Blaming Allah (t) for the world's misery

 I recorded a podcast episode on this topic, covering issues such as looking at causes of misery in the world, mainly looking at famine and poverty, what causes these things to happen, how much of a hand human beings actions have in causing it and why so many people blame Allah (swt).  InshaAllah if/when I feel well enough, I need to post it on youtube as well as share the link here.

I ran out of space on my device so didn't have time to include the following talking points:

- How Umar (ra) dealt with a famine by promptly sending supplies and refused to eat anything other than famine relief rations himself until the crisis was over

- How Mutasim (may Allah be pleased with him) sent an army to fight the Romans in order to defend one oppressed Muslima

- Climate change: how modern consumerism in Capitalist societies has led to destruction of habitats, wastefulness in food production AND malnutrition related diseases even in the world's wealthiest economies

- We've been ideologically duped to think there's a "wealth creation" problem when in fact the problem is "wealth distribution" which will never be solved under Capitalism

Maybe I should do a part 2 recording? Cos' part of me feels it is incomplete without these talking points.

Is Zionism a negator of iman?

Serious question: Does Zionism negate iman? Or is it even possible for someone to be both a Muslim and a Zionist? I ask cos for years I've thought of rulers of Muslim lands according to the ayahs of surah Maida, that as they "do not rule by what Allah revealed", they are either "kafirs", "fasiqs" or "zalims" and I know a fasiq can still be Muslim albeit a sinful one. I'm very very wary of calling anyone kafir cos of the hadith regarding the seriousness of this, but would appreciate some clarity inshaAllah

Salam Dear Sister, Jazak Allah for your question, Zionism is political movement based on fallacious Torahic claims, namely that Mount Zion, which is a hill in al-Quds located just outside the walls of the Old City, belongs to the Jews. Hence, all the Torahic claims nullify Iman.

However, we cannot judge a person whose behaviour reflects some Zionist tendencies as being a Kafir, since the Kafir is the one who believes in the Torahic claims, not the one who behaves as such and executes its agenda; this is exactly akin to the Muslim who separates religion from life in his behaviour due to laziness, but he does not believe in the idea of separating religion from life, which is based on negating the referentiality and authoritativeness of revelation.

Hence, you are right about being wary of calling someone a Kafir based on their behaviour. I hope this answers your query. Ramadhan Karim Inshallah

Fascinating. JazakAllah khayr that's very helpful. It's just that in recent months I've started referring to Arab rulers as "Zionists in jubbas" due to their actions and that led me to wonder whether it is a nullifier of iman or not. I hope you don't mind if I share this question and answer on social media as it may offer clarity to others with similar questions

Is Muslim defeatism preventing us from victory in Palestine?

 This post is not about questioning the sincerity or genuine concern being expressed by Muslims (and non Muslims joining them) about Palestine in the form of protests, boycotts or petitions.  This is about whether we're addressing this crisis through obedience to Allah (swt) or heedlessness.  

And Allah had certainly fulfilled His promise to you when you were killing the enemy by His permission until [the time] when you lost courage and fell to disputing about the order [given by the Prophet] and disobeyed after He had shown you that which you love. Among you are some who desire this world, and among you are some who desire the Hereafter. Then he turned you back from them [defeated] that He might test you. And He has already forgiven you, and Allah is the possessor of bounty for the believers. (TMQ 3:152)

The questions I'm asking are: 

- Have Muslims dived so far down the liberal lizard hole that the commands and prohibitions of Allah ta'ala are not part of the conversation about how to address this crisis?  Not even in private company?  Where terminology such as 'jihad' is limited to the nafs, where shariah is absent from siyasa (politics), where our victory through the help of Allah ta'ala via our obedience to Him is not even considered as a viable option?

- Do Muslims only think of the likes of Salahuddin and Zengi as historical legends, when they should be viewing them as role models and see their actions as a blueprint for what we should be seeking in our leaders, instead of the pathetic taghout rulers who at most pay lip service like Erdogan whilst supplying israel with the very fuel and foods that Palestine is being starved of?

- Do Muslims really think it's appropriate to look up to scholars who call for obedience to these taghout rulers who only ever turn their weapons on Muslims?  Who sit and have cosy dinners with open Zionists and accuse the niyyah (intentions) of anyone who questions this?  All this whilst Allah's enemies call openly for our mass slaughter, genocide on the same social media channels that are censoring us?  Meanwhile such scholars police their language meticulously in the hope of seeking acceptance from the enemies of Allah (swt) so that they aren't banned from western nations and can be used as an opiate of the masses to promote naval gazing as a virtue even though our Nabi (saw) warned us in this sahih hadith:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

I heard the Messenger of Allah, (ﷺ) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion. Reference: Sunan Abi Dawud 3462

- Do Muslims genuinely think that responding to this crisis using the terminology, values and methods of the kufaar is something through which Allah ta'ala will grant us victory or (if not victory) even some semblance of security or long term stability in the region?  I mean behaviours like: writing protest letters/petitions to the same western governments that established this cancerous entity in the hope of triggering their conscience or appealing to their hypocritical values of human rights,  accepting the leadership of taghout rulers in the Muslim lands who are actively pursuing normalisation with the usurping entity and protecting it by literally holding back crowds of Jordanian volunteers insisting on coming to the aid of our Palestinian brothers and sisters

Last but not least:

- Have Muslims become so defeatist as to have forgotten that destroying the enemies of Allah is not difficult for Allah (swt)?  Allah sent ababeel to destroy the elephant army that came to destroy the Kaaba.  Allah protected Ibrahim (as) by making a fire cool when his whole society and even his father tried to kill him.  Allah ta'ala does not need our help to liberate Palestine- but why would Allah ta'ala WANT to aid a global Muslim community that is turning for answers towards the golden calf of kufr values, of secularism, of contenting itself with the lip service of taghout rulers whose actions violate His laws, of placing 'humanity' as a yardstick for right and wrong instead of halal and haram?

Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.  (TMQ excerpt of Surah Rad verse 11)

Do you think our condition will change by putting our "faith" (literally) in the humanity and values of the nations that destroyed the very Khilafah that shielded Palestine from such calamities as the Nakba in the first place?  Joe Biden once said "If 'israel' didn't exist, we'd have to invent it", meaning if it wasn't already here, he'd invest US military aid and resources towards making it happen, and the opposition parties in the West are no better.  Have you forgotten how the western nations collaborated to disarm Bosnian Muslims whilst Serbs remained armed, leading to the mass rapes and mass murders of thousands of Srebrenican Muslims, because, as the then French President Francois Mitterand admitted, he "did not want to see the rise of a Muslim nation in Europe" and the then US President watched these massacres live on TV?  You want to appeal to THEIR humanity?  Knowing full well their history of slavery, colonialism to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and the assassinations of heads of state that stood up to them- you really think writing to your Senator or Congressmen/women of the nations ideologically opposed to us will change/improve our condition?  All this, even though Allah (swt) told us in Surah Hud v113:

And incline not toward those who do wrong, lest the Fire should touch you, and you have no protectors other than Allah, nor you would then be helped.

