Kebab Kaliphate? Options

[OhMyGod!]

Islam & the West: The Kebab Kaliphate Klub
By: Irfan Yusuf
Wednesday 31 January 2007

I’d been planning to have a quiet weekend — just sitting back, putting my feet up and watching the tennis. Then the media circus started. The headlines screamed:

‘ISLAMIC GROUP IN CONSPIRACY TO ESTABLISH KEBAB KALIPHATE KLUB (KKK) IN LAKEMBANON AFTER BEING BANNED FROM BEIRUTSTOWN!’

Or something like that.

The way they were carrying on, I thought Anthony Robbins had grown a beard and was hosting some kind of al-Qaeda training camp on how to ‘feel the jihad within.’ Instead, it turned out to be just another bloody Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) rally.

So, I thought I would ring my Indonesian buddy (one of whose female relatives married a local HT leader) and suggest we go along for a few laughs.

Like millions of Indonesian Muslims, my mate follows the Muhammadiyah, one of Indonesia’s two main Islamic ‘churches.’ At last count, the youth group of Muhammadiyah consists of a handful of members — around 10 million. The other group, Nahdhatul Ulama (NU) has around 20 million in its youth wing and around 40 million in its senior wing.

The Indonesian wing of HT has around 150,000 members. Excuse me while I check my blood pressure.

HT (whose members are affectionately labelled as ‘Hizbos’) is an international political movement (the Arabic word ‘Hizb’ literally means ‘political Party’) whose goal is to re-establish an international caliphate. HT believes that things have been Allah-damned awful for Muslims ever since Kemal Atatürk gave the last Caliph the flick in 1924. Everything before that was a bed of roses. HT believes that the only way to bring back the roses is to revive the caliphate using ‘Islamic’ methods.

And what makes a method for reviving the caliphate ‘Islamic’? Well, for starters, you shouldn’t use democracy, capitalism, socialism, liberalism or any other ‘ism.’ You shouldn’t participate in mainstream politics or economics; you should only use methods that are ‘Islamic.’


A Hizb ut-Tahrir banner

This, in a nutshell, is HT methodology. It’s completely self-defeating. They are excellent at telling you what isn’t Islamic, but hopeless at telling you what is.

Here are just some of the problems with their methodology:

Their permissible means don’t coincide with classical formulations of Islamic sacred law.

They say they are against un-‘Islamic’ (read ‘Western’) methods, yet their entire program is couched in Western terms and uses Western political constructs. For instance, they use terms like ‘Islamic State’ when the caliphate did not coincide with a State in any sense.

They have a rather strange sense of history.

At the conference, one of their local speakers (a young chap named Ashraf Doureihi) told us that classical Islamic jurists didn’t give any guidance on how to revive the caliphate. He attributed this to the fact that classical jurists always took the caliphate’s existence for granted.

That’s true. They also took a lot of other things for granted. A bed-of-roses caliphate wasn’t one of them.

Before I commence a brief history lesson, I’d like to wish you all a happy new year. We’re currently in the month of Muharram, the first lunar month of the Islamic sacred calendar. During the first 10 days of Muharram, Shi’a Muslims commemorate the days leading up to the massacre of Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed (he was definitely no relation to Saddam!).

Hussein is loved and revered by all Muslims regardless of denomination. His father, Ali, was the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law. Ali was also the fourth Sunni Caliph and the first Shi’a Imam. When Ali died, the Governor of Syria declared himself Caliph. Later, he appointed his son Yazid to succeed him. This was the beginning of a caliphate whose moral and legal validity is questioned by both Sunnis and Shi’as.

Yazid was a nasty piece of work. He sent an army to surround Hussein and his completely unarmed extended family. Almost all were massacred. Among the martyrs was Hussein himself. Shi’a Muslims commemorate this as a sacred day (as indeed do most Sunnis).

So there you have it. A caliph murders the grandson of the Prophet and a whole bunch of his relatives. Is this the caliphate HT wants to revive?


