" it's like your waiting for each other to slip, so you can write a refutation of one another" Modern Sunnism is this: "I will fight you all until I realise I have no other friends", this state of affairs I do not expect will go away until at least ten years or a major holocaust against Sunnis in England.
Why does everyone on this forum come across as sensitive, or try to make contention out of every comment made lol, it's like your waiting for each other to slip, so you can write a refutation of one another. in attempt to not sound like a hipster, show some love lol
Syed Badshaho take it easy. Obviously aH was referring to "Exposition", because he answered a question that aH asked to HamzaTR.
I did not say anything about you, I said "You know more about Islamic sects" in relation to Exposition's statement, "unlike most sunnis, who have no clue about the nuances of different deviant ideologies". I was saying you know a lot about Islamic sects. Did that offend you?
i didn't ask anyone else and btw, i too can state my perception of what 'he' meant. i was asking the original questioner for a reason.
Haha, yeah the Islamic feminists is simply western Women's Lib. in an Islamic Garb And the Jihadi groups are nothing more than bandits and scumbags, perpetuating the same Communism vs. Capitalism, Left Hand path versus Right Hand Path dichotomy (to use Dr. Omar Zaid's terminology [see. 'zaidpub' website for a more developed view on 'deviance' and 'innovators' to see how the interact with the entire spectrum of Satanic ideology, 'Cain's Creed', 'Trinity: Metamorphosis of Myth', etc] that typifies all 'deviant' human activity. They are communists in an Islamic garb. They are equally Sabaites in a 'Salafi' garb. They are all basically changing costumes quite an awful lot, like Count Olaf in 'A Series of Unfortunate Events'. The Sabaites were the group who were comprised of persian converts to Islam who rallied under the cult leadership of Abdullah Ibn Saba and murdered Caliph Uthman in his house. They were bandits, and Jihadi groups are bandits. The important thing to notice for all people is the dichotomy: either extreme decadent or secularist, or extreme revolutionary and simply 'Khariji' no other word for it. Where the middle path of Ahlus Sunnah, i.e. 'we love you all but well go to war with you if you deny paying zakat' disappears as an authority in society, then the two hands of Iblis appear, one pulling the strings on the Left, so youll have a really despicable despot like Nawaz Sharif, and then an equally loopy 'Islamic'/ 'Revolutionary' group, like Tahir ul Qadri to rally the ignorant masses into rebellion against their leader. A just state will not emerge until people pursue a) moral rectification and removal of hidden shirk/vices and b) study and agree upon the fundamental elements of Islamic doctrine. For everyone else, they need to pursue both a) and b) and find some moderate manner of bringing these two objectives into the public agenda, with the mindframe that political justice wont be attained unless the people are aware of the importance of the first two elements.
Appreciated Brother, You seem in touch with contemporary issues, unlike most sunnis, who have no clue about the nuances of different deviant ideologies. All they know is wahabhi, deobandi and shia, deviant groups have modified and evolved and integrated their western and liberal thought within muslims. We need more brothers like you in the public sphere who are classically trained and have a good grasp on the on the nuances of secular and western ideology. We all know the forefather that opened the gateway to these liberal and secular movements, it was 'salafism' they are all one in the same. for example feminism has an interesting history, particularly with it's introduction to the Muslim world. The forefathers of 'islamic' feminism were in love with the western lifestyle, big fans of darwin, blamed a nations weakness on hijab/niqab qasim amin and huda sha'arawi where the first muslim feminists in egypt, They corrupted the very fabric of Islamic society, The former was a student of liberal reformer muhammed abduh, who was also a freemason. Tal at Harb argued that the emancipation of women was just another plot to weaken the Egyptian nation and disseminate immorality and decadence in its society. He criticized Egyptians who desired to ape the west and claimed that there was a European imperialist design to project a negative image of the position of Muslim women. Muslims calling themselves “Feminist” to advocate women’s rights makes as much sense as Muslims going to an alcoholic bar to drink water. then you have the Khalifa hippies propagate the idea that we must adhere to their version of 'true' Islam to unshackle ourselves from the ills of society and that true faith is the cure of all our problems, establish the caliphate and and we'll be doing jumping jacks in unison which will bring an end to every aliment to strike mankind. Just watch a video of these 'sharia' marches and it's full of idealistic nutjobs parroting empty rhetoric and slogans. I Would argue the vast majority of groups calling for khilafa today are no better then communists, In fact, much of their language has been borrowed and Islamicised. Take a careful look at the Islamic State. Infact read Hizb's Al-Qanun al-Idari and tell me if it's any different from works by Marx et al, the only difference is the call for dictatorship.