Don't assume that only the Palestinians are being tested through their hardships.  WE are being tested through our relative ease, WE are being tested with censorship, legal threats and massive societal pressures to avoid using demonised words like shariah, jihad, khilafah whilst being pushed to discuss this whole crisis as if we are secular atheists begging for some semblance of human rights and dignity.  Is that really the best we can do?

Fascism, 1930s ghettos, dehumanisation followed by annihilation

 We were all taught about the holocaust in our history lessons- what did we learn?

- That people in power blamed Jews for most societal problems in Germany

- That mobs and gangs went round smashing up Jewish homes and businesses, with the approval of the government

- That Jews were relentlessly mocked and demonised in the press through insulting cartoons

- Jews were constantly depicted in the media as conniving, evil and a major threat 

- Jews were discriminated against and locked away in ghettos behind a barbed wire fence

- Jews were never accepted as belonging to the nation they'd lived in for generations (or even centuries)

- Millions of Jews were driven out of the country or killed solely due to their religious identity

- That these^ measures were the first steps towards planning the mass murder/annihilation of Jews

- Attacks on Jews were never perceived as 'unprovoked'- it was viewed as their own fault for being the scourge of an otherwise 'civilised' society

- The Daily Mail made cartoons depicting Jewish refugees as rats

Now replace the word 'Jews' with 'Muslims' and 'Germany' with 'occupied Palestine' and that will give you an exact description of the situation there from 1948 to the present day.  The main difference now is that Britain, America and Europe are endorsing and justifying the ethnic cleansing and genocide as "the right to defend themselves".  Meanwhile social media are actively censoring/restricting many who speak out against what is currently happening.  The West are sending a clear message: the holocaust is an evil and unjustifiable act when it happens to white Jews- but the same thing happening to Palestinian Muslims is fair game

NB: I've slightly edited the image to blot out the swastika inside the red rectangle in case it was the reason why the image was initially censored

Hijab, feminism and "the male gaze"

 Walaykum salam,

Primarily, women wear the hijab because it is a command from Allah (swt) regardless of how men perceive it or react to it.

Too much emphasis in modern society is given to the 'reasons' or the 'logic' behind Islamic rules and this is not a good way to look into such topics. The best way to understand Islam is to contemplate deeply the creation, the alternation of night and day etc as these are all signs from Allah that the universe and all that's in it could not have come about by itself and needed a creator because all of creation is needy and dependent on somethings for survival. The next step is to learn about the miracle of the Quran which is in its language and composition and the fact that no one has been able to take on the challenge of providing one surah like what is in the Quran even if they sought the help of the best literary minds.

Once you learn these things and are convinced that there is a creator, that He (swt) made us all and understands our needs and what's best for us better than any human being- then that should be enough for us to follow His commands. On top of that, once you understand the weak basis of all forms of kufr: religious misguidance in the form of other kufr beliefs, ideological misguidance in the form of communism, capitalism, the so called 'freedoms' and democracy etc- one you understand how baseless and weak those concepts are, it becomes much easier to reject them and not be taken in or fooled by the various cultural and emotional arguments used to propagate them.

Hijab is a command from Allah and lowering the gaze is also a command from Allah. The problem with pervy men is that we do not live in Islamic societies (even the Muslim populated countries are not governed by Islam) so men's unIslamic behaviour is often not regulated or stopped at the root. During the Caliphate of Umar bin al Khattab (ra), he hired a respected widowed woman to patrol the market places. She held a whip and if she saw men loitering around to ogle at girls or do inappropriate things, she would whip them. So Islam does provide solutions to these problems when it is implemented but the problem these days is it is not implemented, so then feminists jump in and say Islam isn't working and is causing oppression of women and they propose that society should be less Islamic and more 'free' and allowing women to uncover and violate Islamic rules for the sake of freedom. Whenever there is a problem in Muslim communities there will be munafiqs and ignorant/naive Muslims who will try to lead people to believe that the best solution is less Islam in the society- though they never say less Islam, they'll label it "combatting extremism", or "less mullah-ism" or that sort of thing.

The way protests in Iran are depicted these days is just a case in point. Yes it does sound like some women have been mistreated and two or three have died under suspicious circumstances so that should be investigated and authorities shouldn't be treated as infallible but this push with the help of the west to uncover the Muslim women is very sinister and has nothing to do with women's rights just like how they pretend to care about the rights of Afghan women whilst bombing them into the stone age and starving their children.

The above post^ was my answer to the following question posed on Ummah forum:

Assalaamualiakum,

I have a question regarding the hijab. Obviously we are told to cover and wear hijab as a commandment from Allah (swt) and to prevent any man seeing our body. My question is regarding Muslim men who still sexualise women no matter what they wear. Women who are fully covered even with niqab, don’t commit tabarruj, and even some who are on Hajj/Umrah will be assaulted, harassed or looked at sexually. Is it because the hijab minimises the attention? I’m just confused on this so if anyone could answer my question I would appreciate it. For context I’m a Muslim female who tries to cover, I don’t wear makeup and wear long baggy clothes so this isn’t hating on the ruling. Hijab and modesty means a lot to me and I love wearing the hijab I’m just interested to further my knowledge on this.

Unfair social media "community standards"

 Apparently, FB wouldn't let me share this post as they claim that it "violates community standards".

I'm still quite baffled as to exactly which rule this supposedly breaks.

Keeping the post on here because it's still excellent and profound advice and reminders benefit the believers:

Trojan horses entering Pakistan

 Trojan horses entering Pakistan:

A few years ago, some liberals posted online videos about the plight of what they call the "transgender community" in Pakistan (a community who are a mixture of intersex eunuchs/hejra and "transgender" people who are mostly biologically male but identify and behave like females). The video resonated with much of Pakistani society, because it was true that the hejra community in particular did face a lot of discrimination and mistreatment in society, so proposing that they should be given more rights makes sense and wont seem objectionable to most- but there's more to this story than meets the eye.

