Learning Islam with Masjid Bilal (Greater Manchester)

Posted on September 17, 2017

0


Greater Manchester Police – Standing Together

“Officers of Greater Manchester Police’s Bury Borough joined members of local faith groups to show solidarity with worshippers at the Masjid Bilal in Prestwich. Superintendent Rick Jackson gave a short speech before the Friday prayer and then joined members of the local Jewish and Christian communities who had assembled outside to greet the worshippers and hand out roses and cards. Members of the Masjid also presented a cheque for the charity supporting the victims of the recent attack in Manchester.”

Very good.

I wonder what those members of the local Jewish and Christian communities would make of Masjid Bilal’s ‘Educational Resources’ page:

 

Some of the links are to websites in Arabic, some no longer work. The ones catering for English speakers are Studying-Islam.orgRenaissance and the notorious IslamQA. This is what they have to say about Jews and Christians.

Christian and Jewish wives are a ‘danger’ to the faith of Muslim families, their moral values are messed up, and Muslim men should only marry them when Muslims are in a position of power within society – this makes it easier to convince them to embrace Islam.

http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=607

“It is generally held that the Quran unconditionally allows Muslim men to marry women belonging to the People of the Book. In our estimation, this is a mere misconception. No doubt, there is a Quranic verse which permits such marriages, yet its placement and context in the Quran makes this permission conditional upon certain circumstances. Consequently, many jurists, including Hadhrat Ibni Abbaas called `The Scholar of the Ummah’ by no other person than the Prophet (sws) himself, approve of such marriages only if this condition is met.

[…]

It is clear from the above mentioned verses, particularly from the portion underlined that these directives pertain to the period when the supremacy of Islam had been established in Arabia—when the disbelievers had lost all hope of overcoming the Islamic forces and the Muslims had become an unconquerable force. Only in these circumstances were the Muslims permitted to marry Jewish and Christian women. It is evident that in such conditions and circumstances, there was virtually no possibility of the Muslims being influenced by their moral values and cultural traditions. Instead, there was a far greater possibility that such marriages would positively influence the women of the People of the Book by inducing them to accept Islam.

By analogy, therefore, such marriages, today, can only be allowed in Muslim countries–preferably those where the cultural traditions and legal injunctions of Islam hold sway. Moreover, it should be realized that the permission has only been given as a second option because the danger in which a person puts his family’s faith is extremely evident. Hence, only believing men have been given this permission; believing women, in no case whatsoever have been allowed to do so.”

Muhammad was an murderous psycho who spread Islam by the sword and subjugated Jews and Christians:

http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=771

In religious parlance, this use of force is called Jihad, and in the Qur’an it can be classified in two distinct categories:
Firstly, against injustice and oppression.
Secondly, against the rejecters of truth after it has become evident to them.
The first type of Jihad is an eternal directive of the Shari‘ah. As stated, it is launched to curb oppression and injustice. The second type, however, is specific to people whom the Almighty selects for delivering the truth as an obligation. They are called witnesses to the truth; the implication being that they bear witness to the truth before other people in such a complete and ultimate manner that no one is left with an excuse to deny the truth.

[…]

For the second objective, the words used in Surah Baqarah and Surah Anfal are يكون الدين لله’’ (yakuna’l-din li’llah: Allah’s religion reigns supreme) and ‘يكون الدين كله لله’ (yakuna’l-din kulluhu li’llah: all of Allah’s religions reigns supreme) respectively. Prior to them the word ‘قاتلوهم’ (qatiluhum: fight them) directs the Muslims to wage war. The antecedent of the pronoun ‘هم’ (hum: them) in this word is the Idolaters of Arabia. Consequently, this much is certain that here these expressions mean that in the land of Arabia the religion of Islam reigns supreme. This purpose could only have been achieved in two ways: either the followers of all other religions be put to death or they be subdued and subjugated completely. Consequently, after many phases interspersed with periods of both war and peace, when the disbelievers were totally humiliated, both these ways were adopted. Muslims were directed to kill the Idolaters of Arabia if they did not accept faith and to let the Jews and Christians live on their own religions if they accepted to pay Jizyah and to live a life of total subjugation to the Islamic state established in Arabia. However, the active adversaries among them were put to death or exiled whenever it became possible.

