HaRi AnTi-VaLeNtiNe SeDuNia DicaNanGkan di AcEh

Puluhan pelajar dari beberapa SMU di Banda Aceh yang tergabung dalam Moslem Teenager Community (MTC) membagi-bagikan selebaran berisi penolakan perayaan hari Valentine kepada para penguna jalan di Simpang Lima, Banda Aceh.

Aksi ini bertujuan untuk mengajak kaum muda Muslim di seluruh Tanah Air untuk menghindari perayaan yang bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam.

"Hari ini kami mencangkan sebagai Hari Anti-Valentine sedunia. Ini untuk menyadarkan kaum muda Muslim di Indonesia agar tidak mengikuti budaya yang tidak sesuai dengan ajaran agama. Apalagi bagi para muda-mudi di Aceh yang memang merupakan daerah bersyariat Islam," kata Faris Masri, salah seorang pelajar, di Banda Aceh, Rabu (13/02/2008).

Menurut Faris, Islam tidak pernah mengenal budaya seperti yang diperaktikkan di hari Valentine. Dirinya juga menganggap perayaan hari Valentine yang dilakukan kebanyakan kaum muda ini terjadi karena rendahnya pemahaman serta pengetahuan masyarakat terhadap Valentine itu sendiri.

"Di Romawi pada masa Kaisar Constantin, perayaan Valentine adalah untuk mengenang Uskup Valentine yang dihukum mati oleh raja karena menghalalkan zina. Selaku umat Muslim kita tidak pantas dan sangat berdosa bila merayakan hari pendeklarasian zina," tegasnya.

Pihaknya juga meminta perhatian dari pemerintah dan kaum ulama untuk mengeluarkan fatwa terhadap perayaan Valentine tersebut. Menurutnya, jika hal ini terus dibiarkan maka akan terus merusak akidah kaum generasi Islam.

"Kaum ulama harus memberikan pengarahan dan pemahaman kepada kami generasi muda, agar kami tidak salah langkah. Ini penting untuk menyelamatkan generasi Islam dari kerusakan moral dan akidah," ungkapnya. (okezone.com)

How to respond to the propaganda attack on Islam and the Shari'ah

The world's press of late has been full of coverage about the speech made by the British Archbishop where he spoke about the adoption of some aspects of Shari'ah law in Britain for Muslim minorities. This speech lead to a barrage of insults and attacks upon the Islamic Shari'ah, which placed many Muslims in Britain on the defensive. With the intense debate and discussion about Shari'ah, some of the Muslims have found it safer to defend Islam by distancing themselves from the rules of Islam or calling for an interpretation of Islam based upon Western standards. This article, adapted from the book 'A Warm Call from Hizb ut-Tahrir to the Muslims' addresses the age old intellectual onslaught on Islam and the need for Muslims to respond to this attack by displaying how Islam is in fact the solution to all human problems and at the same time challenging the Western ideology and its failure.

The struggle between the Islamic Ummah as one Ummah and the Kuffar as peoples and nations continued for thirteen consecutive centuries. The conflict between Islam as a Deen, her unique way of life and Kufr also continued throughout these past thirteen centuries. At the advent of the thirteenth century (nineteenth century CE), the Capitalist system, which is a system of Kufr, challenged the system of Islam in its thoughts and emotions. It was but a short round before the Muslims fell defeated. It was an intellectual blow that was followed by the destructive political subjugation.

However, Islam was not truly defeated and it will never be defeated, because it and it alone is the truth. How is it that Islam remains in the arena of conflict whilst its followers were defeated and they did not realise its position in the struggle? As for this challenge to Islam’s thoughts, it took place by attacking the Islamic thoughts through bringing extensive criticism and falsification against them. The Kafir nations confronted the ummah demanding solutions for new and diverse problems: Demanding their rules (Ahkaam) and the manner in which they would be solved. The position of the Muslims as regards to these two issues was one of utter weakness. They tried to retaliate but with failed and twisted attempts. The Muslims were demoralised which led to indifference.