The real purpose of those videos by liberals was not to solely improve the situation of the hejra community- it was to use a relatable topic to bring public opinion on to their side and then, under the guise of "rights for transgenders", use it as a trojan horse to shoehorn in new laws that include other things such as greater acceptance of homosexuality and the wider LGBTQ+ community in general, knowing full well that LGBTQ+ are not accepted in mainstream Pakistani society outside a few liberal elite and aggressively secular circles.

Why am I mentioning this now? Because the same thing seems to be happening again in a different context after the lynching of a Sri Lankan man in Sialkot.

Whilst early news reports are suggesting that he was an innocent man who was falsely accused of blasphemy, unfairly targeted and savagely beaten to death by a mob- large swathes of Pakistanis would quite rightly object to such a heinous crime and call for the perpetrators to be punished. Even the radical controversial group TLP appear to have distanced themselves from this incident. So if media reports are anything to go by, public opinion is largely in support of the victim and in support of punishing the culprits involved- but there's more to this story than meets the eye.

Is the real purpose of such news reports simply to seek justice through the courts to punish the perpetrators? Or is the real purpose an attempt to sway public opinion against Pakistan's blasphemy laws and in favour of increasing secularisation in schools as well as further crackdowns on religous institutions and organisations? Circling secular vultures such as Hasan Nisar would certainly hope for the latter.

As I've mentioned elsewhere: Islamic upbringing and the proper Islamic education would have prevented persecution and injustice towards religious minorities in Pakistan, such as the saying of the Prophet (saw) "he who hurts a dhimmi (non Muslim citizen living under Islamic rule), hurts me". This is why when you look at the lives of the Prophet (saw) and the rightly guided Khulafaa (ra), you don't see these sorts of atrocities and even if there was a rare case of a non Muslim saying disparaging things regarding Islam: in many cases, people were forgiven by the Prophet (saw) and other cases were addressed through the courts and state apparatus to ensure people got a fair hearing and vigilantism wasn't a thing. So whilst we'll hear a lot of hysteria implying that overzealous implementation of Islam is at fault for this act of cruelty- in many ways, the opposite is true and it's the lack of Islamic knowledge and the lack of implementation of Islam in Pakistan (especially in a broader political context) that contributed to this outcome.

The point here is not to suggest that the hejra community shouldn't have rights, or that the mob killing in Sialkot was justified- far from it. The point is that jaise haathi ke daanth khanay ke aur dikhane ke aur (according to the well known Urdu phrase "the elephant has one set of 'teeth' for eating and a different set of 'teeth' for show"), likewise a similar point can be made about news reports "khabaren dikhaate kuch aur, khabar ke peeche ka maqsad kuch aur" (news reports show one thing but the agenda behind it is something else).

Meaning of Surah Asr

 Surah Asr:

By Al-’Asr (the time). Verily, man is [deep] in loss, except for those who believe and do good deeds, urge one another to the truth and urge one another to patience.” (Quran 103)

This surah opens with admonition to humankind. Allah takes an oath by “time” and declares that humankind is in a state of loss. Every single human being, man or woman, is in a state of loss except those who strive and do four things; believe, do righteous deeds, and recommend one another to truth, and to sabr.

The meaning of Asr:

The simple translation for the word asr would be time. However asr has a much deeper meaning than another Arabic word meaning time, dahr. Dahr means time with no limits placed upon it, asr on the other hand means time that is limited; time that will come to an end. At a linguistic level one of the meanings of asr is something that is pressed or squeezed. Allah is swearing an oath by time, a time that is limited, a time that will end and a time that must be squeezed or pressed so that we, humankind, get as much from our limited time as possible.

Allah is also asking us to reflect on the passage of time. Another meaning that is given to the word asr is the declining day, the time of the Asr prayer, when the day is winding down coming to an end. Allah is telling us that our time is short and limited and if we do not make the most of it we are surely the losers, verily, Allah says, we are in loss.

The meaning of loss

The Arabic word for loss is khusr and it is the opposite of profit thus also carrying the meaning of bankruptcy. In this context it could mean that humankind will lose their main capital for the Hereafter if instead of using this life to gain by faith and deeds they bargain it away with disbelief and sin.

We are in danger of losing something very special, and that is a blissful life in the Hereafter. However before that great loss we will lose our closeness to Allah and thus our peace and tranquility in this life. A loss of contentment can sometimes lead humankind to act treacherously, and to run headlong into trouble and strife. But Allah is constantly warning us and here He is once more saying, wait, think and save yourself. Save yourself by aiming to have four character traits:

1. To believe. The first step of salvation is through upholding the correct belief and adhering to it with conviction and certainty.

2. To do righteous deeds. The way in which we gain this certainty is by doing the actions that are pleasing to Allah; we demonstrate our belief through our actions or righteous deeds. Our deeds must be performed in accordance to what is in the Quran and the authentic Sunnah. They should not be according to our whims and desires. The true sign of success is to obey Allah’s commandments and to resist the desire to sin.

3. To encourage, recommend or connect to truth. In Arabic haqq. Allah is telling us to remind each other and encourage each other to be faithful to the truth, and to let it stand out clearly by striving for justice.

4. To recommend one another to sabr is the fourth trait and establishing a commitment to haqq would not be possible without sabr. Being steadfast in following the commandments of Allah requires patience, staying away from sins requires patience, and not despairing in times of calamities requires patience. Ibnul Qayyim explained that having sabr meant having the ability to stop ourselves from despairing, to refrain from complaining, and to control ourselves in times of sadness and worry.

This surah advises those who believe to act collectively to strengthen their position in the Hereafter. It implies asking and inviting people to do righteous deeds and stopping them from falling into sin and disbelief.

The revelation of this surah occurred during difficult times. The early Muslims had to contend with the oppression and surah Al-Asr gave them strength and confidence in the face of their trials and tribulations. It is perhaps for this reason that it was very dear to the sahabah and still is to those who try to lead righteous life

(Copy pasted from Mudassar Haan's timeline)

Muslim for the sake of...?

 

A Muslim for the Sake of the Disbelievers

In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

By: Shaykh "Abu Nour"

(Copy pasted from a forum post)

I recently received this email from a brother.  Question:

"Aassalamualaikum sheikh. i loved your works, enjoyed and learned from them. i do desire to become one of the mujahideen but not as you describe. i desire to become a mujahid in da’wah and learning and believe this is the right path. I heard and read some of your views on what the muslims should do and belive them not to be true. i think you should review your works and when you find the true path, apologize about your previous works. jihad cant be the right path because this is a religion of peace and if we go around killing everyone, it would be wrong for us to call this religion a religion of peace. what the muslims should do is evacuate palistine and afghanistan and continue with the da’wah and the rest is with ALLAH inshalah."