[…]

In the second case, a Rasul and his companions subdue their nation by force, and execute them if they do not accept faith. In this case, his addressees are given some further respite. In this period, the Rasul does ‘اتمام الحجة’(Itmamu’l-Hujjah33) on the inhabitants of the land to which he had migrated. He morally cleanses and trains his followers and prepares them for a final onslaught with evil. He also consolidates his political power in the land so that he is able to root out the disbelievers and establish the supremacy of the believers through this political power.

Jews and Christians are nasty buggers who wish harm on Muslims. They are not to be taken as close friends:

https://islamqa.info/en/72208

Allaah has stated in His Book that the kuffaar bear enmity towards us and they would not spare any effort to cause us harm, and they wish us ill, and they will not be pleased until we follow their way. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitaanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand.

[…]

This is how they are; they please the Muslims with their words, but their hearts are filled with enmity and evil.

To sum up, even if there are some kuffaar who seem to love the believers, one of the following three scenarios must apply:

1 – It is just artificial and outward show with no basis in reality, as our Lord, may He be glorified and exalted, tells us, and He knows best what their intentions are and what is in their hearts.

2 – It happens with the one who has abandoned Islam and has taken the kuffaar as close friends, and has thus become one of them, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them” [al-Maa’idah 5:51]. Hence they are pleased with him and love him.

3 – It may be genuine but this is very rare, and what is rare does not prove anything. It may be due to the kaafir not adhering to his religion or because of his not caring about religion, as is the case with many of them nowadays.

What every Muslim must do is beware – as Allaah has warned him – of taking the kaafirs as close friends and confidantes and feeling at ease with them, whether the kaafir appears to be friendly or hostile, and whether he is sincere in his love or not. This is the established rule concerning which there can be no debate.

https://islamqa.info/en/59879

In this verse Allaah tells us that whoever takes the Jews and Christians as friends is one of them because of his taking them as friends. Elsewhere Allaah states that taking them as friends incurs the wrath of Allaah and His eternal punishment, and that if the one who takes them as friends was a true believer he would not have taken them as friends.

[…]

The fact that the food of the People of the Book is halaal for us does not mean that we may take them as friends and companions. It does not mean that we may eat and drink with them for no reason and for no shar’i purpose.  

[…]

So how can it be appropriate for a Muslim to keep company with the enemy of Allaah and his enemy, and make friends with him?

How can he be certain that he will not start to think of their ways as good? Many Muslims have fallen into kufr and heresy and have apostatized from Islam because of keeping company with the kuffaar and living in their countries. Some of them have become Jews and some have become Christians, and some have embraced atheistic philosophies.

Attacking non-Muslim countries is OK in order to spread the message of Islam:

http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=1071

In this point, I would like to tackle the debate between the moderates and the extremists, or the ‘defensive’ and the ‘offensive’ as some people describe them in this case. Actually, some of the advocates of the ‘offensive’ school were unfair with the ‘defensive’ one, where they attributed to them opinions that they did not give and have nothing to do with. For instance, they say that the ‘defensive’ advocates are against the preemptive Jihad and totally deny it no matter what the circumstances are. Besides the ‘offensives’ say that the ‘defensives’ think Jihad is only permissible if Muslims are being attacked in their own country. This is how the ‘defensive’ opinion is depicted.

I think that the above mentioned view of ‘offensive’ school about the ‘defensive’ one is unfair. Besides, there is a lack of honesty and accuracy in projecting the other party’s point of view. In fact, the person who reads the views of the ‘defensive’ he will find out that they acknowledge the preemptive Jihad, and waging war against non-Muslims in their own lands for a number of reasons, among them:

To ensure the freedom of the Muslim call, to avert being forced to leave their religion, and to prevent the emergence of physical boundaries that may stand as an obstacle between people and learning about the message of Islam. For these reasons, the battles of the Caliphs and those who rightly followed them took place. So the true aim of the early Muslim battles was to eliminate the tyrannical powers that were oppressing people trying to deprive them of choosing what they wanted. The best example in this regard is what Pharaoh said to his people: You believe in him before I give you permission” (26:49); Therefore, Allah gives His instruction saying: “And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression” (2:193).

Ex-Muslims may be killed:

http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=1012

It should therefore become clear to us why the crimes for which Islam for which the Law has prescribed fixed punishments are as follows:

1. Transgression against life (murder or assault).
2. Transgression against property (theft).
3. Transgression against lineage (fornication and false accusations of adultery).
4. Transgression against reason (using intoxicants).
5. Transgression against religion (apostasy).
6. Transgression against all of these universal needs (highway robbery).

