Arab Spring - The Great Deception

i.dawa wrote: Our work must be geared towards uprooting kufr from our countries by culturing the ummah with Islam by explaining the nature of Aqeedah that it is a political and a spiritual Aqeedah, about the Khilafah and how it looks after the affairs of Muslims etc. If we look at the example of the Messenger (saw) how he ruled by Islam then we�ll learn that a state is needed and this State must be built by the Ummah on the basis of the Islamic Aqeedah alone. The Arab Spring has been turned in to another American project in the Muslim world to remove the potential rise of Islam.

Regarding the above 3 things, some observations:

"The Arab Spring has been turned in to another American project in the Muslim world to remove the potential rise of Islam."

First it would be helpful if Muslims could stop adhering to conspiracy thinking.

"Our work must be geared towards uprooting kufr from our countries by culturing the ummah with Islam by explaining the nature of Aqeedah that it is a political and a spiritual Aqeedah, about the Khilafah and how it looks after the affairs of Muslims etc."

kufr - disbeliever
The Qur'aan uses the word Kufr to denote people who cover up or hide realities.
- Kafir (Arabic: كافر‎ kāfir, plural كفّار kuffār) is an Arabic term used in a Islamic doctrinal sense, usually translated as "unbeliever," "disbeliever," or "infidel." The term refers to a person who rejects God or who hides, denies, or covers the "truth."
- The word kāfir is the active participle of the root K-F-R "to cover". As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting.[1] Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning "a person who hides or covers." According to Oxford - -- - Dictionary of Islam the word 'Kafir' means: 'Unbeliever. First applied to Meccans who refused submission to Islam, the term implies an active rejection of divine revelation. In Islamic parlance, a kāfir is a word used to describe a person who rejects Islamic faith, i.e. "hides or covers [viz., the truth]."

- the Arabic term used as a loanword in English is seen as derogatory, which is why some Muslim scholars discourage its use and suggest the neutral term non-Muslim instead.

True or false?
- All four major Sunni schools of thought hold that whoever follows another religion besides Islam is an unbeliever (kafir).

# Kufrul-Istihaal: Disbelief out of trying to make HARAM into HALAL. This applies to someone who accepts as lawful (Halal) that which Allaah has made unlawful (Haram) like alcohol or adultery. Only Allah has the prerogative to make things Halal and Haram and those who seek to interfere with His right are like rivals to Him and therefore fall outside the boundaries of faith.

"Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers."

It is the aim of many Muslims belonging to the Sunni sect to restore the Khilafah (Caliphate) abolished by Kemal Ataturk in 1924.


Aqeedah refers to those matters which are believed in, with certainty and conviction, in one's heart and soul. They are not tainted with any doubt or uncertainty.

Aqeedah (Matters of Faith)
(the word Aqeedah) is derived from al-Aqad, which is to tie something (firmly)

Khilafah (caliphate)
The term caliphate, "dominion of a caliph ('successor')" (from the Arabic خلافة or khilāfa, Turkish: Hilafet), refers to the first system of government established in Islam and represented the leader's unity of the Muslim Ummah (community)[clarification needed]. In theory, it is an aristocratic�constitutional republic[1] (the Constitution being the Constitution of Medina), which means that the head of state, the Caliph, and other officials are representatives of the people and of Islam and must govern according to constitutional and religious law, or Sharia. In its early days, it resembled elements of direct democracy (see shura) and an elective monarchy.

After the Rashidun period until 1924, caliphates, sometimes two at a single time, real and illusory, were ruled by dynasties.

Abd�lmecid II officially abolished the system of Caliphate in Islam (the Ottoman Empire)

The sayings of Islamic scholars: 
Al-Mawardi says:[21]
    It is forbidden for the Ummah (Muslim world) to have two leaders at the same time.

Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (Al-Nawawi) says:[22]
    It is forbidden to give an oath to two leaders or more, even in different parts of the world and even if they are far apart.

Ahmad al-Qalqashandi says:[23]
    It is forbidden to appoint two leaders at the same time.