Answer:

Just like there is a Muslim for the sake of Allah, there is a new phenomenon of a Muslim for the sake of the disbelievers. And just like the Muslim for the sake of Allah does everything thinking what will Allah will think of me, the Muslim for the sake of the disbelievers does everything thinking what the disbelievers would think of him. So when a Muslim speaks out he does so to please Allah and when our other Muslim does not speak out he does so in order to please the disbelievers. When a Muslim fights he does so for the sake of Allah and when this other Muslim does not fight -even though he has every reason to do so- he does that in order not to displease the disbelievers. Obviously this is not expressed as such but is packaged in nice terms such as ‘this is not good for dawa’, or ‘this would turn away the people from Islam’.

Allah says: “It is not your responsibility to guide people but it is Allah who guides whomever He wills”

This Muslim is obsessed with his image in front of the disbelievers. He is so obsessed with it that it becomes his standard for wala and bara. So he loves the Muslims who present the ‘good boy’ image to the disbelievers and he despises the Muslims who give Muslims a ‘bad name’.

Rasulullah (saaws) says: One of you does not achieve full Imaan until he loves for Allah, dislikes for Allah, gives for Allah and holds back for Allah.

This Muslim is so aggressive and intolerant with his fellow Muslims but is tolerant and kind towards the disbelievers. He is an extremist with Muslims and a moderate with disbelievers.

Whenever the interests of the disbelievers are threatened or harmed by Muslims he is the first to jump to their defense. He would speak against his brothers and betray them. He may even advise Muslims to spy against one another and report to the authorities. For him fighting for Islam, and for the ummah is terrorism, but he manages to shop for a fatwa that would allow him to serve in the armies of the disbelievers and fight against his brothers. Being a Muslim for the sake of the disbelievers permeates his every action. If he meets a Muslim he frowns and if he meets a disbeliever his face beams with a smile.

Infact there are some Muslims who are so much Muslim for the sake of kuffar that they do not even like Muslims who call the kuffar kuffar!

I mentioned that this is a new phenomenon because this only came about in these later times. The Muslims of the early times would care less about the kuffar, and if they ever did it was for the sake of Allah and not for their sake.

But lets put things in proper perspective:

Allah says about the disbelievers: “They are like cattle, nay, they are even more misguided”

And Rasulullah says about the believer: “Tearing down al Kaaba stone by stone is less than shedding the blood of a Muslim”

Pagan (shirk) origins of "Christmas"

 

Topic: the true meaning of Christmas

- Is Christmas a show of respect for the birth of Jesus?

- In ancient pagan times, the last day of winter in the Northern Hemisphere was celebrated as the night that the Great Mother Goddess gives birth to the baby Sun God. It is also called Yule, the day a huge log is added to a bonfire, around which everyone would dance and sing to awaken the sun from its long winter sleep.

In Roman times, it became the celebrations honouring Saturnus (the harvest god) and Mithras (the ancient god of light), a form of sun worship that had come to Rome from Syria a century before with the cult of Sol Invictus. It announced that winter is not forever, that life continues, and an invitation to stay in good spirit.

- You may wonder what this has to do with the birth of Jesus (as); let’s be clear- Christmas has NOTHING to do with the birth of Jesus and I’ll explain why

- To avoid persecution during the Roman pagan festival, early Christians decked their homes with Saturnalia holly. As Christian numbers increased and their customs prevailed, the celebrations took on a Christian observance. But the early church actually did not celebrate the birth of Christ in December until Telesphorus, who was the second Bishop of Rome from 125 to 136AD, declared that Church services should be held during this time to celebrate "The Nativity of our Lord and Saviour." However, since no-one was quite sure in which month Christ was born, Nativity was often held in September, which was during the Jewish Feast of Trumpets (modern-day Rosh Hashanah). In fact, for more than 300 years, people observed the birth of Jesus on various dates.

In the year 274AD, solstice fell on 25th December. Roman Emperor Aurelian proclaimed the date as "Natalis Solis Invicti," the festival of the birth of the invincible sun. In 320 AD, Pope Julius I specified the 25th of December as the official date of the birth of Jesus Christ.

- “Pagan customs centering around the January calends gravitated to Christmas.” Under “Natal Day,” Origen, an early Catholic writer, admitted, “…In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world”

Islamic texts that prohibit Muslims from saying "Merry Xmas" or celebrating it

 

Celebrating the holidays of the kuffar is an act of imitation which is forbidden in Islam. Allah's Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم warned us against it. At-Tirmidhi narrated that Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه reported that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: "He is not one of us who imitates other than us. Do not imitate the Jews or the Christians."

At-Tabarani and Abu Dawud narrated that Ibn Umar and Hudhayfah رضي الله عنه reported that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: "Whoever imitates a people, he is one of them."

Furthermore, there are many Islamic evidences that forbid the Muslims from having holidays other than Eid-ul-Fitr and Eid-ul-Adhaa. Al-Bayhaqi reported in his Sunan that Anas Bin Maalik رضي الله عنه said: "When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم came to Medina, the people had two holidays from the days of Jahiliyyah."

He صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: "When I came to you, you had two days which you used to celebrate in Jahiliyyah. Allah سبحانه وتعالى has replaced them for you with better days, the days of slaughter (Adhaa) and the day of fitr."

- Umar ibn al-Khattaab said: “Avoid the enemies of Allaah on their festivals.”It was reported with a saheeh isnaad from Abu Usaamah: ‘Awn told us from Abu’l-Mugheerah from ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr: “Whoever lives in the land of the non-Arabs and celebrates their New Year and their festivals, and imitates them until he dies in that state, will be gathered with them on the Day of Resurrection.”‘

- When people say “exchanging gifts is a sunnah and meeting with family”, are their relatives gathering on that day and exchanging gifts solely for the sake of the sunnah? Or is it to keep up with the Jones’s? If it is “because everyone has the day off so why not?” then ask yourself, do you mark may and august bank holidays with family gatherings and exchanging gifts or does everyone make a point of feeling December 25^th has to be marked with the roast dinner and mince pies?

- as Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allaah have mercy on him, said in Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah: "Congratulating the kuffaar on the rituals that belong only to them is haraam by consensus, as is congratulating them on their festivals and fasts by saying ‘A happy festival to you’ or ‘May you enjoy your festival,’ and so on. If the one who says this has been saved from kufr, it is still forbidden. It is like congratulating someone for prostrating to the cross, or even worse than that. It is as great a sin as congratulating someone for drinking wine, or murdering someone, or having illicit sexual relations, and so on.