A Hizb ut-Tahrir rally in London

The dynasty of Yazid were known as the Umayyads. They were later succeeded by a separate dynasty called the Abbasids, who made it a point to massacre just about every Umayyad they could find. One managed to get away and set up a rival caliphate in Spain. So at one stage, there were two caliphs! Is this what HT wants?

Getting back to classical Islamic sacred law, quite a few of these caliphs were quite happy to jail and torture classical Muslim jurists. Sunni Islam is an amazing example of juristic pluralism. Numerous schools of law developed, and today four have come down to us in their full form. The most popular one is called the Hanafi school and was founded by a Persian chap named Abu Hanifa.

Now Abu Hanifa was jailed, tortured and publicly humiliated by the Caliph of his day. Why? Because Abu Hanifa refused to become Chief Justice under a Caliph he regarded as corrupt. The founders of the other three schools were also treated very shabbily. One even died in the Caliph’s prison.

Most young Muslims know their history. They know that caliphates can be good and bad. Just as can liberal democracies, social democracies and even constitutional monarchies (just ask David Flint).

Which probably explains why hardly 400 attended Sunday’s gathering. After gaining so much publicity, this was a poor turnout. Perhaps 10 times this number would take out an hour from their Friday lunchtime to attend congregational prayers at the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb Mosque (the one in Lakemba where Sheik Hilali occasionally preaches) without any need for advertising.

The overseas speakers included an Imam from Jerusalem and a speaker from Indonesia. How such allegedly threatening speakers could so easily enter the country is surprising. Especially when one considers that speakers of far less controversy have been denied visas. How on earth did the DIC-head let them in? Or has the DIC-head suddenly lost all his ministerial discretion?

In December last year, the London correspondent for the al-Jazeera News Network was denied entry to Australia at the last minute. Malek Triki was to be a keynote speaker at a journalism conference co-hosted by Macquarie University and University of Technology Sydney. Apparently his surname was confused for that of one of Saddam Hussein’s henchmen. How DIMA-witted can you get!

For a Party which openly prohibits its followers from participating in democratic processes, HT has now become a political hot potato. Bankstown’s ALP-Right Mayor Tanya Mihailuk (whose ward contains HT’s Greenacre headquarters) cancelled HT’s booking for the Town Hall. Her factional colleague and Member for Lakemba, Premier Morris Iemma, insists that the Federal Government proscribe HT as a terrorist organisation.

Iemma has the luxury of doing this. The NSW Libs don’t look like running a candidate in his seat in the next State election. And should HT’s anti-democracy ideology be followed by a substantial number of the area’s Muslims, Iemma should be able to rest easy knowing that any Muslim vote will be even more split than it usually is.

Whatever Iemma’s concerns, HT’s clumsily expressed methodology attracts so few people, and their ideology is so fringe, that they’ll be lucky to take even a first step toward achieving any caliphate. HT should be compared less to al-Qaeda and more to the galaxy of loony socialist groups on campus seeking to establish socialism.

The Federal Government is clearly alert. At this stage, no one (apart from paranoid bloggers) need be alarmed.

About the author

Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney-based industrial and human rights lawyer and occasional lecturer at the School of Politics at Macquarie University.

He is also a columnist whose pieces have appeared in the Australian Financial Review, Sydney Morning Herald, Canberra Times, Daily Telegraph, Courier-Mail and New Zealand Herald.

Source.

[Jimmy]

Interesting post

[Legally Insane]

For a lawyer, his arguments are [MOD: deleted]weak.

What kind of dumb analogy is this:

Which probably explains why hardly 400 attended Sunday’s gathering. After gaining so much publicity, this was a poor turnout. Perhaps 10 times this number would take out an hour from their Friday lunchtime to attend congregational prayers at the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb Mosque (the one in Lakemba where Sheik Hilali occasionally preaches) without any need for advertising.

On the overall though, he does make some good points.

[OhMyGod!]

LI, what arguments are weak and why?

[Scalpel]

A good read. I have to take issue with: "a Persian chap named Abu Hanifa". Surely, his name, as of any widely-respected learned Muslim scholar, should be spoken with due deference.

This post has been edited by Scalpel: Jan 31 2007, 05:07 PM

[YC]

Poor turnout? The event was packed... To go to the restroom you had to plan 10 mins in advance.

