The Muslim Tearoom

[HardlyEverHoovers]

Salaams/peace to all! I'm already missing our old thread, so taking the bull by the horns and opening our very own Muslim Tearoom, all welcome (non-Muslims too of course), to chat, share, ask questions etc etc. Imagine a cosy cafe with floor cushions, tea and coffee of all kinds, and lovely cakes! Please join me!

I am feeling very disillusioned. So tired of these political games that are being played out at the expense of these tiny children.

Can anybody help but put their own child's face to those syrian children's face and then cower in terror. Some mother or some father watched their baby go through that. Those babies.....their struggle for breath is haunting me. How their parents endured that anguish.....i dont know.

I will also inshallah give some sadqah, but the amount feels pathetic given the turmoil and strife that is happening in syria.

I understand what you mean hopping regarding people wanting to ignore stuff that is not happening to them. It really annoys me too. Are we as humans so selfish that we only want to feel for ourselves...that we dont have time for anybody else. How can you sit content in your own life when these things could happen to you too. Its Allah's mercy that we are protected from it and it is our job to do what we can to protect others. Dua and sadaqah are my efforts - may Allah remove the strife of the oppressed and grant them reward for their endurance. Ameen.

There is some difference of opinion re the rebellion against a leader/showing obedience and remaining patient. Its not clear cut or as black and white as we wish it were. Some people say the ahadith speak of a time when there was one caliphate and one Amir, so it does not apply in this day and age of kings and regimes, so it is ok to rebel. Others say this is not true and it applies to all leaders regardless.

Personally nearly all the narration I have come across where it states to not show disobedience to the ruler is as long as they establish prayer - prayer understood to be their ruling of undisputed laws in accordance to Islam - and nor do they openly commit kufr. So if they openly reject the tenets of Islam like Zakat, Salah, then that would result in kufr.
I had a rather interesting discussion with a relative on this topic just today in fact, he is highly educated Islamically and a walking talking ahadith/fiqh encyclopaedia! According to him, the consensus amongst the traditional scholars is that no it is not permissible to revolt against a leader be he oppressive or otherwise, unless he 1. openly commits kufr and 2. The al-Bughaat have enough manpower, weaponry etc (to be in for a chance of winning thus avoiding unnecessary loss of life).

In the case of Syria, it is permissible as Rafidah alawi leaders are outside of the Sunnah and Jama'ah. In Egypt, the revolt against Mobarak was questionable however the peole were great in number and successful, and then Morsi was elected by the people so became the next leader. It is the military who have wreaked havoc against the appointed leader, so the people have every right to fight this fitna and stand by their appointed leader. Al azhar mufti Dr Ali Gomaa has given a fatwa calling the MB and their followers Khwarij. I mean wtf, how is that exactly??

The games of Saudis yes, very frustrating. Fact is they greatly fear the MB. Perhaps they do not see the Shia as an equal threat, perhaps its all in preparation of the Dajjal, I mean who knows what is really going on. We do know they are hypocrites of the highest order, I read a quote once which made me laugh bitterly how with one hand a million dollars get spent by a Saudi monarch in Las Vegas casinos, and with the other millions are spent on the expansion and renovation of the Holy Masjid.

Ameen Allahumma ameen. I know defuse :( last night I lay with my two babies cuddling them and just kept thinking, them parents had no idea this would happen. How can we live with such complacency and so carefree thinking we will never be affected by such events and tribulations. It can happen to anyone anywhere.

I was sent a link to a youtube video of a young child of about two or three fighting for breath, the medic frantically helping with the ventilator but the childs little lungs gave up and passed away before their eyes. Made me bawl my eyes out, that poor baby. how can anyone ignore this genocide of 100,000 HUMANS murdered.

There are no easy answers. What is happening in Egypt and Syria is that their populations are divided into two camps with very different lifestyles and viewpoints. It doesn't even matter which side the majority is on, because there will be no liberal democratic protection of minority rights, no compromise.

