A reply to a comment that equates adhering to commands in the sunnah, with fanatism and encouraging violence, and about dhimmitude and caliphates

I recieved the comment below on my post http://ilovehishmatheblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/i-hate-but-that-was-1400-years-ago-as.html about Muslims that want to reject something in Islam using the excuse of something happening 1400 years making an order from Allah or the Messenger invalid or seperate from our beautiful religion of Islam as it is meant to be practiced.

I did not feel great about the comment because I felt publishing of it would require I reply to it but would thus be pointing out the flaws in a known person, but also, since it was signed, and thus adheres to my moderation requirements, I felt I had to, and the sister would be insulted if I didn't. So I made it anonymous as a seperate post. Dear sister, please, I hope you find this to be in line with what you were aiming for.

My response:

Hi {----------}, I am sorry, but your comment made little sense to me.

I do appreciate you taking the time to write your conscience down, but I feel that perhaps English is not your first language or you are not at a highschool level of it [assumption based on the English grammar and your allusion to this news item in regards to your politics and perception of mine from Pakistan way of BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12111831], and you do not understand me well enough (or have enough of a background on Islamci history) to debate the principles of pure tauhid according to the Sunnah & Qu’ran against Sufism.

In addition, I doubt your Islamic understandings due to your misuse of terms for sects and madhabs on other blogs already, such as calling people “fanatics” or “wahabis” for citing authentic ahadith for istilaal, unaware as you are that no Muslim is a “wahabi”. These are my assumptions on the evidences presented, and may Allah guide me, ameen.

Knowing your limitations thus, it would be unfair for me to engage in an attempt of Islamic discourse with you. Debate in ignorance [and you are uninformed as evidences by a continuous or even purposeful misuse of terms] leads to hurt feelings and rash judgments, and separation among the Muslims. That would be a sin on my part I am not enthused to carry to the grave and be punished for, and certainly not to do so publically in the comments section. Thus, your name was removed from the comment.

Since I had nowhere else to appeal to your conscience but the comments bar, I will answer your concerns thusly, as they address the miseducation and misdirection of many.

First, I apologize for your disappointment in my blog. As I understand it, you do not understand me at all. I forgive you for accusing me of a murderous idealogy, when you wrote:
“Is pixie any better than someone who killed Governor Taseer in Pakistan? How much time will it take for person with such ideology to hold guns than just words.”

Firstly, to explain your erred reasoning, my [Pixie here] belief is that Governor Taseer was murdered http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12111831 .

Your perception of my Islam is biased with your cultural/social politics and miseducation, common with some of the Pakistani sufi community, and relatively illiterate (as per Islamic texts) new converts in the sufi communities [I am generalizing, note, not all Sufis come with these hang ups and I've met some profound and educated ones], same goes for this prevalence among anyone unversed in the Seerah/Prophet's life and Islamic History:

I, [Pixie, who you would, abusing/misusing the term, label “Wahabi”], believe Governor’s Taseer killer is a murderer because

A. Taseer’s murderer did not kill Taseer in the defense of his life, or in defense of his personal property.

B. If Taseer were guilty of a crime in his religion (which there is no evidence of, to my opinion and education, that he ever WAS) any criminal to Islam in Shariah must have a trial, he cannot just be “killed”. Even if the person you kill WAS guilty according to Shariah, if they are not tried and sentenced ACCORDING to shariah, then the person that killed them IS ALSO A MURDERER.

C. Violence/killing and treason have nothing to do WITH blasphemy in Salafism/Islam of the Prophet’s time. Yes, there are conditions in Shariah law for apostates being killed, this means in Shariah, there are DIFFERENT CONDITIONS OF BLASPHEMY, but never, in cases of true blasphemy in the Seerah, was an earthly punishment cleaved out by men and their rule in Shariah. The punishment for blasphemy is apostasy with Allah Himself. I personally, think that’d be punishment enough. As I posted here http://ilovehishmatheblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/islam-as-house-judging-intentions-of.html Muslims CANNOT, in Shariah, render judgements, or punishments, on perceived intentions, ONLY ACTIONS.

My personal opinion is, admiration for Mr. Taseer’s defense of the Christian woman accused of Blasphemy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11930849 because, as I stated, she did not have a court case under Islamic Shariah authority, and in all cases of blasphemy, even if PROVEN by action or admittance, there is no earthly punishment, AND FURTHER that, grounds are to allow the blasphemer repentance.