[TAS``]

The most popular one is called the Hanafi school and was founded by a Persian chap named Abu Hanifa.

Just how hard is it for someone to get their idea across without coming across as a freak.

We do not address our scholars with words like "chap".

Just who is this Irfan Yusuf chap? Not that Im pro-HT, but I think all of us, the whole lot of the Ummah, needs a crash course in adaab. We might be "mates" on a personal level as friends or on the forums, but these are not the words we address people greater than our parents by.

If only Irfan Yusuf knew the meaning of "Abu Hanifa" rahimahullah. Wonder if his kids address him as "matey" or "chap" or "bloke".

[Lantern]

Disrespect as usual is the style of Irfan, however putting it aside he brings up an issue which came to my mind during the conference aswell in regards to Brother Ashraf's statement -

At the conference, one of their local speakers (a young chap named Ashraf Doureihi) told us that classical Islamic jurists didn’t give any guidance on how to revive the caliphate. He attributed this to the fact that classical jurists always took the caliphate’s existence for granted.

Besides the examples that Irfan gives below there are many more examples that demonstrate that an ideal khilafa was long gone before 1924 and the classical scholars had many reasons to develop a methodology to re-establish it. At times, even the aqeedah of the rulers were not in line with the ahle sunna, and their rule went on for extensive periods during which blood of the scholars was spilt in an effort to maintain the sunni aqeedah. It seems that certain rulers were only given the title of khalifa simply because they were the ruler...not because of any of their exceptional Islamic qualities in their governing.

Shaykh Imran Hussein has also explained the various levels of the term 'khilafa' in its different contexts.

I also believe that I am correct when I observe that while the institution of the Khilafah remained in the world upto March 1924 the office of Khalifah was occupied in a manner contrary to the principle of Shura. We may thus make a distinction between an authentic and a less-than-authentic Khalifah. Our predecessors made a distinction between Khulafa who were Rashidoon and those who were less-than-Rashidoon.

Herein, perhaps, lies the explanation for the use of the term Khalifah for a ruler or rulers over Muslims who would precede the advent of Imam al-Mahdi.

When Ali died, the Governor of Syria declared himself Caliph. Later, he appointed his son Yazid to succeed him. This was the beginning of a caliphate whose moral and legal validity is questioned by both Sunnis and Shi’as.

Yazid was a nasty piece of work. He sent an army to surround Hussein and his completely unarmed extended family. Almost all were massacred. Among the martyrs was Hussein himself. Shi’a Muslims commemorate this as a sacred day (as indeed do most Sunnis).

So there you have it. A caliph murders the grandson of the Prophet and a whole bunch of his relatives. Is this the caliphate HT wants to revive?

The dynasty of Yazid were known as the Umayyads. They were later succeeded by a separate dynasty called the Abbasids, who made it a point to massacre just about every Umayyad they could find. One managed to get away and set up a rival caliphate in Spain. So at one stage, there were two caliphs! Is this what HT wants?

Getting back to classical Islamic sacred law, quite a few of these caliphs were quite happy to jail and torture classical Muslim jurists. Sunni Islam is an amazing example of juristic pluralism. Numerous schools of law developed, and today four have come down to us in their full form. The most popular one is called the Hanafi school and was founded by a Persian chap named Abu Hanifa.

Now Abu Hanifa was jailed, tortured and publicly humiliated by the Caliph of his day. Why? Because Abu Hanifa refused to become Chief Justice under a Caliph he regarded as corrupt. The founders of the other three schools were also treated very shabbily. One even died in the Caliph’s prison.

Abu Hanifa being tortured and humiliated (aswell as the other 3 Mujtahid Imams) were in the perfect position to develop a methodology to overthrow the tyrants they were living under. So on what basis did brother Ashraf make his statement that the classical jurists had no reason to develop a method in re-establishing the khilafa.


The same issue was brought up by TAS in another thread, which hasn't been answered as yet.

