Separation of powers

TFTD: Ma'awiya used the executive power and the armed forces that were under his direct control, to ensure the caliphate remained within his chosen party, and was successful, despite widespread dissent and opposition. Successive generations have done exactly the same, preserving power within their parties, sects and clans, with similar results.

The caliphate has now been replaced (mainly) by republics, where rulers are (in theory at least) appointed and removed by popular vote, but the control of the army by the ruler prevents correct implementation of the constitution in most cases.

There are those today who are calling for a return to the old caliphate system, while opposing (like many before) the forceful securing of bay'ah, but also opposing separation of the powers.

Q: Other than describing it as "haram", what have these groups done to rectify this longstanding problem?

(Originally posted on 09/12/2006)

Comments

[They Call me Mr Boombastic]

Like the shia looking for the last Imam, the islamists are in search of a magic orb called Taqwa.

It was lost in the foothills of Timbuktu. Once found and handed to the Kaliph, all the political problems will be resolved.

[Toppled Pyramid]

As an interesting point of fact: the original adoption in Nidham al-Hukm, by Shaykh Nabhani(rh), which remained adopted up until recently, accepted the forced Bay'ah (Hukm al-Mutasallit)as Haram but valid.

The adoption was changed relatively recently to now not accepting it as valid.

Imam ibn Hajar al-asqalani(rh) in Fat'h al-Bari claims that the Ahul Sunnah agree that the forced bay'ah is still valid after it has been successfully taken.

Therefore, in the least, there is Ikhtilaf on the matter. Which means that, according to Islamist theory, the fact there are dictatorships today cannot be THE reason to call for their forceful removal. Rather, the reason must be something else.

Wassalam

[Rashad Zaman Ali of Sheffield]

I guess they are trusting in the belief that they are not tyrants

[Kabir]

Salams Toppled Pyramid,

What do you understand is the best way stopping a forceful securing of the bayah?
Is it possible since the matter is Ikhtilafi?

Jazakalla Khairun

[Toppled Pyramid]

Salam Kabir

This raises a very important point. Since the matter is Khilafi (something I am sure you are not even contemplating trying to dispute, and therefore I am sure you accept that forced Bay'ah is not Kufr) since it is Khilafi, then the Fiqh alone cannot solve the problem.

So what needs to happen is that a social contract needs to be established amongst people in society and particularly the ruling faction. This is achieved through the spread of certain political thoughts about the best way to govern, and those thoughts becoming so entrenched that it becomes impossible, due to systemic checks being out in place, that they are ever over-ridden.

Man progresses as a result of his thoughts (as Shaykh Nabhani [rh] said in Nizam). Once these thoughts have spread, they will naturally affect the shape of the system over time, as the system is merely a manifestation of the ideas of the ruling faction (as is discussed in detail by Shaykh Nabhani [rh]in the four accompanying booklets to Takattul Hizbi).

At some point a social contract will have to be granted legal affect by the consensus of the ruling faction.
And so the system will evolve checks and balances, and mechanisms to avoid this. This should also involve a complete seperation of the armed forces from politics in such a way that they cannot constitutionally enter the fray. The biggest guaruntee of this is the strength of "representative" ideals amongst the masses and ruling elite.

It is not relevant whether all in the ruling faction accept the Fiqh of those thoughts, because, as Shaykh Nabhani even accepted, the ruler can abandon his own Fiqhi opinion for the sake of political unity (as Uthman [ra] did when he was selected after Umar [ra]). Therfore, all that they need to be convinced of is that these political thoughts best provide unity.

Also, keep in mind that "democratic" countries have no such Khilafi or Qati'i Fiqh, yet simply by the strength of their political consesus amongst their intellectuals and ruling elite, such a forced take over is incomprehensible.

So it all comes down to the importance of reviving thoughts.

Wasalam

[Kabir]

Agreed

[Rashad Zaman Ali from Sheffield]

Amin!

[For the Record]

BELOW IS A QUESTION SUBMITTED TO ABU ISMAEL Al-BEIRAWAI on his site:

http://abuismael.blogspot.com/2007/08/twisting-of-ahadith-to-justify.html

ABOUT HIS IMPLIED SEPERATION OF POWERS IN HIS LATEST RESPONSE TO A QUESTION under his article entitled "The twisting of Ahadith to justify the abandonment of the Shari'ah" where he refers the answer to his latest article "When is it allowed to rebel against the Khalifah".

I await his response:

With respect brother,

I read your article, and I don't think you got my point. I ask of you to consider my words carefully:

The issue your article adresses is the difference betweem a Muslim ruler who displays Kufr Buwaha and doesn't believe in it (Kufr Asghar). and so he remains a Muslim Fasiq or Thalim, and one who displays Kufr Buwaha and believes in it (kufr Akber) and so he becomes a Kafir.