A glaring challenge was thrown down to Islam by the systematic assault on its thoughts, rules and emotions. It would be natural, even inevitable, that the Muslims should have accepted this challenge, and plunged themselves into the intellectual battlefield with the Kuffar. It was rather obligatory on them to carry the initiative against Kufr and the Kuffar, because they are Da’wah carriers and people who convey a Message. However, the reality was that the Muslims weakened before the challenge in a manner that incited derision and ridicule of them, and covered them with shame and humiliation. So they came up with excuses for Islam regarding its rules on polygamy. They began to defend it by saying that polygamy can take place only in a situation of justice. They avoided the fact that Islam allows divorce and said that it does not allow it except within certain conditions. They accepted the accusations against the Islamic Khilafah and were silent over it, and they tried at the end of the Ottoman era to change its system. After its destruction, they avoided mentioning it or did not find the courage to mention it in public. They retreated concerning the issue of Jihad, and considered it an accusation thrown on Islam. So they responded to this accusation by saying Jihad is defensive war and not offensive.

In this manner they consented to what the Kuffar said and allowed Islam to stand accused. They proceeded to defend Islam in a way that can only be interpreted as a shocking defeat in the confrontation against the Kuffar. A direct consequence of this humiliation was that all the rules under attack were abandoned and the rules and thoughts of Capitalism took their place. As for the new issues and the problems that only occur in the Capitalist society, they interpreted Islam and distorted it in relation to them. They said that Islam holds the opinion of al-Massalih al-Mursalah (unqualified interests), thus the law of Allah agrees with man’s interests. They said that wisdom (al-Hikmah) is the lost property of the believer and he should take it wherever he finds it. Based on this, an attempt was made to reconcile the solution brought by the Capitalist system with Islam. They adopted it as Islam but Islam is immiscible with such ideas.

Studying Islam as a solution to problems
They did not study problems in order to derive solutions or to study the rules in the Kitab and Sunnah. Rather they adopted the West’s solutions to these problems wholeheartedly. Muslims then accepted them as Islamic solutions on the basis that Islam does not forbid them. Some adopted them on the basis of the opinion of al-Masaalih al-Mursalah as held by certain Imams, and not according to what the Qur’an and Hadith had brought. The Capitalist rules were therefore introduced by claiming them to be from Islam. It was inevitable that the laws in society and the societal transactions (Mu’amalat) of the Muslims would proceed without any regard for whether they were Islamic or not. Thus the Capitalist rules became established and Islam was forgotten. This facilitated the changing of the common emotions as long as it was easy to change the thoughts. Thus aversion to the strict adherence to the rules of Islam became widespread because the people considered it as religious fanaticism. Then the aversion moved to encompass the discrimination between the Muslims and the Kuffar, and between Islam and other religions. The concept of ‘nationalism’ came to stir the emotions and the Islamic zeal was buried. Thus, showing anger towards any attack on the Qur’an came to be seen as a sign of backwardness and decline. This is because, in their view, this assault constituted impartial scholarly research. With this the Islamic sentiments were wiped out. Nothing remained of the Islamic emotions except the priestly emotions, the emotions of worship. This was the shocking defeat that the Muslims faced before the Capitalist system’s contest with Islam.

As for the thoughts of Islam being the only true and correct thoughts, and the Capitalist aggressor’s thoughts being false and untrue, this is proven from the reality of the thoughts themselves. Thus, the Capitalist thoughts that consider polygamy a mistake, while considering it correct to restrict the man to one wife, are solutions applied to the reality of the human being and not some logical hypotheses. So where exists a society in the world, in which there is no more than one woman for a man? There is no society in the world where there aren’t at least some men who have more than one wife. However, some of them call their partners mistresses or girlfriends and some of them call them wives. Do the rules allowing polygamy, which leave the choice for a man to practise it or leave it, thus making the second, third or fourth woman a legally recognised wife and not a mistress or girlfriend, do they agree with the natural disposition (FiTrah) of man and address the problem? Or do the rules that prohibit polygamy agree with the natural disposition (FiTrah) of man and solve the problem? This is particularly when they remain silent at having relations with more than a woman illegally,. since it is not allowed more than one. Or is making the living together of spouses one of companionship and choice:

“either you retain her on reasonable terms or release her with kindness.” [TMQ 2:229].