. When they were around, they still had enough rulerships and political systems that are a lot like a lot of the modern day pseudo-Islamic states that needed political re-engineering (minus of course the brown nosing to their puppet masters). Sure a lot of the governments had some aspects of the Sharia established, and maybe much more than in current times, but not all. So this problem always has been there. Sure, Im no expert on the comprehensive details of all the classical works of Islam, but reason simply suggests, that either the classical scholars definitely had methodologies for re-engineering political systems, or if they didnt, the classical mujtahid scholars wouldnt have deemed them worthy of a mention.
Cheers
[right][snapback]478605[/snapback][/right]

This post has been edited by Tasnia: Jan 31 2007, 06:44 PM

[Othman]

So this is what Irfan attended half the conference for: having another go at a 'fringe' group that no one should be worried about. SubhanAllah, one would have to be an complete idiot to spend half a weekend at a conference convened by group one thinks is so insignificant and off the mark. Of course, we all know that Irfan, the one-man road-show, should be the last person to speak about fringe elements.

HT (whose members are affectionately labelled as ‘Hizbos’) is an international political movement (the Arabic word ‘Hizb’ literally means ‘political Party’) whose goal is to re-establish an international caliphate.

Now he's teaching us Arabic. Err..'hizb' means 'party', not 'politcal party'. Try again.

HT believes that things have been Allah-damned awful for Muslims ever since Kemal Atatürk gave the last Caliph the flick in 1924. Everything before that was a bed of roses.

Wrong. We do not believe that. After the Khulafa' al-Rashidun the khilafa's was always less than ideal.

This, in a nutshell, is HT methodology. It’s completely self-defeating. They are excellent at telling you what isn’t Islamic, but hopeless at telling you what is.

Trust Irfan to tell us what's Islamic.

They say they are against un-‘Islamic’ (read ‘Western’) methods, yet their entire program is couched in Western terms and uses Western political constructs. For instance, they use terms like ‘Islamic State’ when the caliphate did not coincide with a State in any sense.

Is this a joke?

At the conference, one of their local speakers (a young chap named Ashraf Doureihi) told us that classical Islamic jurists didn’t give any guidance on how to revive the caliphate. He attributed this to the fact that classical jurists always took the caliphate’s existence for granted.

Small correction. He did not say that they go no guidance, but that they did not set-out/derive any detailed methodology.

When Ali died, the Governor of Syria declared himself Caliph. Later, he appointed his son Yazid to succeed him. This was the beginning of a caliphate whose moral and legal validity is questioned by both Sunnis and Shi’as.

Forget the scholars, he does not even have any respect when speaking about the Companions! The 'Governor of Syria' was Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan (ra). He did not simply declare him caliph, then people also gave him their allegiance.

The dynasty of Yazid were known as the Umayyads. They were later succeeded by a separate dynasty called the Abbasids, who made it a point to massacre just about every Umayyad they could find. One managed to get away and set up a rival caliphate in Spain. So at one stage, there were two caliphs! Is this what HT wants?

Poor Irfan, who has probably not studied any Usul al-Fiqh in his life, is stepping into uncharted waters. Someone should direct him back and let him know that history is not a source of the Shari'ah

Getting back to classical Islamic sacred law, quite a few of these caliphs were quite happy to jail and torture classical Muslim jurists. Sunni Islam is an amazing example of juristic pluralism. Numerous schools of law developed, and today four have come down to us in their full form. The most popular one is called the Hanafi school and was founded by a Persian chap named Abu Hanifa.

Allahu Akbar! Chap?! Allahu Musta'an.

Most young Muslims know their history. They know that caliphates can be good and bad. Just as can liberal democracies, social democracies and even constitutional monarchies (just ask David Flint).

I would beg to differ. Most young Muslims do not know thier history. Unimportant point though, like most of the article.

Which probably explains why hardly 400 attended Sunday’s gathering. After gaining so much publicity, this was a poor turnout. Perhaps 10 times this number would take out an hour from their Friday lunchtime to attend congregational prayers at the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb Mosque (the one in Lakemba where Sheik Hilali occasionally preaches) without any need for advertising.

Funny how he always compares to Jumu'a. I challenge him to hold a lecture or conference, on any topic, and attract a crowd of even 50 Muslims.