It is an existential struggle

No you havent killed the thread, have been meaning to post but as soon as I take out the phone/tablet, two small sets of hands suddenly appear next to me to grab and press buttons

I found this very interesting so thought you may too, not directly relevant but we can draw some comparisons.
Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmoo al Fatawaa, mentions of two groups. First is the group hadhrat Abu Bakr fought because they withheld zakaah. Second is the group of khwaarij in Nahrawan who hadhrat Ali fought. He writes that the al-Bughaat, or those who rebel, refuse to follow and try to remove a leader have a different status to the two groups, as the others have dissented from Islam.
I have to say I had never heard of this war against the zakaah-holders, so refusing to uphold this pillar is considered a grave act to commit. He mentions the same applies to those who refuse to follow or implement hajj, or to fast or violate the blood and wealth of others, even if they pronounce the shahadatayn as even the khwaarij are known for their unsound piety.
Of course this only applies to a group of people and not the leader, as the ahadith tell us to follow him be he moral or immoral, except in certain circumstances.

Hadhrat Ali faced rebellious people in Basra and Sham, but he fought them differently to the khwaarij. He fought them as brothers would brothers, and his way with thr khwaarij was not like that. Compare this to the genocide are so called leaders are committing agsinst their rebels! You are so right with the 'if i cant have you noone can' type mentality of leaders like Assad.

Ibn Taymiyyah also writes there are proven ahadith which established the consensus of Sahabah for the actions of Abu Bakr and Ali, unlike the fitna of people in Basra and Sham - where the sahabah disagreed as it was muslims fighting muslims.
So really those leaders and scholars etc who are labelling the current rebels as khwaarij are no different to the takfiris who accuse the leaders of kufr, without concrete proof.

Many of the scholars today agree if you have the means to bring about change through peaceful means it is ok to do so, but are unanimous it is best not to rebel as it will lead to greater fitna, as a general rule Islam says not to fight evil with evil. And rebelling would cause chaos, oppression, destruction, loss of life and much more. Especially when your leader possesses chemical weapons it seems I like Ibn Taymiyyahs stance on this, he gives the hadith -
'There will be unjust, disloyal, and immoral leaders. Whoever believes in them, in spite of their lies, and helps them, he is not of me and I am not of him and he will not reach the hawdh.....'
Therefore the Prophet saw forbade helping the unjust in their injustice and he writes it is better to follow the middle way - between the khwaarij and the Murji'ah who follow the path of complete obedience to the rulers, even if they are unrighteous.

And no, there is not a chance in hell things can be resolved peacefully in Syria or Egypt, the military will never kiss and make up with the ousted MB members and followers and vice versa. They are quite likely being tortured in the notorious prisons as I type. Those who have lost everything will want to ensure their loved ones did not die in vain. What the solution is, I have no idea. I guess this is the catastrophe they try to prevent by suggesting obedience to the leader even if he is a tyrant.

Just watched al jazeera - literally 5 seconds of it...... A father clutching his two children - both dead.

The father's cry...his tears, his grief. I can't take it. I am so filled with hatred towards assad. I am probably being very simplistic about this, but assad's wife is supposed to e an educated liberal - does she not see the pure evil infliction that her husband is wholly responsible for? Is she also blinded by power? What is there to gain from all this? The tears of a father, the hatred of a nation and the torment of yawm al qiyamah?

crescent - re "how do you think that violent secularism can be met - as secularism is in the middle east its completely different from secularism in the West - with anything except violence?"

Let's talk about how "secularism" (separation of religion & state) is different in the ME. The difficulty in the ME is that nearly all of the population adheres to a religion that says it should be involved in all areas of life, including politics and the justice system. It works when the population is slightly better educated and less fundamentalist like in Turkey, but even then the problems are well known. In places like Egypt and Syria, secular states tend to be enforced from the top by dictators.

The problem is has much deeper roots than meeting "violent secularism" with violence. A large chunk of the population wants Islamist rule. Another large chunk of the population wants to live in the 21st century (sorry ). Is it possible to avoid civil war even if Assad gives up and goes away?

crescent - I thought you were referring to the difference between secular states in the ME and those in the Western world. Were you comparing the ME to Arab monarchies?