He would keep her if living together in a state of happiness for both spouses or he would divorce her if living together is the cause of their misery; does this not accord with the happiness and tranquillity of the spouses? Or does the imposition of a forced life together, even if it causes the worst type of misery, achieve the happiness and tranquillity of the spouses.

Thus, the issue of explaining the validity of the Islamic Shari’ah and its suitability for people in every age and every generation requires one to ask: Is it revealed from Allah as a Shari’ah for people? Once this issue has been proven, then it is definite that it is the true Shari’ah. This is because one of the attributes of the deity, which is necessitated by the divine power, is to acquire the attribute of absolute perfection and the infallibility from any deficiency. It has been proven that His Law is correct and suitable in the form it has come; and it has also been proven that it has come for all people for all ages and for every generation; He (swt) said:

“And We have not sent you except to all of mankind” [TMQ 34:28],

“And Say: O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah” [TMQ 7:158].

It is inevitable that this Shari’ah should also be a source for thought from which all the human relationships would be deduced. It is also inevitable that it should be wide-ranging, thus including all new and diverse incidents. Then certainly it will be a fertile soil for establishing comprehensive principles and general thoughts. As long as it is for human beings as human beings, then it will undoubtedly solve the problems of all peoples however much they may differ in their nationality or environments. All of this is necessitated by the fact that it is a Shari’ah from Allah (swt), which He has revealed to His Prophet so that he may convey it to the people in order to act upon it. This is the issue regarding the Islamic Shari’ah, which is the speech of the Legislator relating to the actions of the servants, i.e. that it is a solution to all problems, which was revealed by Allah. So when He prohibited usury, one does not ask whether this prohibition is in agreement with the age or not, or whether it agrees with modern civilisation or not. The only thing to be asked is whether this prohibition has been deduced from what was revealed from Allah. If it is from the revelation then it is a correct rule, otherwise it is not. It is incorrect to say that this hinders trade dealings and severs economic relationships with the outside world and makes the country isolated. It is incorrect to say this, because the basis on which the viewpoint of life is established is to make the Shar’a the criterion for actions. Only the Shar’a should judge, i.e. the criterion should only be the Halal and the Haram.

Therefore anything other than the Shar’a is not considered a criterion and is discarded. Similarly, when Allah (swt) obliges the husband to pay maintenance (nafaqah) to his wife seemingly (Bil-Ma’aroof) even if she is rich, it is wrong to ask whether this obligation is in agreement with the modern age or not. It is wrong to say that the spouses co-operate in life so they must co-operate in the maintenance of the house. Nor is it right to say that the maintenance is for the poor wife and not for the wealthy one. Such questions and statements should not be made. Rather, one should only ask if this obligation has been deduced from what the revelation (wahy) has brought from Allah (swt). If that is the case, then the rule is correct, otherwise it is not. Similarly, Allah permitted the human being to spend his wealth on the permissible things as much as he wants and in whatever way he wants. So for example, a husband might buy his wife jewellery and gems worth half a million dinars; and he might spend one million dinars to set up different playgrounds for his children to play in, he might buy his ten sons seven cars each, so they can use one each day. Since Allah has permitted all this, it should not be said that it contradicts the economic interest or that it disagrees with the interest of the person, or that is not accepted by the mind. That should not be said at all, rather it should only be asked whether this permission has been deduced from what the revelation (wahy) has brought from Allah (swt). If that is so, then the rule is correct and so on and so forth. The fundamental issue is to measure the validity or invalidity of the rule, based on the fact that it is derived from what the revelation (wahy) has brought from Allah (swt). If it has been taken from what the revelation (wahy) has brought then it is valid, otherwise it is not. Any other consideration is of no value whatsoever.

Adapted from the book A Warm Call from Hizb ut-Tahrir to the Muslims

DemoCracy VS IsLaM

By Shais

1. Introduction
2. Meaning of the words “democracy” and “Islam”
3. Is Democracy Compatible with Islam?
4. What does the Quran say?

1. Introduction


Lets now talk about the topic of “democracy” which Muslims are demanding today and what USA wants to restore in Pakistan.

Whether democracy and Islam are compatible or incompatible, I wouldn’t be giving my personal opinion but I’ll establish my point from the Quran and you be the judge.