- Whoever does anything of this sort is a sinner, whether he does it out of politeness or to be friendly, or because he is too shy to refuse, or for whatever other reason, because this is hypocrisy in Islaam, and because it makes the kuffaar feel proud of their religion. 

Allaah is the One Whom we ask to make the Muslims feel proud of their religion

- Also hasn’t it occurred to anyone that when Muslims take part in these things, it puts twice as much pressure on other Muslims trying to avoid it when you get Christians approaching them saying “oh but my Muslim colleague at work comes to Christmas parties every year” and then think how hard it gets for converts who are from non Muslim families as well.

- Besides, in light of what’s mentioned in the Sunnah about imitation of disbelievers (which is mainly regarding their religious practises, not their technology), how can anyone justify rebranding this as a sunnah knowing the origins of why this day was marked in the first place?

Capitalists took their economy as Ilah besides Allah (swt)

And, verily, We did destroy the places of which you see ruins about you, and We showed them Our signs in diverse ways that they might turn (away from their wrong ways to Us). So why did not those whom they had made their ilahs, and presumed to have access to Us, help them in their hour of doom? Far from helping, they abandoned them and made themselves scarce, exposing the hollowness of their falsehoods and fabrications.

(46 : 27, 28) Surat Al Ahqa'af

Now more than ever, this COVID 19 pandemic has exposed man’s inherent vulnerability and sheer helplessness before Allah (swt). It has also exposed the weakness of the Ilah (false deities) known as Capitalist economies: built by the kufaar to showcase their prowess, strength, dominance and arrogance and what they believed to be their superiority. They can make new tanks, new fighter jets and build as many military bases as they want wherever they want but they still cannot escape from Allah (swt). Centuries of medical knowledge and the latest technological advancements are still playing catch up.

Say (O Prophet) :"Do you see what it is you invoke besides God ? Show me what it is they have created on earth, or have they a share in the heavens ? ... And who is more astray than one who invokes besides God such as will answer him not (though he call to him till) the Day of Judgment"
(46:4,5) Surat Al Ahqaf

Many Muslims assume that these are “Christian” nations, but in recent decades, I have sensed that these nations no longer worship Jesus (as) as Ilah besides Allah (swt)- rather their faith, their ideology, their yardstick for deciding what is right and wrong is more steeped in the concepts of “rugged individualism” (work for what you get and leave no room for welfare or compassion in governance), “survival of the fittest” (and let the weaker ones in society flounder, become demonised as a burden on society and die) and the unspoken rule of “life’s purpose is to prop up our economy no matter what the cost”. This is why the governments in both Britain and America reacted to the pandemic with statements like “take it on the chin” and pushed for the economy to be the highest priority over and above the health and wellbeing of the general population and this is why they were initially quite happy with the idea of letting elderly (so called “inactive” or “unproductive) people die to avoid having to pay pensions. It was only when large numbers of young and working age people became sick and overwhelmed the hospitals that these governments took the pandemic more seriously- otherwise they would’ve been happy to let it run its course and to bump off as many elderly, sick and disabled people as possible to alleviate what they’d call a “burden on society” or “bed blockers”.

These ideological concepts are heavily pushed by both the mainstream (and hard right wing) media, big businesses and the governments in America, Britain as well as Hungary, Brazil and some other countries. Gradually France, Germany and Austria seem to also be heading in the same direction in recent years.

Have you noticed the men who has made his selfish desires his ilah ? Can you assume any responsibility about such a one?
(25:43) Surat Al Forqa'an

“Here we have yet another concept of ilah... Here there is no element of the supernatural. The ilah here is some human being, or man's own selfish ego or selfish desires. No prayers are offered to it, nor is it regarded as being in a position to will any harm or benefit to someone nor is it looked to for help or succor. It is an ilah in the sense that its dictates are accepted and obeyed to such extent that that which it declares to be permitted or prohibited is treated as such, and it is deemed to have an inherent right to make us do or not do certain things, with no higher or superior authority whose approval might be necessary for its orders or which might be appealed to against them.”- Maulana Mawdudi

In this context, “Ilah” does not even refer to someone who is prayed to, but rather someone or some thing that is given supreme authority to make life and death decisions and whose judgement is taken as criteria for defining right and wrong, even when it is known to be inconsistent, contradictory and wrong. This should serve as a wake up call to all those Muslims who were mesmerised by the West and taught to replace their reverence for the ideology of Islam with reverence for the nations who posed as role models of Capitalist democracies. They sold a lie that if the general public poured life long efforts into serving and dying for this golden calf known as “the economy”’, that it’ll pay them back dividends in the form of a better life for their children- only to discover that in return for all their efforts, higher education has become unaffordable, the NHS is being sold off and outsourced like a golden arches franchise, affordable housing is increasingly out of reach and even before this crisis, over a million people in Britain were in “food poverty” (ie too poor to afford food) and one in four children in London were turning up to school hungry. These numbers of desperately poor and hungry people will rise exponentially under the lockdown and homelessness will rise even more when the lockdown is lifted.

We’ve been conditioned to ASPIRE to a way of life like that. People are crying out to RETURN to that when we know full well the evils of Capitalism has not only caused harm and misery to the lives of millions of their own citizens, it has also caused misery to millions in the Muslim world being bombed daily. It has also caused misery to millions in developing nations in South America, Africa and Asia. The Primark factory fire in Bangladesh should have been a wake up call that Unfair trade and exploitation are the default standards under Capitalism around the world and examples of this can be found everywhere. Child labourers are used to find minerals in Africa for our mobile phones and slave labour is being used in the chocolate industry. Isn’t it time we broke the shackles of our conditioning and unlearned those values to make room in our minds and our hearts for what the Creator (swt) ordained for us? And who can know better as to which way of life, which economic and justice system, which values, which criteria for right and wrong is best for creation other than the One who created us?

And He alone is the Ilah in the heavens and the Ilah in the earth; and He alone is the all-Wise, the all-Knowing (that is, He alone possesses the wisdom and the knowledge required for governing such a Domain).
(43:84) Surat Az Zukhruf

Can He Who creates, and he who does not, be alike ? Have you not sense to realize this simple fact ? ...And those whom the people pray to other than Allah, do not create anything and are themselves created ;your ilah is only one Ilah.(16 : 17-20) Surat Al Nahl

O mankind: Call unto mind the grace of God unto you; is there any Creator besides Allah, to give you sustenance from heaven or earth ; there is no ilah but He; how, then, are you deluded from Truth ?
(35 : 3) Surat Fatir

Permission to share. I also recommend reading this article by Mawlana Maududi discussing the meaning of “Ilah”: https://www.islam101.com/tauheed/ilah.htm

(Originally posted in May 2020 during the Covid 19 pandemic lockdown)

Muslimah feminists

Allah (swt) created humans and jinn to worship Him. Our purpose in life is to seek the pleasure of Allah. The way we conduct ourselves should be on the basis of accepting what is halal and avoiding what is haram. I am not seeing that here.

