Dr. Israr vs Sh. Mokhtar
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012 | Labels: Islam, Islamic State, Jihad, Spirituality | 4 Comments
Moving Beyond Our Spiritual Jihad
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011 | Labels: American Islam, Islamic State, Jihad, politics | 9 Comments
Links of Interest
Friday, June 4, 2010
MM posted this amazing debate on the Freedom Flotilla massacre between Ahmed Bedier and the Israel consul general in Florida. I can't put into words how impressed I am by Ahmed Bedier.
Azra put up a flashy ad by a SA telecom in support of the World Cup. As I commented on her blog, these types of ads truly disgust me. They deify sports and athletes as objects of worship. The world stops when the game begins. It was done with Jordan many years ago and it's being done today.
Judge for yourself:
File this under 'News to me' - it's illegal to send money to the Taliban. Not just for American citizens, but for Emiratis.
Seems that these folks sent money to the Afghan Taliban and in return got beat up by UAE police, who also threatened to sexually abuse them or a family member, and eventually were sentenced for three years for financing a terrorist organization.
The arm of the American legal system is very long indeed.
Friday, June 04, 2010 | Labels: capitalism, Jihad, Modernity, Palestine, politics, Taliban, war on terror, web stuff | 3 Comments
Useless Discussions on Jihad
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
I've written before on the importance of reclaiming Jihad, but I've noticed a recent trend and felt it worthy to revisit the subject.
It has become commonplace in the current political climate for Muslims to regularly define (and sometimes redefine) the concept of Jihad. As I see it, there are three popular approaches, all factually correct, but functionally useless to those aspiring to holistically actualize this sixth pillar of Islam.
First, there are those who are keen to denounce blatant acts of terror and violence and disassociate said acts from the venerable principle of Jihad. This approach basically provides us with a clear definition of what Jihad is NOT.
That's all fine and well, but it fails to answer the obvious follow-up question - If that isn't Jihad, then what is?
The other popular trend is to emphasize the internal aspects of Jihad - the spiritual battle with the nafs (ego). Surely, you will find no greater proponent of this concept than this writer. The nafs is truly one of the greatest obstacles to pleasing our Creator.
However, this fails to address the outward needs of man. While struggling to purify our inner selves, we cannot turn a blind eye to the filth surrounding ourselves. The flood of secular hedonism is overtaking our homes yet we are busy with spring cleaning and interior decorating.
Finally, you find those focused on the spiritual Jihad responding to the claim that their ilk has abandoned the physical Jihad by waxing poetically on the glorious history of Sufi Mujahideen.
While this history is impressive to say the least, it says nothing about current day teachers of Tasawwuf and their inadequate approach to Jihad. Far too many of those calling to the ways of the inimitable Hasan al-Basri and Abdullah ibn Mubarak have become derelict with their obligations towards Jihad.
While countless awliyah of the past sufficed themselves with focusing on the inner self, content with the basic framework for "Islamic" governance provided by the sultans, emirs, and caliphs - the same cannot be said for today's situation wherein the Shariah has been shredded apart and relegated to the private domain. Yet, these spiritual inheritors of ibn Arabi and Imam Ghazali remain blind to contemporary political realities, choosing the route of passivity and non-interventionism.
Sadly, very few out there are interested in negotiating a balanced approach to Jihad that finds one combating the oppressions of the nafs while equally turning back the oppressive hands of the tyrant.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 | Labels: American Islam, Jihad, Muslims, social problems | 24 Comments
Criminalize War?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
I scoff at the mere suggestion, reminding myself of the various injunctions of Allah (swt) and His messenger (saw) that not only make certain forms of combat necessary, but commendable. How can any sane Muslim ever consider all forms of war to be criminal, especially when our Creator has stated, "Fighting is prescribed upon you and you dislike it. However, it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you..."(2:216)?
The Prophet took part in many battles and he surely was no criminal! So who are we to suggest that war become a criminal act, worthy of universal condemnation?
Of course, when I bring up the criminality of war as discussed in contemporary forums, I am looking at it less from secular, international standards and more from Islamic juristic rulings. So, in reality, my question may be better phrased - Should war be Haram?
My concern arises from a recent talk given by Mahathir Mohammad on the call to criminalize war (YouTube link).
While he didn't express any earth-shattering points in his short talk, it struck me while listening that war in the 21st century is entirely different from how warfare was conducted in the past. So maybe it *is* time that we reconsider the Islamic ruling on war as its carried out in this day and age.
After all, Muslims universally reject modern-day slavery - not because slavery never existed in Islamic history, but because the form in which it has been practiced in recent history is abominable and would have been deemed inhumane and clearly Haram by our beloved Prophet (saw).
Why can't the same logic be applied to modern warfare?
After giving it some thought, I seriously believe that our perfect model Muhammad (saw) would reject all forms of modern warfare. The indiscriminate killing by missiles and drones, the unfathomable harm caused by multi-ton bombs, the ability to destroy an entire nation in a matter of hours, environmental damage beyond control - all stand in stark contrast to every teaching of the Prophetic concept of war.
Surely some will counter with the verse in the Quran "Make ready against them whatever force and war mounts you are able to muster, so that you might deter thereby the enemies of God" (8:60) as a justification to using modern military equipment, including nuclear.
But the problem with the nuclear deterrence argument is that one must be fully prepared to make good on one's threat. And Islamically, I'm just not comfortable with that possibility.
On the other hand, I understand that traditional scholars, such as Abu Hanifa, justified the usage of flooding or poisoning water sources as legitimate tools in war. But c'mon, the scope of such tactics pale in comparison to the ridiculous damage that can be inflicted by the military arsenal at our disposal in the 21st century.
No, I haven't become a pacifist. I firmly believe that force is necessary to bring about justice and truth. It's just that the current form in which this force is wielded has got me thinking twice about its permissibility in our deen.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009 | Labels: Islam, Jihad, Shariah | 7 Comments