you enough and with all humility, thank you for fighting. I do not know you but you have my great respect. Thank you


Khairul H. wrote: "Gadhafi = bad, National Transitional Council = also bad.

Okay, definitely got it this time! Thanks!"


you're sooooo adorable!


Bradley: lol! nah i meant something like this: http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/99na...


message 49: by Bradley (new)

Bradley Farless (bradleyfarless) | 35 comments Emily Iliani wrote: "Zino wrote: "to emily listen my friend the islamic point of view in this case is obvious every muslim must not obey who disobeys allah even your parents .these dictators are thieves they helped in ..."

I think the comic might be more fun... Though the other 99 thing is very interesting as well. =)


Khairul Hezry Bullying? The heck???

If you think what Emily wrote was bullying , then you haven't been lurking around online forums much.


« previous 1
back to top