I do believe he stood up for the unjust charges labeled at a non-Muslim woman, the way a Muslim living in the example of the Salafi period exampled. May Allah grant him peace, and bless him for that, ameen.

Also, nowhere on this blog, or in any of my thoughts or musings, written or unwritten, have I ever, or will I ever, condone murder, or anything contrary to shariah, such as trials not recognized by Allah and His Just laws. If I linked to ALL of my posts, you tell me where my ideology allows for murder, or violence. I am all for saving lives, actually, my favourite ayah in the Qu'ran, the one that drew me most to Islam is “The man who kills a man kills the life of mankind. And the man that saves the life of a man, it is as [to Allah] if they have saved all of mankind.”

You are right, I do believe the "Holy Quran is so clear about what makes true Islamic Nation" and that you fail to "understand why they allow Minorities, why they take goods from countries that don't call themselves Islamic."

If you study the seerah, which is, the Prophet Mohamed's, peace and blessings be upon him, life, you'll know that it is part of the sunnah for the Caliphate to trade, even with the non-Muslims, as was done with the Christians and Jews expelled from the Hijaaz by an order of Rasoolulah Mohamed issued near the end of his life. And during his life, the Muslims always traded with the Quraysh, even though they were Mushirkeen. This is not disallowed in Islam, and does not discredit a Muslim nation or Caliphate whatsoever according to Shariah and the authentic sunnah. "Why they have trade connections?" you ask/ wonder/ ponder. Because it is necessary that the Muslims trade and gain what is beneficial to them.

You are most modest and correct to write "I fail to understand why they allow Minorities". Islam allows minorities [exception being the Islamic Arabian Pennisula aka the Hijaaz], because, beyond the Hijaaz, during the Salafi period (the first three generations of Islam, and thus closest to that which was practiced by Prophet Mohamed, peace and blessings be upon him, non-Muslims were [and remain, provided we ever have a functioning Caliphate again] permitted to practice their religions and keep their own governments without loosing citzenship. Muslims of this day and age, of enough education to understand the way a dhimmi government works, wonder why a Western/Eurpean government cannot accomodate them thusly, as they had accomodated Non-Muslims in the height of their historical influence.

In Islamic dhimmitude, so long as the dhimmi (minority) pays the required tax/ or renders military services in times of need in the form of goods, or physical assistance, one's religion, and own laws regarding marriage, divorce, inheritance, ect can be practiced.

Nowadays, Muslims in non-Muslim countries would be in the position of the "dhimmi" the way the early Sahaba were in Mecca before hijrah to Medina, when they were of small numbers, and not enabled to practice their religion or govern themselves by shariah under the rule of the Quraysh tribe.

***For ANY Muslim who does not understand what I am not talking about, please try to get your hands on a copy of the book "When the Moon Split" or "The Sealed Nectar" so that you have an ounce of understanding before you try to delve into Caliphates or Dhimmitude or even sects***

Some Muslims, in the Muslims majority countries, and those in the West, do not understand the difference between the Shariah ruling periods for Muslims. As you stated, these Muslims "want to follow shariah law" but at the same time, they do not understand exactly how it applies to them. It has nothing to do with "have high birth rate, avoid contraceptives" so I scratch my head at that one. Since they want Shariah law but do not understand how it applies to them, I agree with you fully when you state: "Backclash is imperative. "

You wrote: "my friends say that non muslims are just Islamophobes, but when I read ur blog I felt why not."

My blog is for a Muslim audience though I do understand it is accessible for non-Muslims. That is why I am willing to take the time to comment back when someone has misunderstood me, or a limited understanding of the topic in general. My blog has nothing on it to scare non-Muslims. All laws on it are for Muslims to be aware for themselves, and for non-Muslims, to know there is no compulsion in religion, that true understanding of Shariah and submitting to the will of Allah is a beautiful, freeing, spiritual, freeing thing, with guidance in all matters of life, from past to present. Unless, of course, one understands it, intentionally, or unintentionally.

The thing about non-Muslims living in a Muslim majority country under Shariah law as Dhimmitude is that they prefer that right to citizenship and self government in their religious laws not contrary to overtaking the rights of Islam in Shariah, over moving somewhere else. Muslims also, should veiw this as a good thing, since it is in this manner, that dawah is given, and people are invited to Islam.