[Othman]

Besides the examples that Irfan gives below there are many more examples that demonstrate that an ideal khilafa was long gone before 1924 and the classical scholars had many reasons to develop a methodology to re-establish it. At times, even the aqeedah of the rulers were not in line with the ahle sunna, and their rule went on for extensive periods during which blood of the scholars was spilt in an effort to maintain the sunni aqeedah. It seems that certain rulers were only given the title of khalifa simply because they were the ruler...not because of any of their exceptional Islamic qualities in their governing. 

Shaykh Imran Hussein has also explained the various levels of the term 'khilafa' in its different contexts.

Abu Hanifa being tortured and humiliated (aswell as the other 3 Mujtahid Imams) were in the perfect position to develop a methodology to overthrow the tyrants they were living under.  So on what basis did brother Ashraf make his statement that the classical jurists had no reason to develop a method in re-establishing the khilafa.[right][snapback]504510[/snapback][/right]

You're confusing to very different issues. One, where there is Khilafah or khalifah, and the other, where there is but it is less than ideal, that is, its has some faults in it, but they are not such to render it into dar al-kufr.

The Khilafah has always existed since the first State in Madinah, till 1924. The early scholars did not fathom that it would be destroyed, at least not anywhere near their times. This is what Ashraf was speaking about. Which is a different isse to the existence of a oppressive ruler ruling dar al-Islam. The presence of an oppresive ruler alone does not render the land into dar al-kufr, as long as he the law of the land is still the Shari'ah and the security is in the hands of the Muslims.

So when you have dar al-Islam established, but an oppressive ruler succeeds, this does not require a detailed methodology to remove him. What the scholars did was to stand firm on the truth and in most cases to leave the rulers in fear of removing him creating greater fitnah. This is in the cases that he continues implementing Islam. If he displays blantant kufr, or implements kufr, then he must be removed. The ahadith on this issue are clear.

So the situation of oppressive Khalifah's is completely different from puppet rulers put in place to serve the interests of the enemy. The worst of the Muslim Khulafaa' still had the interests of Islam at heart. The Abbasid's were great patrons of Islamic knowledge. The Uthmani's spread Islam to lands far and wide. Even at its lowest level, the Uthmani Khilafah, headed by Sultan Abdul Hamid, refused to sell an inch of Palestine to the Jews, yet since then, the puppet rulers of the kuffar have sold the holy lands of Palestine again and again and again. May Allah punish them with what they deserve!

Point is, the two situations are world apart.

As for methodlogies of classical scholars in re-establishing Islam, then really there's not need to argue or make assumptions. Simply show us where they are. Whose they are and what they are. Our claim is the there aren't any. If there are, then bring them forth.

[Taliban Princess]

A good read. I have to take issue with: "a Persian chap named Abu Hanifa". Surely, his name, as of any widely-respected learned Muslim scholar, should be spoken with due deference.
[right][snapback]504456[/snapback][/right]

I, like perhaps hundreds of others, have the misfortune of having my inbox saturated with Irfan Yusuf's daily [or is it hourly?] dribble and to date I have yet to see him preface even our beloved Prophet salAllahu alaihi wa sallam's name with sAw or PBUH, so why would he do so with Imam Abu Hanifa RadiAllahu anhu?

For a man with so much obvious spare time on his hands, one would think that wishing peace and blessings on our beloved Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam, wouldn't be too hard. Obviously it is.

[OhMyGod!]

I too am very disappointed in how he addressed Imam Abu Hanifa. He wasn't a "chap". He was one of the greatest scholars that ever lived, subhanAllah. He deserves to be recognised as such.

This post has been edited by OhMyGod!: Feb 1 2007, 12:20 AM

[Legally Insane]

LI, what arguments are weak and why?

They say they are against un-‘Islamic’ (read ‘Western’) methods, yet their entire program is couched in Western terms and uses Western political constructs. For instance, they use terms like ‘Islamic State’ when the caliphate did not coincide with a State in any sense

I'm not even going to begin telling you what is wrong with that argument. Of all the stupid things i've read.....

So there you have it. A caliph murders the grandson of the Prophet and a whole bunch of his relatives. Is this the caliphate HT wants to revive?

