As a keen supporter of the return of the Khalifah (not to be confused with the unconscionable IS) I have bought a ticket to this exciting event taught by Professor Jonathan A C Brown:
The one day seminar will explore the following topics:
• What is Islamic governance?
• Role of the caliph
• Social & economic systems
• Historical Islamic states
• Religious tolerance
• Judicial system
• Foreign policy
• Absence of Khilafah
Professor Jonathan A C Brown holds the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization and is an Associate Professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington DC. He is also the Associate Director at Georgetown’s Center for Muslim Christian Understanding.
Insight ›
Categories: Islam
Blogging Theology 
This is awesome!! Hope its online.
LikeLiked by 1 person
i’m sure it will be recorded – if only by MI5
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL!!!!!
LikeLike
why should anyone (apart from a card carrying Muslim that is) be a keep (sic) supporter of the return of a despotic system like the Caliphate?
LikeLike
oops thanks for pointing out the spelling error!
Historically the Khalifah has brought shelter to Jews persecuted by Christians and Christians persecuted by other Christians. At is best it is just and enlightened system, allowing real freedom to practice ones religion, which is denied in many ways in the West currently.
LikeLike
why should anyone in his right mind wish to swap Western democracy with all its admitted imperfections for a perpetual theocratic dictatorship?
the Caliphate was an expansionist empire that brought untold suffering in its wake…
“all power to the Caliph” …. as the example of the Soviet Union in the last century clearly shows, such Millenarian movements after the initial orgy of bloodletting, settle down to a long periods of suffocating stasis
the jizyah was at various times imposed at quite ruinous rates under the Caliphate as an effective instrument of Islamicization …so much for tolerance of Christians
LikeLike
Zozo
some facts: I am not under contract to you to answer any of your questions just because you demand I do so. Who do you think you are!? You clearly have a big chip on your shoulder about islam. I am not inclined to psychoanalyse you or pander to your interminable points.
lastly you clearly are ‘alarmed’ by my lack of knowledge etc. Well, tough. Why not push off elsewhere? I think we would both be a lot happier if you did…
LikeLike
“Historically the Khalifah has brought shelter to Jews persecuted by Christians and Christians persecuted by other Christians. At is best it is just and enlightened system, allowing real freedom to practice ones religion, which is denied in many ways in the West currently.”
As per usual, you have demonstrated a lack of awareness. You’ve limited yourself to the esoteric writings of a few men, who decide to selectively
There have been serious attempts at revising the historical narrative, particularly on the whims of interpolation, and people thinking they’re placing hadiths within its context but are in fact are taking them out. One example is the treatment of “whoever disbelieves after believing, kill him”, where people have suggested that in order to commit the death penalty, the person must also act against the state. This is partially true, but not in the sense that modernists believe. To disbelieve after believing is to act against the state (there is some literature on this, where the political ambitions are to be protected, and to extent becoming so interwoven in its theology as well), although the person may have not acted alongside anyone else or harmed anyone. The mere public announcement of apostasy is thought to be a cause for fitna, and should be addressed (look no further than the Ridda wars, and the multiple civil wars Islam experienced after Muhammad’s death). Some individuals have therefore used the hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud (Vol. 4, no. 4353, p. 126) as way of highlighting how “leaving the faith” and the death penalty must also accompany “a man who went out fighting against God and His Messenger”, but the issue with this statement is that fighting here is not elucidated. Instead, what is left out by these modernists is the following hadith within the same compilation that is precisely used to explain what “separates from the Jama’ah” means:
Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 5, no. 4502 (Sahih): “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three cases: Kufr after accepting Islam, Zina after getting married, or murder.” By Allah, I did not commit Zinã during Jãhiliyyah nor during Islam, nor would I like to have another religion (instead of Islam) since Allah guided me, and I have not killed anyone, so why would they kill me?” (Sahih) AbU Dawud said: ‘Uthmãn and AbU Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them) both gave up Khamr during Jahili3yah.