The only english books that serve to highlight the pro-Western agenda of the 'Salafiyya', namely, Muhammad Abduh, his teacher, Afghani, their student, Rashid Rida, and that type of group: 1. Elie Kedourie, who wrote 'An Essay on Religious Unbelief', which highlighted the 'unislamicness' of Afghani and Abduh in opposition to the trend of lavish praise heaped upon them by their biographers which were either 1) Orientalists who trained them in 'the arts of espionage', e.g. E.G Browne, Goldziher's article on them on EI 2 looks like a type of 'naat'. Or 2) Their own student, e.g. Rashid Rida, who wrote on the Life of Muhammad Abduh. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Afghani_and_Abduh.html?id=X6Br6gAdhM8C 2. The modern conspiracy-writer/historian, David Livingstone, who does not really have any grounding in the Islamic intellectual tradition, but who identifies Afghani, Abduh and the Salafiyya as central in the Western political advancement in the Middle East and as members of Masonic groups, has mentioned a small segment on them in his books 'Surrendering Islam' and 'Terrorism and the Illuminati', which you can read online. 3. Huseyn Hilmi Isik, who was a chemistry professor and also wrote the most significant Sunni heresiographical works in English in the past 50 years, has mentioned the Salafiyya in his book 'Islam's Reformers', but in very brief detail with very little objective observation. He also has a refutation of Rashid Rida's Muhawarat, which he wrote using his pseudonym, Ahmed Cevdat Pasha, which was called 'Answer to an Enemy of Islam'.
I've yet to find any books in english in refutation of 'islamic feminism' 'liberalism' and the methodologies of their forefathers i.e Jamaluddin Afghani , Muhammad Abduh, qasim amin etc
Anyone else out there who is into this stuff, do some research on this issue to let us know what is actually going on.
Surprising you mentioned muhammad abduh, as I've been reading about the liberal and feminist movements in egypt that where initiated by his ilk, one of the nadwi scholars has a book refuting him
Also, Hanafi fiqh is not uniform, there are weaker opinions and stronger opinions, and many people use loopholes looking for weaker opinions and rukhsa, so be specific as to where you have found these verdicts. On a different note, unrelated to the specific questioner, HamzaTR, these days, whenever someone wants a loophole, they go to Hanafi fiqh, this is insulting. THere was one case recently I witnessed of an individual who asked a Mufti, 'I want to have nikah without permission of the wali, I heard that there is permission for this in the Hanafi maddhab', other than attaining corrupt aims through pathetic loopholes, most Sunni laypeople, especially youth, are not interested in the 'legal philosophy of Abu Hanifa', but just 'easy options', for which they resort to 'Hanfi Muftis'. Any brothers out there who deal with others who have legal questions, check the agenda of the person who is asking, and dont be like Muhammad Abduh, who used shoddy reason to legalise usurious banking in Egypt at the request of Lord Cromer, Islamic law aims for justice, not loopholes.
I left the question mark out, but i think this is what the fella was talking about. I've heard some aalims and muftis give the ruling that, i've stated below, always sounded weird to me, they usually reference fatwa alamgiri
That doesnt sound correct. I have read something concerning a woman's right to be engaged for nikah but to refuse on the day of the ceremony, but nothing similar to the right of a man to agree to nikah with the stipulation for divorce. Its like saying, 'I intend to sell you something, then later blow it up'.
You can conduct the nikah with the intention of getting divorced in the future, but you dont have a timeframe in mind or stipulate a timeframe