I don't understand the relevance of this event to the legitimacy of the khilafah. The misguided actions of a group of muslims do not make the khilafah illegitimate.

Which probably explains why hardly 400 attended Sunday’s gathering. After gaining so much publicity, this was a poor turnout. Perhaps 10 times this number would take out an hour from their Friday lunchtime to attend congregational prayers at the Imam Ali ben Abi Taleb Mosque (the one in Lakemba where Sheik Hilali occasionally preaches) without any need for advertising.

That's a pathetic argument. Jum'a prayers are fard, attending a HT conference is not. I've attended dozens of islamic lectures and I've never seen one as packed as the khilafah conference.

[Dishdash]

I challenge him to hold a lecture or conference, on any topic, and attract a crowd of even 50 Muslims.
[right][snapback]504788[/snapback][/right]

Haha! He is a one-man crowd!

[Anas]

lol I was suprised when I first saw Irfan at the conference, I thought he wants to transfer to 'extremism' ...

Irfan, your article is such a failure, driven by desperation - which is shown clearly in your 'attending a mosque' example -, and driven by disrespect - not only to HT, but to well respected scholars and sahaba-.
try again.

This post has been edited by Anas: Feb 1 2007, 12:37 AM

[Dishdash]

ALhamdulilah. If there appears to be one thing that unites this ummah, I think it's Irfan!!!!

[Anas]

ALhamdulilah.  If there appears to be one thing that unites this ummah, I think it's Irfan!!!!
[right][snapback]505002[/snapback][/right]

LOL, true that

[shoo_cuz]

Just how hard is it for someone to get their idea across without coming across as a freak.

We do not address our scholars with words like "chap".

Just who is this Irfan Yusuf chap? Not that Im pro-HT, but I think all of us, the whole lot of the Ummah, needs a crash course in adaab. We might be "mates" on a personal level as friends or on the forums, but these are not the words we address people greater than our parents by.

If only Irfan Yusuf knew the meaning of "Abu Hanifa" rahimahullah. Wonder if his kids address him as "matey" or "chap" or "bloke".
[right][snapback]504461[/snapback][/right]

lolll this irfan character i think is known for his controversial posts...

i think most will disagree with his argumentative style and approach...

[OhMyGod!]

assalamu alaykum.

an anonymous human (and i use the term in its broadest possible sese) on the Muslim Village idiots' forum makes the following point ...

http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?...ndpost&p=504848

I, like perhaps hundreds of others, have the misfortune of having my inbox saturated with Irfan Yusuf's daily [or is it hourly?] dribble and to date I have yet to see him preface even our beloved Prophet salAllahu alaihi wa sallam's name with sAw or PBUH, so why would he do so with Imam Abu Hanifa RadiAllahu anhu?

if i could answer 2 main points ...

a. the reason people will rarely read me using various supplications and honorific titles is that the vast majority of my posts are just newspaper or magazine articles. i don't expect journos or commentators from the SMH or the NYT to type out "Sayyidina Muhammad al-Mutafa sallallahu alayhi wasallam" each time they write the name of the Prophet (saw).

b. the reason i send out so many e-mails is the same reason others (such as bilal cleland) do. we see something on the web that is related to media and muslims. we believe it is useful to keep this item in some kind of storage. we post it on this yahoogrup so that any member can access it at any time in the future.

i invite the relevant Muslim Village idiots who find this situation intolerable to take any number of steps ...

a. change their settings on the yahoogroup website;

b. unsubscribe;

c. continue writing and talking about me behind my back so that my rewards multiply and Allah forgives me for not being able to use all relevant honorific titles appropriate for people of the like of Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and Imam al-Azam Nu'man bin Thabit Abu Hanifa (radhi Allahu anhu - may Allah be pleased with him) when writing for a largely non-Muslim audience in a publication like New Matila.

d. instead of following and defending groups like HT, to find a mainstram Sunni madhab and stick to it. For instance, I follow the hanafi madhab. alternately, become an ithna ashariyya shia and follow a living mujtahid.

ma salameh
irfan yusuf al-canberri al-hanafi (formerly an-naqshbandi)

PS: The balance of the MV thread is most entertaining.