Ibnu Hazm says:[24]
    It is permitted to have only one leader (of the Muslims) in the whole of the world.

Al-sha�rani says:[25]
    It is forbidden for Muslims to have in the whole world and at the same time two leaders whether in agreement or discord.

Al-Qadhi Abdul-Jabbar (he is a Mu�tazela scholar), says:[26]
    It is forbidden to give the oath to more than one.

Let's examine.
Are these realistic?  And why do they go against they way God had always operated in the past according to the religion of Abraham?  In the ancient days God always appointed one to govern the people and one to be a spiritual leader... two leaders, always.  So is this from God, or from man?

For the vast majority of Muslims the caliph as leader of the ummah, "is[realistically] cherished both as memory and ideal".
* in brackets, added by me.

"If we look at the example of the Messenger (saw) how he ruled by Islam then we�ll learn that a state is needed and this State must be built by the Ummah on the basis of the Islamic Aqeedah alone."

"It is the aim of many Muslims belonging to the Sunni sect to restore the Khilafah (Caliphate) abolished by Kemal Ataturk in 1924. In the modern context, this is linked to the desire of proponents of the Islamic revival to see a global, united Islamic state. Inevitably, however large the borders of such a state, it would contain religious minorities. Muslims are usually insistent that other religious communities have always been treated with respect and dignity by true Muslim rulers. It is therefore pertinent to examine Islamic history to test the authenticity of this claim."
(citation:  http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-6.html)

This is in regards to the Ottoman Khilafah:
"It is practices like these that have left dark memories in Balkan peoples and Armenians about the long years of Muslim rule."

"It should be remembered that the Muslim army was commanded by the Grand Vizier himself, Kara Mustafa. It is difficult to see how such behaviour could be considered as attracting people to Islam."

(I am not elaborating here, just sharing the research.  The further reference may be read here if you like...  http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-6.html)  I can not declare the veracity of the reports... each must seek the truth for himself as I certainly hope that Muslims will do.  We need an enlightened, educated, Muslim community and not one following in blind faith.  A supporting document of the truth is the Treaty of Paris in March 1856.

If you seek truth consider this;
the burial-permit issued by a qadi (Muslim official) in 1855 for a deceased Christian: 'We certify to the priest of the church of Mary, that the impure, putrefied, stinking carcass of Saideh, damned this day, may be concealed underground.' [11] Undoubtedly, Muslims would regard such sentiments made in regard to a Muslim corpse to be bigoted and insensitive; they should not be surprised that Christians would react similarly, and find it difficult to credit that the Khilafah was indeed a Utopian regime.

and this;
the Khilafah was the legal government of the Greek and other Balkan peoples; it had a duty to defend, rather than exterminate its subjects. This raises two problems for Muslims seeking the revival of the Khilafah: firstly, a Government that believes it is legitimate to commit massacres in the name of religion is scarcely an attractive concept for those who might be its victims; secondly, because the Khilafah is considered as divinely ordered, Muslims are left defending the idea that God ordered the massacre of innocent women and children because of their religion.

End of references and research.
__________________________

What I know is this... the entire history of Muhammad and Islam has conflicted and contradictory reports and truth must be sought from many sources.

A much better response, encouragement, and article.
A Muslim's Call...
the Golden Age of Islam, which spanned from the 9th to the 12th centuries. Why was it so dynamic and what happened to it?
http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1052
Iijtihad - Islam's tradition of critical thinking
 
What eclipsed this enlightened period of Islam?

Toward the end of the 11th century, the gates of ijtihad closed for political reasons. The fragile Muslim empire--from Iraq in the East to Spain in the West--was experiencing a series of internal convulsions. Dissident denominations were popping up and declaring their own runaway governments. So the main Muslim leader, known as the caliph, cracked down politically. Within a few generations, Islam saw the closing of something else--the gates of ijtihad. The 135 schools of thought were whittled down to only four, in which conservative Sunni teachings reigned. This in turn produced a rigid reading of the Quran as well as a series of legal opinions known as fatwas that scholars could no longer overturn or even question, but only imitate. With some glorious exceptions, that's what Muslim scholars have been doing to this day--imitating each other's medieval prejudices, without much introspection. In fact, after the gates of ijtihad were closed, innovation was deemed a crime. Tolerance took a severe beating as result. One of the enduring lessons of history is that whenever an empire becomes insular to "protect" itself, intellectual decline and cultural intolerance are sure to follow.