I am, however, asking what is the definition of a ruler ordering you to do a sin, yet in all but that sin he must be obeyed.

Please consider my example. Today, if a ruler permitted Zina by law, you have said he would be ruling by Kufr (and it may be either Akber or Asghar). However, 600 years ago, if a ruler ordered someone verbally to commit Zina, you would say that the person should disobey that order, yet not rebel, because ordering to do a sin isn't the same as ruling by Kufr.

All that has changed in those 600 years though, is that the rulers "old" orders have changed to "new" statutes in modern political terms. Thus, today you say, "he has laws that allow so and so", and yesteryear you would have said, "he orders people to do so and so".

Now, keeping in mind that the "Khalifah IS the state", and his word is law, and that you don't believe in the seperation of the Khaleefah (executive) from law making (legislature), how can it be that 600 years ago when he orders (obliges) someone to commit any crime (like Zina) it is merely "ruling by sin", yet simply by having that order written down in statute (statute that simply permits and not even obliges Zina) it becomes "ruling by Kufr"?

Most, if not all, classical scholars didn't have this new category of allowing sins equals Kufr Buwaha.

They said rebellion was allowed when a ruler becomes a Kafir, and the Kufr Buwaha is his becoming a Kafir, and then they differed on what makes him a Kafir (ie: merely not judging by what Allah has revealed, or also not believing in what Allah has told him to judge by), otherwise they didn't allow rebellion, because he is ruling by a sin.

Check Fat'h al-Bari on when rebellion is allowed if you want! (NOT on what defines Kufr Buwaha, but on when rebellion is allowed).

You will realise my brother, that everything you define as ruling by Kufr, would have been ruling by a sin, with your own definition, if applied before the modern notions of state and legislation (and thus seperation of legilsative and executive powers) penetrated your mind and made you view Islam from that perspective. It's strange, because, your theory doesn't accept the seperation of the legislature from the executive anyway?

So I ask again, how do you explain this contradiction of the same thing (ordereing someone to commit Zina) as being an order to do a sin when in the days of old, yet now you consider the mere permission of it as ruling by Kufr?

[For the Record]

BELOW IS ANOTHER QUESTION SUBMITTED TO ABU ISMAEL Al-BEIRAWAI on his site:

http://abuismael.blogspot.com/2007/08/when-is-rebellion-against-khalifah.html

CONCERNING HIS LATEST ARTICLE THAT ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED BY THOSE ON THIS SITE

Under his article entitled
"When is it allowed to rebel against the Khalifah".

I AWAIT HIS RESPONSE:

JazakAllahu khayr for your efforts brother,

JazakAllahu khayr for your confirming what we have already been saying to your members in the UK, that your group doesn't allow rebellion against the Imam except in the case of Kufr Buwaha, and that Imam al-Nawawi doesn't allow rebellion for mere sin, as is often misquoted by your members in this country.

However, I would like you to answer these questions:

1) Is your latest answer an Istinbat (interpretation) and Ijtihad (legal analysis), or is it the definitive (Qati'i) word on the matter which if rejected with knowledge (and not out of ignorance)renders the rejector a Kafir for rejecting a Qati'i matter.

2) If it is not Qati'i and is merely an Istinbat and Usooli Jam'a (jurisprudential reconcilliation) of seemingly clashing evidences (Tarjeeh bayna al-mutaaridayn) (and I assume you would say that it isn't Qat'i because even in your answer you accept that some scholars differ on the application of these ahadith to today, and you depend heavily upon terms such as mafhoom and wasf Nakirah etc... which are usooli and linguistic terms subject to many many differences in themselves within the science of Usool al-Fiqh), so if it is not Qati'i then how can the absence of what your answer calls for in the reality, be considered by you to be Kufr?

3) You have said that the Ahadith don't apply to today because the systems today are systems of Kufr. Is there a Qati'i definition of an Islamic System, using only Qati'i evidences (Thubut and Dalala)for you to make this judgement that those systems not on your definition are therefore on Kufr? Or is your very own definition of what is an Islamic System and Ijtihad?

4) If you say that the systems of today are Kufr Systems because they are not even derived from Ijtihads, can you prove that it is Qati'i that all actions in the Muamalat sphere must be done via Ijtihads and that it is not permissable for someone to claim that they are from the Madaniyyah and thus permissable in origin? Can you please prove this by Qati'i evidences which make the opposite of what you say Kufr?