There’s a strict exposition that would interlink “kufr after accepting Islam” with not wanting any other faith; there’s no mention of fighting Muhammad or God in the sense of having to physically act against the state. Instead, spiritual/theological betrayal – the mere rejection of Islam and Muhammad’s prophet – is transformed as a physical rebellion against Muhammad’s leadership (Q5:33 is associated with the ‘Ukl tribe incident, and is a completely irrelevant subject).
Hence, we have the case of Abu Musa doing the following: “A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Muadh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Muadh asked, “What is wrong with this (man)?” Abu Musa replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.” Muadh said, “I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle”. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 93, Hadith 21)
“An Arab man who had embraced Christianity was brought before Ali. Ali asked him to repent, but the man refused to comply and Ali killed him. Then a group of people who performed their (Muslim) prayers while being zanadiqa was brought before him. Trustworthy witnesses testified against them to this effect. They denied the charge and said: “We have no religion except the religion of Islam.” Ali killed them without asking for their repentance. Then he said: “Do you know why I asked the Christian to repent? I asked him to repent because he practiced his religion openly. As for the zanadiqa, I killed them because they denied the charge after a proof had been brought against them”
And in the following Zarkashi, Sharh, vol. 6, p. 264, no. 3099; Khallal, Ahl al-milal, pp. 526–527 (no. 1339); Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni, vol. 8, p. 141; Ibn Taymiyya, al-Sarim al-maslul, p. 360. The tradition about Ali’s punishment of the zanadiqa is repeatedly reported in the hadıth literature in a different form: a group of zanadiqa who had renounced Islam were brought before Ali. He ordered a fire to be kindled and threw them into the fire, together with their books. When this came to the attention of Ibn Abbas, he said that he would have killed them because of the man baddala[…] hadith, but would not have burned them because “the Prophet forbade the Muslims to torture with the torture of God” (lu tu adhhdhibu bi-adhab Allah). In this version, Ali also does not ask for the repentance of the zanadiqa, but this is not the point of the story. This version is used to oppose execution by fire. See, for instance, Tahawi, Mushkil al-athar, vol. 4, p. 63. To add, the discrepancy between the Sunni/Shia literature is not on whether an apostate should be killed or not, this is not even partially debated, but if repentance can be accepted, the gender of the individual, the punishment itself — Shia fiqh allows for burning by fire, whereas Sunni does not — and whether the person publicly announced their apostasy or not (Malik would suggest that those who kept quiet regarding their apostasy should be killed without any chance to repent, whereas those who publicly announce it should be given a chance to repent — Yusuf Qaradawi proposes the exact opposite).
“Ali ibn Jafar said, “I asked him about a Muslim who became Christian.” He answered, “He should be killed and not be asked to seek forgiveness.” Then I asked: “What about a Christian who becomes a Muslim and then turns away from Islam (i.e., becomes murtad)?” He replied, “He should be asked to seek forgiveness; so if he returns (to Islam, then okay), otherwise he should be killed.” (al-Kafi, vol. 7, p. 257; Sahih (for questions on authenticity, see Sayyid Abu ‘l-Qāsim al-Khā’i, Mabāni Takmilati Minhāji ‘s-Sālihiyn, vol. 1, pp. 324-337)
The zanadiqa (or heretics) that are mentioned in the above, are the same ones mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 88, Hadith 5 — “Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”, and this is further indicated in the following (al-Kafi, vol. 7, p.257; Sahih)…
“Muhammad b. Yaqub from Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Ibn Abi Umayr from Hisham b. Salim from Abu Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: A group came to Amir al-Mumineen عليه السلام, and they said: Peace be upon you, O our Lord! So he sought their repentance, but they did not repent. So he dug a pit for them and lit a fire in it and dug a pit to its other side and conveyed between them (i.e. joined the two pits to one another). So when they did not repent he threw them in the pit and lit (the fire) in the other pit until they died”.