[SirZubair]

Now now people, stop talking about Irfan, otherwise you might recieve a PM from him, his wife and his lawyer.

[Fatimahnz]

Now now people, stop talking about Irfan, otherwise you might recieve a PM from him, his wife and his lawyer.
[right][snapback]505035[/snapback][/right]

Yes I was at North Sydney court house on the 8th of January and they were all muslims sueing each other, there were no non muslims there except for court staff. Very bad trend

[Sam]

Assalamualaikum,

Please refrain from posting any more of Irfans more controversial items on these forums. Attention is what he wants, don't give it to him.

wasalaam
sam

[tr3x]

[MOD: no personal insults necessary;Si]- he whines about people talking about him behind his back but refers to people on this forum as idiots.

[syd]

Surely you can all see that the article was clearly directed at non muslims like myself? Picking him up on the fine points of arab translation is a bit finicky. When he says Hizb means political party and it really means party - that is splitting hairs when it comes to a non arab speaking non muslim like myself. In context he was generally right given his target audience.

Calling this scholar 'a chap' - without wanting to be disrespectful, when in australian rags/blurbs/columns/whatever do aussies use the full proper title such as The Right Honourable John Howard? Given the crash course in the history of Islam and the australian vernacular used, this article was clearly aimed at the average aussie in the street with no knowledge of Islam. How many aussies do you see write Jesus Christ the Son of God rather than just Jesus ? How many aussies do you see refer to the pope as 'his holiness the pope'? So to go round in an article saying Mohammed peace be upon him would be odd to me - and I spend a fair bit of time reading this forum - to my mates who wouldnt have a clue about Islam they would be wondering what its all about and no doubt would mock/scoff/jeer. And if you think that perhaps we should all start writing with some perceived 'correct' usuage of peoples names in the future, then bear in mind that one of the core features of this country is egalitarianism and irreverence. Whether you agree with it or not - it just is. No other country in the world boos the hell out of their leaders like australians. One of my early memories in life was going to the cricket in the 1980's with my Dad, Bob Hawke was there and when he came on the telly the whole of the SCG let out a deafening boo and the chants were quite vulgar & very audible, and this was one of our more popular pm's from the labor party in front of a working class crowd. Now i am not suggesting a politician is to be venerated in any way similar to a highly regarded man of faith - but my point is that authority and special treatment is usually derided by most australians. So when Irfan says 'this chap' , he is trying to use Australian vernacular. When he writes Mohammed without the PBUH - he is writing is because thats the way people in Australia refer to him. Adding the PBUH bit is a foreign concept to the majority of Australians and given his article was trying to educate you average non believing Australian I think he did the right thing.

People on this thread knock him, but I think he is a good bloke trying to build bridges. What he has done in that article is try to take the wind out of the sails of the all-muslims-are-terrorists arguing journos such as Andrew Bolts and Piers Akermans by saying indirectly - look im an aussie , im a muslim, and i dont believe in this world domination plan of hizb T, and i speak to same way ordinary australians speak.
I applaud what he does because I can see what he is trying to do, he is trying to educate people yet at the same time not seem completely foreign/completely removed to the average australian.

So, sorry for the long rant - but i guess i wanted to defend a person like this guy because I admire people who make efforts like he does to close divides. If we had more like him and less P Akermans et al, this country would be a much better place.

[Anya]

instead of following and defending groups like HT, to find a mainstram Sunni madhab and stick to it.

So now he's equating HT to some sort of deviant madhab?

You HTers (affectionately called 'Hizbos' ) better pull your khuffs up and join a real madhab.

FTR: Regardless of who Irfan writes for, he is a Muslim and it's basic Islamic manners to send your blessings on the Prophet Muhammed

[Faithful2Allah]

I for one am sick of read garbage written by Irfan. His lack of respect for everything under the sun is just not acceptable. I refuse to read his material until he learns to respect others as much as he demands respect for himself.

Allah yehdeena Jamee'an, ameen.

This post has been edited by Faithful2Allah: Feb 1 2007, 09:33 AM