2. Meaning of the words “democracy” and “Islam”


Democracy:

(i) government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

(ii) American heritage dictionary : Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Though I can copy the meaning from more dictionaries but these will suffice. You can see more here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

In short, democracy means “rule of the people”


Islam :

Islam comes from the Arabic word “Aslama” or “silm’ which means “to submit, to surrender and to obey” Allah (SWT) with sincerity and Peace and both these words can be found in the Quran

“Who can be better in religion than one who submits (Aslama) his whole self to Allah, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For Allah did take Abraham for a friend.” (Quran 4:125)

“O ye who believe! Enter into Islam (Silm) whole-heartedly;” (Quran 2:208)

“O ye who believe! Come, all of you, into submission (unto Him) (silm); and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Lo! he is an open enemy for you.” (Quran 2:208, Marmaduke Pickethall)

In short, Islam means “to submit your will to God”. One should do whatever God wants him to do.


3. Is democracy compatible with Islam?


As I mentioned that today Muslims are demanding democracy. I don’t actually have a low opinion of Muslims, but I feel they are ignorant either of what democracy is or what Islam is.

To say that Islam and democracy can go together is as similar to say “Kufr (blasphemy) and Eeman (faith) can go together”. It is as similar as to say “A human being can worship idols and still remain a Muslim”.

Democracy is “rule of the people”. It is people who decide what is halal and what is haraam. It is people who decide what is lawful and what is unlawful, by what law they should abide and by what laws they shouldn’t abide.

In short, the sovereignty belongs to people and NOT to Allah. In Islam, sovereignty belongs to Allah alone. People can pass any law they wish to. They can legalize anything they wish to.

Some time ago in the west, adultery was a crime. Then it became legalized and homosexuality was a crime. Then they legalized it and today it is a crime to condemn homosexuality.

The fallen evangelist Jimmy Swaggart had to apologize and take his words back when he joked and said this about gays during one of his sermons.

“this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. … I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."

Now is democracy compatible with Islam in any form, shape or size? Can anyone who denies and says that sovereignty shouldn’t belong to Allah and it should belong to human beings, be a Muslim?

Now lets see what the Quran says about it.


4. What does the Quran say?


“They (The Jews and Christians) take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah,” (Quran 9:31)

There used to be one Sahaba (companion) of the Prophet (pbuh) who used to be a Christian. He said that we did not use to worship our priests, we dint use to bow down in front of them. Then the Prophet (pbuh) went on to explain the meaning of this verse.

He said that did they not make lawful what Allah (SWT) made unlawful and did they not make it unlawful what Allah made lawful and he said “yes”. The prophet (pbuh) said that it was their worship of them.

In short, any human being who believes that some other human being has a right to legislate regardless of whether it goes against Allah or not then he has done the same thing what the Jews and Christians did and he has taken that person to be as a god along with Allah!

But do you want something simpler than that? I’ll give it to you.

Allah literally declares those people who say that Allah shouldn’t be soverign as “Kafirs (unbelievers), Zalim (Wrongdoers) and Fasiq (rebels)

“If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.” (Quran 5:44)

“And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.” (Quran 5:45)

“If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.” (Quran 5:47)

It is also compulsory to judge by what Muhammad (pbuh) said.

“But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.” (Quran 4:65)

The best of judges is Allah (SWT). No human being has any right to legislate above the right of Allah (SWT). The Quran says


“But who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah.” (Quran 5:50)

“Is not Allah the wisest of judges?” (Quran 95:8)


Allah is questioning that is he not the wisest of judges? The answering is reposed in the question, the wisest of judges is indeed Allah.

So anyone who calls for democracy i.e.rule of people in which people can legislate anything regardless of whether it goes against Allah and his messenger (SAW) are indeed unbelievers according to the Quran and they are inviting people to disbelieve in Allah!!


The Quran says:

“It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.” (Quran 33:36)


All those people who call for democracy are indeed on the wrong. They normally opt other options in matters which have been decided by Allah and his messenger (peace be upon him).

Any Muslim who says that Sharia law shouldn’t be there but instead democracy should be there says NO to Allah and yes to man-made laws which is indeed blasphemy!!

I rest my case. Any Muslim after reading this article will never demand democracy even if he/she has mustard seed of Eeman (faith).

Posted by Shais Ahmad