Their punishment is not because of a political fight against the Islamic state, but a spiritual one, where the recognition of Ali as God is considered as a form of murtad (if one is to recognise Ali’s Godship after initially believing in Islam in the traditional sense). One may suggest that these belong to Abdullah ibn Saba’s men, which is possibly true — but these men were not recognised for doing anything other than spewing spiritual kafirism, something of which reciprocated in the death penalty. To suggest that the death apostasy is only instated towards those who actively physically fight or confer against the state, is purely ahistorical and runs contrary to the fundamentals within extra-Qur’ānic (and Qur’ānic) literature. I’m currently in the process of ironing out the severe inaccuracies within S. A. Rahman, Taha Jabir Alalwani, and Mahmoud Ayoub’s work on apostasy in Islam — but there’s an unfortunate play of revisionism, where scripture is being directly ignored (cf. the case of the Arab Muslim who converted to Christianity, zanadiqa, ignoring the realities of Q9:74, etc,). But this is critical in understanding the spiritual services a Jew and a Christian provided; that of which were thoroughly denied, both in this world and the hereafter.
” At is best it is just and enlightened system, allowing real freedom to practice ones religion, which is denied in many ways in the West currently.”
Right, because Muhammad did not expel non-Muslims from the jazīrat al-ʻArab (although believed to be contained to Mecca, Medina, and Yemen)? Did Muhammad not send men to get rid of Dhi al-Khalasa, and to remove any men who were to resist (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 80, Hadith 30)? Did Muhammad not send Khalid ibn Walid, in order to coerce the polytheists of Banu Harith to convert to Islam, without permitting the possibilities of jizya? Did Muhammad not stone those who commit adultery (Sahih Muslim, Book 29, Hadith 43)? It’s an enlightened system apparently, but it’s only “enlightened” if you’re restricted your field-of-view to Sufi interpolation and ramblings, of which are mostly ahistorical and are almost entirely composed of esoteric eisgesis of Qur’ānic literature.
“Christians and Christians persecuted by other Christians. ”
And Christians who are persecuted by Muslims? See above of such persecution.
“allowing real freedom to practice ones religion, which is denied in many ways in the West currently.”
Because imposing an institution that is formed on “Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.” (Q98:6) is the most theoretical way of ensuring equality, never mind the lack of practical freedom (once again, as highlighted above)?
You have yet to answer my remarks on Islamic “mercy” and “love” either. But you’re entitled to do whatever you wish with your time. But as I have mentioned beforehand, your bias — or lack of knowledge — is alarming, particularly for an individual who has decided to publicise his “faith”.
LikeLike
Forgot to edit:
————————
As per usual, you have demonstrated a lack of awareness. You’ve limited yourself to the esoteric writings of a few men, who were obvious with their bias selection of literature.
———————–
LikeLike
zozo Al-Maslawi
You said;
Right, because Muhammad did not expel non-Muslims from the jazīrat al-ʻArab (although believed to be contained to Mecca, Medina, and Yemen)? Did Muhammad not send men to get rid of Dhi al-Khalasa, and to remove any men who were to resist (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 80, Hadith 30)? Did Muhammad not send Khalid ibn Walid, in order to coerce the polytheists of Banu Harith to convert to Islam, without permitting the possibilities of jizya? Did Muhammad not stone those who commit adultery (Sahih Muslim, Book 29, Hadith 43)? It’s an enlightened system apparently, but it’s only “enlightened” if you’re restricted your field-of-view to Sufi interpolation and ramblings, of which are mostly ahistorical and are almost entirely composed of esoteric eisgesis of Qur’ānic literature.
I say;
What is wrong with you? You hate Islam so much and unfairly attacking it with the same things that can be found in worse forms in Bible and Christianity. Adultery is both a serious offence in Judaism, Islam and Christianity and punishable by death, but you keep insincerely attacking Islam on the same things that can be found in Christianity. I think it is unfair on your part and you are so wicked to be doing that. If you are an atheist or Hindu, Buddhist, voodoo etc. i.e. if you are not a Christian or Muslim and you keep attacking Islam on these things that will be fair and in that case you have to attach both Islam and Christianity.
You forgot your Christianity that clearly state this from your Bible?
Levitucus 20:10
New International Version
“‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death
You are very, very wicked to ignore the above in the Christian Bible and to attack Islam alone.