[…]

Islam requires that conviction be built upon the results of deep investigation and contemplation into Creation, including oneself, and into life and history, as well as the Qur’ân. From this, the precision in the governance of the universe and the wonder of its creation will be revealed, as well as how this requires that Allah alone must possess divinity. In this way, conviction in Islam becomes established on the basis of these clear and obvious conclusions. This establishes the believer’s faith on the basis of evidence as opposed to blind following, and on the basis of sound arguments as opposed to conjecture.

Islam grants the individual an opportunity to repent. In this fixed period of time, he has the opportunity to present and freely discuss his problem so that his misconceptions can be removed and the issues that give him doubt can be clarified by rational proofs and tangible evidence. If he returns to faith – even if only with his tongue – his life will remain inviolable and his rights and honor will be upheld.

[…]

Apostasy is defined as a Muslim making a statement or performing an action that takes him out of the fold of Islam. The punishment prescribed for it in the Sunnah is execution, and it came as a remedy for a problem that existed at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him). This problem was that a group of people would publicly enter into Islam together then leave Islam together in order to cause doubt and uncertainty in the hearts of the believers. The Qur’ân relates this event to us:

A group from the People of the Scripture said: ‘Believe in what came down upon those who believe at the beginning of the day, then disbelieve at the end of the day, so perhaps they might return from faith.

Thus, the prescribed punishment for apostasy was instituted so that apostasy could not be used as a means of causing doubt in Islam.

At the same time, the apostate is given time to repent, so if he has a misconception or is in doubt about something, then his cause of doubt can be removed and the truth clarified to him. He is encouraged to repent for three days.

Blaspheming against Muhammad may leave you with no hands or feet:

http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=776

The meaning implied by the words ‘spreading disorder in the land’ is that a person or a group openly challenges the system of law and order, which in accordance with Divine directives, an Islamic government establishes in a country. The Qur’ān specifically states the punishments which should be administered to such criminals and calls this rebellious attitude as ‘waging war against Allāh and His Prophet (sws)’. It says:
The punishments of those who wage war against Allāh and His Prophet and strive to spread disorder in the land are to execute them in an exemplary way or to crucify them or to amputate their hands and feet from alternate sides or to banish them from the land. Such is their disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter theirs shall be an awful doom, save those who repent before you overpower them for [in this case] you should know that Allāh is Oft-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful. (5:33-34)

In our consideration, defaming personalities as revered as the Prophets (sws) amounts to spreading disorder in an Islamic State and, therefore, an Islamic State should deal with such criminals according to the above mentioned Qur’ānic verse. In this regard, there must be no discrimination against any of the Prophets (sws). All the Prophets (sws) deserve equal respect. For Muslims, in particular, the exalted position held by the Prophet (sws) demands profound regard. According to the Qur’ān, the Prophet’s rights (sws) on the believers are greater than their rights on one another; he is entitled to more respect and consideration than even blood-relations. The Qur’ān stresses that it is imperative on the believers to honour him and assist him in his mission as much as they can; such is his lofty position that the believers must not even raise their voices above his voice lest all their deeds be reduced to nothing without their even being aware of this tremendous loss.

Gay people should be punished. If they don’t like the rules they can fuck off to another country:

http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=1281

“…a Muslim society also has the right to curb behaviours that it feels will or might undermine its foundations. What actually might be suitable means of curbing sexual offences and deviances by Muslims and what should be punishment for homosexuality or lesbianism in a Muslim society and what could be possible extenuating circumstances are questions on which there can be differences of opinion amongst qualified jurists and scholars. In principle, these measures are not a negation of freedom in society. They are in fact adopted to safeguard freedom of the majority to protect its values and foundations for itself and its future generations. Those uncomfortable with this democratic way of resolving differences always have the choice to move to another society where they can live as they please or, sometimes, to forgo their legal status as citizens of that society.

[…]

Submission to the dictates of the Qur’ān and Sunnah by Muslims remains the core foundation of any Muslim society. Punishing homosexuality or lesbianism at legal level is therefore neither against any foundational principle of a Muslim society nor is it against any basic human right as such. 