How can ijtihad be restored today?

I don't believe there's a single answer. There are multiple audiences, so there have to be multiple approaches. Take, for example, Muslims in the West. We may be best positioned to revive ijtihad because we already enjoy precious freedoms to think, express, challenge, and be challenged without fear of government reprisal. Muslims are immigrating to the West in bigger numbers than ever--which offers my generation a sterling opportunity to help the emerging generations reconcile their Muslim identity with their pluralistic reality. One approach, then, is to teach young Western Muslims about Islam's towering intellectual figures, so they understand there's nothing incongruent about being thoughtful and faithful simultaneously. Very few public schools or Islamic religious schools are teaching these themes. Project Ijtihad seeks to fill that gap.

In the Islamic world, I believe the key is to improve literacy so that Muslims can read the Quran for themselves and see the various options it offers them for self-respect--as well as respect of the "other." For instance, the Quran tells women it is their right to reject marriage. And if they choose to accept marriage, the Quran encourages them to negotiate a contract so that their interests are no less protected than their husband's. You could say Islam introduced the prenuptial before Elizabeth Taylor popularized it! Also, when women read the Quran, they will encounter verses that heap praise on Abraham, grandfather of the three monotheisms, as well as passages that describe Jews as members of the "exalted nation." A couple of separate verses even validate the sovereign role of Jews in the Holy Land. Self-serving clerics won't share any of this information. You have to be literate to get it.

Interviewer:  I understand that after you finished speaking at the Consultation on Conscience, you stayed for the remainder of the conference, engaging in conversations with progressive Jewish groups. What did you seek to learn, and what has remained with you?

"I wanted to learn whether it's true that if you put three Jews in a room, you'll get five opinions. I discovered that's a myth. You'll actually get seven opinions. Better still, you'll see how diversity of thought does not have to undermine community."
 

also;
http://www.ijtihad.org/Impose-Islam.htm

"We can prove that Muslims can live in harmony with non-Muslims and that the thesis of the clash of civilizations is bogus."

But only through enlightenment...
remembering the Byzantine era...
study what made the Byzantine era of Islam great.


Edited by Caringheart - 01 August 2012 at 4:13pm

i.dawa wrote: In other words muslims should remain silent and become like the followers of all the other religions. Muslims are not blood thirsty people "It was not that they worshipped these people, but rather whatever they made permissible for them, they believed it to be permissible and whatever they forbade, they believed to be unlawful. " (Hadith from Tirmidhi) So for us if a scholar bases his opinion on the quran and the sunnah and gives his understanding then we'll study this and if convincing enough then we'll act upon it because we are forbidden from following anyone other than the teachings of the Messenger (saw). I will address the issue of muslim and non muslim living in harmony later if Allah wills.

"In other words muslims should remain silent and become like the followers of all the other religions."

Actually it is saying the exact opposite... that Muslims should read their scriptures and learn to speak up.

Please people go and read and decide for yourselves.  It's why I share the links and not just say what I think.  Anything I say, please go and explore for yourselves.  I serve no purpose in being a stumbling block to any who might belong to God.

"Muslims are not blood thirsty people "

The links that I shared were exactly to show that point.
and I'm sorry, but the rest of i.dawa's comment is nothing but inflammatory, unnecessary, and wrong.  Do not allow yourselves to be inflamed by slanderous remarks.  He violates the commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness".  'Who stirs up trouble amongst you'.

"It was not that they worshipped these people, but rather whatever they made permissible for them, they believed it to be permissible and whatever they forbade, they believed to be unlawful. " (Hadith from Tirmidhi)

How is this any different than Muslims and Muhammad?  They all believed they spoke for God.