Leviticus 21:9 “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.”
Exodus 20:14 “You shall not commit adultery.”
We clearly see that adultery causes death from the Verses above. Let us see what Jesus peace be upon him said about adultery:
The following Verses are from the NIV Bible:
Matthew 19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Wouldn’t this cause the man to be put to death?
Mark 10:11 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.” Again, wouldn’t he then be put to death since he would have committed adultery?
Mark 10:12 “And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” Same question I ask about the women who are considered have committed adultery. Wouldn’t they be put to death also?
Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
My question here is: Would an adulterer in the New Testament be put to death?
Keep in mind that when Jesus gave the above laws, he gave them during the time when he spoke highly of the Old Testament’s Law:
Jesus orders Christians to follow the Old Testament’s laws: “Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)” It is quite clear from these verses from the New Testament that Jesus peace be upon him did honor the Old Testament and did say that every single “letter” of it has to be honored, followed and fulfilled.
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’ (Matthew 23:1-3)” We clearly see in these verses that Jesus peace be upon him did not prohibit for the Old Testament to be followed, but only warned his followers to not follow it the way the current religious leaders of the Law (the Jewish Rabies) were following it.
So according to Jesus peace be upon him, the adulterer in the New Testament must be put to death.
Question to Christians:
I noticed here by living in the US, that more than 50% of the population is divorced. People divorce each others, and marry other people and still attend Churches and consider themselves Christians.
My question to those people is: Aren’t you violating the laws of the Bible?
Do not fool yourself, the West is now not controlled by Christians but controlled by secularists or liberalists and they have to overcome the Christians by fighting them and brought religious freedom in the west. When the West was controlled by the Church, there was no religious freedom, hence the persecution of Catholics by protestants and the persecution of protestants by Catholics and Mormons were persecuted by protestants in the USA and some of them run to Mexico until the war of independence. For Muslims and other religions before the liberalist took over from the Christians, you either force convert or die.
This never happens in Islamic civilization as you can find indigenous Jews, Buddhists, Christians in Muslim dominated lands of Iraq, Iran, Morocco, Egypt, Yemen etc. from the time of Christ and before Christ till today. The Iraqi Christians are the oldest Christians and they are there today and Islam did not persecute them. Fanatics like isis and their likes does not speak for Islam as these Christians were there for centuries with Muslims and there are no major problems. There could be some misunderstandings from time to time as brothers can misunderstand each other but not a major blow out like how the Christians killed and blew out all Jews and Muslims from Spain without a trace of remaining practicing Muslims or Jew in Spain after the Christians took over.
You said;
Because imposing an institution that is formed on “Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.” (Q98:6) is the most theoretical way of ensuring equality, never mind the lack of practical freedom (once again, as highlighted above)?
I say;
Matthew 7:21-23 (New International Version)
21″Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Mr. zozo, you hypocrite, does Jesus showed love here? I mean in the verse above. Without doing what Jesus Father wants both he and his Father will not allow you heaven and the opposite of heaven is hell so do not bring yourself and be sincere when attacking Islam and add Christianity to it. Anything you bring against Islam, I will bring the same if not worse from Christianity.
You keep accusing the God of Islam for not loving who do not listen to Him and Jesus does not love those who do not fear him and his father and why are you not criticizing Jesus but Islam alone? Because you are insincere.
9999999999999999
Luke 12:4&5 “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.”
9999999999999999
If you do not fear the God of Jesus, He will throw you into hell. Where is the love here? Mr. zozo? It is the same as “disbelievers” in Islam. Disbelievers do not fear God and will not listen to His words and will not follow His laws etc. and it is the same warning from Jesus that his God must be feared, otherwise you are hell bound.
We know the definition of hell and it is not a good place to be, be it Christian or a Muslim hell. I do not think the Christian hell is a place of enjoyment but a place of punishment.
Be sincere to criticize both Islam and Christianity and that will make you fair, but not a hypocrite as you are right now.
Watch. Christians are confused. Does their God punishes the person doing the sin or the sin?
Thanks.
LikeLike