What is misunderstood by the cries for a Caliphate and the establishment of Dhimmitudes, is that, well, there are three stages for the ummah, and the establishment of a Caliphate and a Dhimmitude is only the last one.

Nowhere seems capable or near the last stage at the moment in any supportable way.

Muslims such as yourself, "born in America" can be in the first [but mainly, for American Muslims] the second stages of Islam for the Ummah.

The first stage, is when you are a minority, and very afraid for your own life, and just practicing your religion leads you to be tortured. In this case, it is just your job to recite Qu'ran to yourself, and pray, and you are allowed to keep quiet about Islam from those you feel will harm you. As when the Prophet Mohamed, peace and blessings be upon him, started sharing the message of Islam just with those who are closest to him.

The second stage, is when there is an actual community of Muslims, and they are safe from harm. It is here, that Muslims must study and SHARE knowledge with eachother, gaining as much as they can, and work to perfect their faith and understanding of tauhid and other basic principles of Islam, and also, where they practice their Islam openly, and invite others to the blessed fold of Islam. This if often, little enacted upon, in Muslim majority countries, and such is the shameful state our Ummah is in.

The third stage, is when almost everybody in a land has already accepted Islam. It is here, that dhimmitudes are JUSTLY according to Shariah, established, and shariah law is enacted upon by the Muslims upon themselves. It is here, and only at this stage, that they find it possible to form a Caliphate.

Alas, sadly, today---:Muslim majority countries do not have the followers of knowledge and adhearence, to truly want Shariah law, or be able to support it. The countries practicing Shariah these days, are only practicing parts or Shariah, not all of it, and so the systems are unjust, and the populations, too often ill-informed, or rendered powerless by the corrupt application of punishments from the shariah without the protections of the shariah, to remedy the situation they are in. I also "...feel sorry for [the] sad state of today's world and also sad that [knowledge of] Islam... is dying and people still feel peace!! [Sorry, I added, what would be my ammendments to your comment].

You might, "personally find this all useless" since you personally find it okay to be "questioning Quran where it appears non humanity driven" but it is the duty of the believing Muslim to believe in the Qu'ran and to obey its Messenger, and to seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave, and forbid what is evil, and enjoin what is good, so I do not find it pointless in the slightest. It is as the Muslims originally did, as they were guided to by their legitamate Prophet, and you, as a Muslim, must believe that Prophet, Mohamed sallalahu alahi wa salaam, was guided by God/Allah, else, I guess, we should be having a different sort of conversation. ***Amendment to that***: Though I totally believe in questioning as means to derive understanding, not questioning as a form of dismissal of the Qu'ran as an imperfect source.

Don't worry. ;). Even if we did have a different conversation, I firmly believe blasphemy is a punshiment of apostasy before Allah, not man, so you'd be safe from this "fanatic with [a] good command over English".:D

And here, is the original comment, rendered anonymous:

Hi Pixie,almost after 6-7 months I tried checked this blog and was really disappointed. Is pixie any better than someone who killed Governor Taseer in Pakistan? How much time will it take for person with such ideology to hold guns than just words. If Holy Quran is so clear about what makes true Islamic Nation, I fail to understand why they allow Minorities, why they take goods from countries that don't call themselves Islamic. Why they have trade connections? Many of my friends say that non muslims are just Islamophobes, but when I read ur blog I felt why not. Non muslims feel insecure, they allow muslims in non muslim majority countries. there muslims want to follow shariah law, have high birth rate, avoid contraceptives as that makes them pure and true muslims. Backclash is imperative. But as I and you clearly know nothing like no trade will happen, it is mutually beneficial where money is considered. Nothing like no muslims in secular countries can happen, then it becomes a point of concern. I am born in America and my christian friends do feel i am taking their jobs and on top of that I want my laws!! Well I personally find this all useless Pixie. I feel rather than believing in God and questioning Quran where it appears non humanity driven. I feel you are nothing but a fantic with good command over English. I feel sorry for sad state of today's world and also sad that Islam today is more fanatic, sufism is dying and people still feel peace!! Anyway you didnt force me to read this blog but my conscience forced me to comment. Ameen.