Whereas a Muslimah's dhikr should be "SubhanAllah, Alhamdullilah, Allahu akbar", the daily dhikr of this place is "Misogyny, misogyny misogyny". If an Islamic rule suits what you like, then you pursue it and if an Islamic rule is not to your liking, you pretend it's haram, accuse second wives of committing adultery cos' YOU don't like their nikah and whether Allah (swt) accepts the nikah or not is irrelevant.

You shared the post from a so called "sista" a couple of months back whose posts are more reflective of the "Quran only" kufar or some kind of apostate as she had the audacity to demean people who turn to "ancient texts" as a source of guidance. When I tried pointing this out, everyone was too busy applauding her BS to even notice because who cares whether this is acceptable in Islam or not, as long as it's in keeping with the whole bandwagon you've got going on here.

It's not exactly a secret that this reference to "ancient texts", she wasn't being ambiguous in suggesting that the guidance of the Sunnah and our Sahaba and classical scholars (may Allah be pleased with them) is somehow outdated, irrelevant. As such "ancient texts" are not in keeping with the whole "Let's put what us group of women want first and fit bits of Islam in only where it suits us (the same thing you accuse men of doing)", you habitually discard parts of Islam because Islam comes second and your crusade against misogyny comes first.

I'm not oblivious to the problems of the Ummah. Even Islam is not oblivious; that is why Islam forbids forced marriage, Islam forbids oppression, Islamic law punishes rape and so on- so it is Islam that can prevent many of these societal ills and Islam would prevent them if it were applied instead of being discarded due to the whims and desires of people (men or women) with vested interest agendas. I'm not oblivious to the crimes committed against Muslim women, whether by fellow Muslims or by non Muslims, but where we should be turning to Islam for the solutions to our problems, too many people here are more interested in discarding the parts of Islam that aren't in keeping with their agenda. Islam is not good enough for you that you have to look elsewhere and prefer the answers of the people of misguidance- this is shirk. Shame on you! Peace be upon those who follow guidance.

(This message was my final post before I left a so called “Muslim women’s” online group which had little to do with Muslims/Islam and was more about pushing a hardcore feminist agenda-)

(Originally posted on Facebook in June 2017)

Is it haram to vote in a democracy?

The creed of ISLAM is not only spiritual

Islam is incorrectly understood and portrayed as a religion that deals only with belief in a "God", life after death, rituals and moral issues. However, many are aware that Islam is a complete way of life that provides solutions for life’s affairs. There are laws dealing with economics, politics, judiciary, war and international relations. These all stem from the same source as do the laws governing rituals and morals. Even though Muslims still pray and fast in the same manner as did their predecessors - according to the Divine Law revealed to the Last Prophet Muhammad (saw) - they are not referring nowadays to the same source when it comes to ruling and politics.

If the creed of Islam is correctly understood then it will result in unique behaviour, having shaped those who have both understood and believed in it. Not only will such people pray and fast according to what Allah has revealed, they will also refer to the Divine revelation to solve problems politically. The Qur’an, which mentions prayer and fasting, also mentions ruling by Islam. The Messenger (saw) of Allah (swt) not only prayed and fasted; he (saw) was also the head of the Islamic State in Medina. He (saw) sent envoys to other countries, battles were fought and the society was governed according to Islam alone under his (saw) authority. Those who led the Muslims after the death of the Messenger of Allah (swt) were known by the title of Khalifah or Imam or Sultan. They ruled over the Muslims, all of whom had at least a pledge of allegiance on their necks to them.

The existence of kings, presidents and prime ministers ruling over Muslims in the Islamic lands has absolutely no validity whatsoever. Also, countries with those rulers with titles such as "Sheikh", "Emir" and "Sultan" are equally invalid. These counties have fixed borders and are considered "sovereign states" by the so-called international community. In reality Muslim lands were, and should be, one state (under one leader) whose frontiers are temporary, not permanent. This is because the Islamic State should expand, liberating people from living under systems of disbelief.

Monarchies and republics are products of the human mind and are therefore a source of the misery the world is experiencing today. Enslavement occurs in the name of freedom and democracy. These supposedly sanitised terms are used to cover up the corruption inherent in Capitalism. Communism itself claimed to provide justice but proved to be just as deceptive as Capitalism.

The creed of Islam is unique in that it is both a spiritual and a political creed. It is the correct creed that agrees with human nature and convinces the mind. The unique systems emanating from this creed are not from man - they are from Allah (swt), the Creator of humanity and the universe. The creed of Islam does not allow itself to be mixed with any other way of life. Simply, there is Islam and Kufr (i.e. non-Islam). This incompatibility with all other ways should leave the Muslim nation standing firm and proud.

Democracy

Democracy is the political framework of the Capitalist thought, i.e. the ruling system that the Capitalist states and their like implement. Democracy, for those who embrace it, means that people rule themselves by themselves with the systems that they choose. Oftentimes, Capitalists refer to their system as “The Democratic System”, but such a connotation is incorrect for more than one reason: Democracy was not innovated by the Capitalists but had been preceded by the Greeks. Moreover, they were not the only ones who implemented it; the Marxist-Socialists claimed that they were democrats and they consistently pretended that they implemented democracy.

The most important element of democracy is that it makes the human being and not the Creator as the legislator, which is logical for those who call for the detachment of religion from life because this detachment means to transfer the right to legislate from the Creator to the human being. The Capitalists, in this issue did not discuss whether the Creator has obliged man to follow a certain law and implement it in his life, nor did they even examine this issue at all, rather they appointed man as the legislator without any discussion.

For Muslims to adopt democracy means to disbelieve in all - may Allah forbid - the decisive and conclusive evidences, among which are many Qur’anic verses which oblige them to follow the law of Allah and to reject any other law. Moreover, these verses consider any one of them who does not follow or implement the law of Allah as either a Kafir, a zalim, or a fasiq:

"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are non-believers (kafiroon)." [TMQ 5:44]
"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are oppressors (zalimoon)." [TMQ 5:45]
"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are transgressors (fasiqoon)." [TMQ 5:47]

Thus, whoever does not rule by whatever Allah has revealed, denying Allah’s right to legislate, as is the case with those who believe in democracy, is a Kafir according to the explicit words of the Qur’an, because by doing so he is rejecting those decisive verses, and denying a conclusive text makes a person a Kafir as the Muslim Fuqaha’ agreed unanimously.