"Religion became the refuge of the masses against corruption and repression"

Well, hand on heart, you have to admit that the same religion was the refuge of the same peoples in that religion before current regimes were established or got corrupt & repressive. Religion is indeed a very effective crutch refuge.

Coming back to secular states - Separation of religion & state isn't a problem in Western states although much of the population are religious. Non-secular states are not a problem for their non-religious citizens, either, because they don't meddle with anyone's lives.

But Muslim countries are always simmering with discontent on this issue - why? Could it be that when Islamists take power, liberties of the non-religious part of the population are curtailed & when secularists take power the religious part of the population can't realise their ideals of gender segregation, mandatory fasting and covering up of all women etc?

crescent - I agree with you re Mossadeq in Iran. Yet another example of America's international meddling bringing lasting harm to an entire country.

Iran is a cautionary tale for the ME. No moderate Muslim in this region lives a single day without worrying about whether his own country might one day "be an Iran".

Most people in Muslim countries are uneducated, rural, poor, religious, politically short-sighted and easy to sway. (I'm not being patronising - it is what it is). People vote for Islamist parties because they will not be corrupt (a false expectation) and will give them small benefits if not redistribution of wealth, as you say. In many cases, votes have been bought literally with a bag of beans or can of heating oil.

There would probably be no problem if these religious parties were just conservative democrats - "Muslim democrats", like the Christian Democrats of Europe. But no, they don't even hide the fact that they are using democratic elections to come to power but will be changing the system at the earliest opportunity, to create a state ruled by Sharia.

This might be fine if not wonderful news for you, but it is SCARY for moderate Muslims who want to live in the 21st century. It is TERRIFYING for non-Muslims or the non-religious.

This is the problem. Even if the majority votes these guys in, even assuming this majority knows what kind of future they have voted for do you think they should be able to impose an Islamist state and a segregated, forcefully religious life on the rest?

Salaam all. Are there any face to face meet ups arranged?

Salaam all. Are there any face to face meet ups ararnged?

crescent - Sorry, I neglected to come back to this thread.

I really wish you would answer the question in my last post, because I am interested in your answer:

Even if the majority votes an Islamist government to power (even assuming this majority knows what kind of future they have voted for) do you think they should be able to impose an Islamist state and a segregated, forcefully religious life on the rest of the population?

"the existential crisis in the middle east is much more than the freedom to drink yourself stupid"

Of course it is. This is the struggle between people who want to stay in the 7th Century BC and those who want to live in the 21st Century BC. The freedoms at stake are not limited to recreational substances.

"you need to have the wealth to pick up the pieces of 'free choice'. a rich country like the UK may be able to afford to spend £20 billion a year on the effects of alcohol abuse, but can poor countries like Egypt? Pakistan? Bangladesh afford to do so?"

I think you are rather optimistic in how much of their citizens' health care is funded by these developing countries Anyway, if they are not banning cigarettes which cause some very expensive ailments like lung cancer in about half of all smokers, why should they ban alcohol which leads to addiction and ill health in a small minority of consumers?

What would your excuse be for mandatory fasting during the month of Ramadan? That poor countries can't afford to feed their citizens for the whole 12 months of the year?

"i know that with you, from many previous conversations, even wearing a hijab is fundamentalist enough"

Err, wearing the hijab results from a" literal interpretation of the holy book", which is the definition of the word "fundamentalism". If you have an argument against this, let's hear it.

In contrast, a non-fundamentalist view would be "Quran talks about wrapping the head cover around you but those were people who lived in the desert in the 7th Century so that would be their normal clothing. I will take the message of that passage (which is modesty) but I don't necessarily have to dress like an Arab in 7th Century". Just like Christians who go around burning witches or killing gay men would be called "fundamentalists", because they are following the exact words of the holy book rather than focusing on the message.