Adulterers can be expected to be stoned to death in public. This will ensure a peaceful society:

http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=1012

The penalty for adultery for a married person is stoning to death, (to be witnessed by a crowd of people) but there are very strict injunctions regarding the proof. The offence must be testified to by four witnesses of unimpeachable veracity. And, if a person levels a charge of adultery against someone and is unable to bring four such witnesses, he is liable to be punished with, eighty strokes of the whip. By enjoining such punishment, Islam has prevented dislocation of the family, and confusion with regard to paternity. More important it establishes the basis for a peaceful life in human society. Peace at this price is not at all costly compared to modern measures introduced and expenses incurred for a peaceful life but it is no where to be found because the murderers, the thieves, the fornicators and others get away too easily. They are a constant source of fear and disturbance because of the potential threat to life and property. The Shariah provision nips the evil in the bud with a firm hand and puts down its foot strongly to stop mischief and to ensure peace to the society. Islamic punishments are, therefore, the most suited to bring about peace and peaceful conditions. Islam deals with the culprit rather heavily in the interest of his would-be victims.

http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=1012

Chastity is highly esteemed as a supreme virtue in Islamic societies, though it is not an ideal in the West where immorality is rampant and flirting has become the part and parcel of life.

In the West, the institution of marriage has significantly declined and nearly half of the marriages end up in divorce. The family has broken down resulting in much tension and the disintegration of other institutions in society and the rate of crime has steadily risen to epidemic proportion. The root ’cause’ of all these is zina – the unlawful sexual union between a man and a woman who are not married to each other. Zina is the breach of the greatest ‘trust’ that a man and a woman can ever have and it leads to disastrous consequences such as breakdown of family ties, depression, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and “the AIDS epidemic as a result of promiscuous sexual activity in direct contravention of Divine law”. That’s why John Major’s “Back to Basics” campaign is geared toward restoration of family values in order to reduce the crime rate and to maintain social order.

[…]

Despite all the lawful channels provided, if a person transgresses the limits beyond all bounds of decency to commit zina in ‘public’, then Islam provides severe chastisement to safeguard the family and to save society from corruption and destruction and the punishment acts as a strong ‘deterrent’ to others. For fornication between unmarried couples the penalty is 100 lashes and for adultery between married couples the penalty is stoning to death (rajm).

[…]

“…the potential sexual offender who knows that he will be stoned or given a hundred lashes will think twice before going out and committing the crime.

And Islam is not a religion that can be separated from the state:

http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=1012

The most difficult part of Islamic Law for most westerners to grasp is that there is no separation of religion and state. The religion of Islam and the government are one. Islamic Law is controlled, ruled and regulated by the Islamic religion. The theocracy controls all public and private matters. Government, law and religion are one.

[…]

We have seen the case of some Modernist Muslims who fell prey to the criticisms of the West and tried to explain away certain provisions of the Shariah to make it easily acceptable to Western standards, but without any success. The issue of the punishment for theft is a good illustration; Sir Syed Ahmad Khan not only believed that “Western prisons were vastly superior to any Islamic alternative” but he also argued that imprisonment is the most appropriate punishment for theft and other hudud offences because at the time of the revelation of the Qur’an, “there was no prison or isolated island for the criminals”. Others argued that “in a truly Islamic society the chopping of a hand would not arise at all” or the “punishment of ‘cutting off’ the hand is only in cases of offenders involved in habitual theft or if the crime is very serious” or the cutting off the hand “will make the disabled thief a great burden for the people”. And yet others have argued that the Qur’anic order “cut off their hands” (5:38) only means that the thief’s hand should be injured or it means “prevent the thief from stealing” by creating such an economic atmosphere where everyone is well off to enjoy themselves.

All these are mere perversions of Islamic Jurisprudence, unproved by any precedence.Humans are fallible and their minds are limited and as believers, we must submit wholeheartedly to the will of Allah as He says “O those who believe! Enter into Islam completely” (2: 208) and He also tells us “it may happen that you may hate a thing which is in fact good for you and it may happen that you may love a thing which is in fact bad for you” (2: 216). So we should have trust and full confidence in the Lord of the Universe whose decrees are full of wisdom, mercy and blessings. Therefore “no apologies or excuses are needed to explain away or make acceptable to the West” things that have been so clearly stated in the Qur’an and the Sunnah and understood by the whole Ummah for the last fourteen centuries.

Here’s those Jewish and Christian ladies bringing flowers to Masjid Bilal:

 

What they don’t know won’t hurt them.

Posted in: Uncategorized