Non-Muslim governments and their agents who rule the Muslim countries, as well as all those who call for democracy who are counted from among the Muslims, whether they are individuals or movements, realise that the basis for democracy is the rejection of the law of Allah and putting man in the place of the Creator. For this reason, they do not present democracy from this perspective, but instead claim that democracy means people ruling themselves by themselves, with equality and justice prevailing among the people, and the accountability of the ruler guaranteed. Although democracy explicitly implies the rejection of the laws of Allah and following the law of His creation, the advocates of democracy intentionally avoid addressing the issue of rejecting the law of Allah.

The remaining claims of democracy have no actual reality; the claim that people rule themselves by themselves is a major fallacy. In all Capitalist Democratic societies, people do not rule themselves by themselves. In reality, people are ruled by a certain group of influential people, such as the prominent Capitalists in the United States and the aristocrats in England, which are two of the most deeply rooted Capitalist Democratic countries. These influential groups in the Capitalist countries hold the necessary means to bring whoever they want into the government and legislative assemblies (parliaments) so that the laws that are passed and those charged with their implementation would be serving their interests.

Regarding what is claimed about equality, justice, and accountability of the rulers, these are all theoretical, without any compatibility with reality. It is enough for one to look to America, the leader of the democratic world, to find that equality, justice, and accountability are all selective, enjoyed and practised by those who have a particular colour, religion, race, or financial wealth.

The suffering faced by the blacks, Indians, those of Latin and Asian origins, those who are not Protestant, and those who are not from Western European backgrounds are evidence enough that what is claimed of democracy is - despite some exceptional cases - merely theory. Consequently, it is not allowed for a Muslim to accept democracy, because it gives man what is entitled exclusively for the Creator. It is obligatory upon every Muslim to reject it.

The correct way to organise life's affairs can only come from the creator of human life
Human beings have clearly been created - they have not always existed and have thus been brought into existence from non-existence by their Eternal Creator, Allah (swt), Who did not leave humanity without a way to satisfy it's needs, whether these be related to the instinct of religiousness, survival of the species or survival of the self. These needs are from Allah (swt), human beings themselves being totally unable to discard them.

Many people falsely claim that all religions are 'different ways to God', the implication being that each is as valid as the other. However, just because someone says that they believe in a particular creed doesn’t make that belief or set of beliefs correct. For example, beliefs such as there being more than one god or that God is 3 persons in 1 trinity are absolutely incorrect as they are not based on reason, just like the creeds of Communism and Capitalism. The common denominator is that they are all products of the fallible human intellect, claiming that they can attain nearness to God, meaning therefore that limited human beings can have knowledge of their Creator, Who has no beginning and no end – something which is absolutely false. That they worship lifeless matter which has absolutely no power to harm or benefit should indicate how declined such people are, for how you live life depends upon your concepts about it.

There is nobody or nothing worthy of worshipping except Allah (swt), The Eternal Creator. No human can know not just how to worship Allah (swt) but, also, why we exist and how to live in the life of this temporal world can only be known through Divine revelation i.e. via messengers sent by The Creator. The final messenger of Allah (swt), Muhammad (saw), was sent to show us all how to worship The Creator of everything. It was to Muhammad (saw) that the Qu'ran was revealed in the Arabic language, the Qu'ran being the speech of The Creator and His Shariah (Law); and it is the Qu'ran which provides the (continuous) proof that Muhammad (saw) is indeed sent by The Creator of the universe, for no human is capable of producing the like of the Qu'ran – a matter of irrefutable fact. It should, therefore, be very clear that humanity has not been left without the way in which to live in the life of this world, so that success may be achieved in it as well as in the Hereafter which will not end.

The root cause behind sectarian violence in Iraq

“Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners,” Zolqadr said. “If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers”.
This article was written a few years ago but the contents are still relevant.
The arrest of two British agents disguised as Shiite “terrorists” with a car full of explosives in Basra suggests that British occupation forces are involved in Iraq’s so-called sectarian bombings, which, until now have been unclaimed and unexplained acts of senseless violence.

After shooting and killing Iraqi police and civilians in Basra, two British agents from the Special Air Service (SAS) or a branch organization of the special forces, disguised as suicide bombers from the Mehdi Army, were caught “red-handed” in a car loaded with explosives. After failing to secure the release from the local police of their two captured agents through negotiations, British forces took extraordinary action and bulldozed the prison in Basra and threatened the Iraqi police officers at gunpoint until their agents of terror were turned over.

While the front pages of British papers on Sept. 20 carried photos of a burning tank involved in the first attempt to release the men, the much more significant – but largely obscured – story was in thedetails of the two British agents “whose arrest set Basra ablaze,” as the Daily Mail wrote.

The International Herald Tribune, the American-based paper published by The New York Times, did not even mention the important events in Basra that appear to have exposed an actual source of the so-called sectarian terrorism in Iraq. The Washington Post reported that the two Britons had been accused “of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives.” The governor of Basra, Mohammed al-Waili, said the British agents had been arrested after shooting two policemen and killing one.“They were driving a civilian car and were dressed in civilian clothes when a shooting took place between them and Iraqi patrols,” an official said. “We are investigating and an Iraqi judge is on the case questioning them.”

“The men were said to have had guns and explosives with them,” the BBC and British papers reported. Paul Wood of the BBC said the two British agents were probably on a covert mission to get intelligence needed to stop further attacks on British troops. “Their weapons, explosives and communications gear are standard kit for British special forces,” Wood said. He did not mention if that was also the case with their wigs or Arab clothing.

However, it seems highly unlikely that the two non-Arab British agents with wigs could have gotten past the front door in any infiltration attempt. Their disguises would have failed to fool any Iraqi who got close enough to speak with them.

In a statement, British Brigadier John Lorimer said that under Iraqi law the “soldiers” should have been handed over to coalition authorities. When negotiations failed to secure the release of the British agents, a British armoured personnel carrier flattened a wall of the prison. The attack on the prison involved a dozen military vehicles and helicopters. The British command was clearly urgently concerned about what the men might have revealed to Iraqi police under interrogation.

Gov. al-Waili called the operation a “barbaric act of aggression.”

While the significance of the British terrorists in disguise was not discussed in the mainstream media, it was more fully investigated by Socialist Worker, an on-line news site of the Socialist Party of Britain.
Sheikh Hassan al-Zarqani, a Basra-based spokesperson for rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, told Socialist Worker that the two British agents had been armed with explosives and a remote control detonator.
The two bearded British agents had been wearing black wigs and disguised as members of Sadr’s militia, the Mehdi Army, when they were caught. This is a commonly employed tactic of “false flag terrorism” often used by the Israeli secret services in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The Arab disguises are meant to guarantee that eyewitnesses of whatever terror operation the men were involved in saying that it been carried out by Iraqis.The incident in Basra, according to Sheikh Hassan, began when a senior official of Sadr’s movement, Sheikh Ahmad Fartusi, was arrested on Sunday, Sept. 18.

“We called a protest outside the mayor’s office on Monday demanding the Sheikh be released,” Hassan said. “This protest was peaceful.“But events in our city took a sinister turn when the police tried to stop two men dressed as members of the Mehdi Army driving near the protest. The men opened fire on the police and passers-by. After a car chase they were arrested,” Hassan said.

“What our police found in their car was very disturbing – weapons, explosives and a remote control detonator,” he said. “These are the weapons of terrorists. We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets, and thanks be to God, they were stopped and countless lives were saved.

"The two men were taken to the police station to answer questions about their activities. That afternoon the British army came in tanks and armored cars demanding the two be released..“The police refused as they were considered to be planning terrorist attacks, and as they were disguised as members of the Mehdi Army, the police wanted to know who their target was.
“Thousands of people gathered to defend the police station. British troops opened fire and the crowds responded with stones and firebombs.“Why were these men dressed as Mehdi Army?” Hassan asked. “Why were they carrying explosives and where were they planning to detonate their bomb?"

"Were they planning an outrage so that they could create tensions with other communities? Were they going to kill innocent people to put the blame on Al Qaida, who do not have any support in our city?

“The soldiers drove a tank into the police station and threatened to kill the police officers if they did not hand over the two terrorists,” Hassan said. “It is only then, to save any further loss of life, that the men were released.”

Five days before the arrest of the two British agents in Basra,Al Jazeera had reported on the growing suspicion that the occupation forces are the real perpetrators of bomb attacks in Iraq in an interview with Iran’s top military commander, Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr.

Zolqadr said the United States and Israel were behind the so-called sectarian bombing attacks that have killed thousands of civilians in Iraq.The occupation forces, Zolqadr told senior officials, need these attacks to justify the continuation of their military presence in Iraq.

“The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies,” Zolqadr said.

“Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners,” Zolqadr said. “If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers”.

The U.S. wanted to remain in Iraq to “plunder the country’s wealth, bring the Middle East under its control, and create security for Israel, which is on the verge of annihilation,” according to Zolqadr.
The most obvious strategy of the “false flag” terrorism is to foment civil strife in Iraq leading to the “Balkanization” of the state into three ethnic statelets, as was done with the former Yugoslavia.
British forces have employed such “false flag” terror tactics to advance the “divide and conquer” strategy in other conflicts in the past...
(Originally posted on facebook in July 2016)

Terminology: No such thing as 'hoejabi'

 Salam,

 

Can everyone please stop using the term 'hojabi' or 'hoejabi'- it's really really getting on my nerves.  Is there ever an appropriate situation to refer to your sister in Islam as a 'hoe'?  Even if she behaves and dresses in an inappropriate way- is using derogatory names the Islamically correct way of dealing with the problem?  On top of that, take a moment to think of the word 'hijab'.  It's the general term people resort to when referring to sisters who cover (at least cover their heads but also people who wear jilbab and niqab are often referred to with the same terminology).  

 

This post is not concerning how non Muslims perceive hijab or covering but more specifically aimed at Muslims.  Knowing full well that within the Ummah, the term 'hijab' is a term of respect for those sisters who adhere to the Islamic rules of covering- is there any justification in the deen at all for coupling the term 'hoe' with it?

 

Some of you may respond with anecdotes; "Oh so and so's daughter covers her head but still wears skin tight jeans and goes clubbing", "Oh that guy's sister covers her head when she leaves the house but then sneaks off secretly with her boyfriend".  Yes I know this stuff goes on, but that's not really my point.  My point is regarding why an Islamic term of respect for women is manipulated into something so disgusting?  

 

As for the stories of women who cover their heads and get up to bad things... well first of all, those who cover their heads but continue to wear skin tight or revealing clothes- that doesn't really count as 'hijab' anyway as hijab really is a lot more than just a headcovering.  Secondly, even if a girl does cover properly and gets up to haraam like sneaking off with a boyfriend etc- why are you blaming her clothes for that?  Shouldn't you be taking issue with her unislamic behaviour rather than her Islamic clothing?  The sin she commits is in doing the haraam act, the clothes she wears are not responsible for her sin.  Aside from which, if your best response is "you can't respect the headscarf so you shouldn't wear it"... in that case, you are advising her to commit more sins!  If she's committing one sin by (for example) having a boyfriend she's committing two sins by resorting to dress in an unIslamic way as well!  Would you like to face Allah (swt) on the day of judgement with the knowledge that you assisted a Muslimah in committing more haraam than she was already involved in?

 

And finally; why is it that whenever people discuss inappropriate behaviour by Muslimahs- they always pick on the hijabis?  Aren't uncovered Muslim women bound by the same rules of Islam as the rest of us?  Aren't they required to practise any faraid themselves?  What makes you think they're absolved of responsibility?  The headcovering is a fard (duty/obligation according to the rules of Islam) for all Muslim women (yes I know there are other rules such as avoiding tabaruj, wearing loose clothing, covering all the awrah etc etc that's a whole other discussion)- it is not our place to discourage other Muslim women from fulfilling a fard, even if they are committing haraam or neglecting other fards.  

 

One consequence of putting all the focus on hijabis, is that i've seen many times when non hijabi Muslimahs sincerely take an interest in the deen and in hijab- but they feel scared, intimidated and put off (by other Muslims).  They say things like "I'm not Islamically ready yet"- as if there needs to be some certification of religious knowledge and purity before a person can just get on with fulfilling a fard that should've begun since they became women anyway.  In ramadan, pretty much everyone fasts with no questions asked (even a lot of non practising Muslims)- no one asks them "Are you Islamically ready yet?", everyone just gets on with it.  Why isn't the same said about covering the head?  They feel that they're held up to a higher standard and more rigorous scrutiny if they cover and don't know if they can handle that level of pressure.  I think all Muslimahs (and Muslim brothers when it comes to other Islamic issues) need to be held accountable and placed under scrutiny- not just save all the attention for the ones who wear religious attire.