5) As all of todays scholars do, If I [as their shoe-cleaner], after having studied, digested, learned, preached, and converted many many to your ideas, then rejected them not out of ignorance, but with full knowledge of them (to which I confess), now say that there is no Kufr Buwaha in this Muslim country or that, and that I believe this, and propogate it, and have faith in it in my heart, why doesn't that make me and all those scholars who also aren't ignorant of Islam Kuffar? Surely I am allowing open Kufr, and making it Halal? Surely those scholars are denying the Qati'i?

JazakAllahu Khayr

[Response regarding the same issue to Abu Ismael from Rashad Ali awaiting it to be posted on site]

Salam Akhi Abu Ismael Al Beirawi, you are in factual error regarding what the classical scholars have stated not the questioner as even your quotes state.

To elaborate:

The issue of kufr buwah is not an issue of ruling by kufr and permitting something definitively prohibited rather it is in kufr and the ruler being upon kufr i.e. a kafir by changing the shariah or disbelieving in its validity as opposed to what you have stated i.e. The ruler should be a kafir this is what is stated by Ibn Hajar, Nawawi and others that you have quoted like Shawkani from Nayl ul-Awtar.

Conceptually in order to state that it is dar ul-kufr and not valid today you must actually demonstrate that the rulers are upon such kufr before saying they are invalid, otherwise they are valid and upon Islam. Hence this is contradictory to saying that they are upon Islam but not legitimate; rather they have to be established as illegitimate in the first place.

Your argument otherwise is circular and not substantiated. As for the language of being a Khalifah this is not part of the shariah as established qatan by the multiple usage of different words (mutaradifaat meaning ruler e.g. Imam, Khalifah, Amir, Sultan, Wali-amr, hakim etc). And by the consensus of the companions (Ijma al-Sahabah [ra]), when they used different terms e.g. Khalifat ul-Rasul, Khalifat ul-Khalilfat ul-Rasul, Amir ul-mumineen, Imam etc. This is mentioned by the jurists such Taqi ul-Din al-Nabhani in the book shahsiyah Islamiyah volume 2 on the chapter about khilafah, which states that the term is not important rather its reality i.e. a ruler of the Muslims upon Islam.

Also more fundamentally, it is implicit in the definition of Dar ul-Kufr that is adopted by Hizb ul-Tahrir i.e. the ruling by kufr and the abandonment of the rule of Islam being a criterion; so you must establish this first - this is obvious and factually necessary otherwise you are saying it is dar ul-Islam and the ruler is upon Islam but that it is invalid. The article contains these fundamental errors and would require addressing these issues; and more fundamentally the logic needs to be changed. Hence the land is either dar ul-Islam but the ruler is upon kufr (the classical meaning being that he is a kafir or by HT's modern criterion ruling by kufr buwah (which they say is fisq not kufr unless he disbelieves - see the book ruling system which explicates this); Or it is dar ul-Kufr as the ruler has successfully applied kufr buwah and it has become dar ul-kufr according to the Ijtihad of HT.

So the method will depend upon which of the two you establish, either way you must establish the kufr buwah in ruling first in a manner which is not ikhtilafi - something that is factually not possible since your criterion is ikhtilafi as the Ulema disagree with you that the ruling by "kufr" is anything other than ordering with a sin (amr bil-masiyah) and not kufr. As he would be a Muslim who is ordering you to do something Haram, which would be forbidden to obey as the Prophet (saw) said innama'al ta'at fil-maruf/Obedience is in good. See any of the references you have mentioned for this as factually this is stated by Imam Nawawi and Imam Shawkani and Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in their respective commentaries of Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari and Muntaqa ul-Akhbar li-Ibn Taymia.

Hence the verdict would be thanni (Not definitive) as it contradicts their ijtihad and that of those following the classical position today amongst the Ulema such as the Ulema of al-Azhar (some of whom I know many personally, the Mufti and Ulema of al-Sham with whom I have discussed with such as the students of Nur ul-Din Itr, Said Ramadhan Buti with whom I met in Britain and the Ulema of Madinah Munawarrah whom I have discussed the above issues with and the primary source texts which I verified myself in the original Arabic and the fact that this is well known amongst the students of knowledge and the Ulema) - hence by the crierterion of teh Hizb qati kufr which is not ikhtilafi is not established. Even if we take the issue of the ruling by kufr buwah, according to the modern criterion of HT; this can't be established either as the issue of implementing the shariah is different from the shariah itself. Rather it is far/brach/rule i.e. hukm of shariah not the shariah itself.

To elaborate; Shariah is the speech of Allah pertaining to every action. Legislation and implementation is something different; this is the adoption of a rule by state and the enforcement of it - this is actually mubah in principle as stated by shaykh Taqi ul-Din al-Nabhani in the book introduction to the constitution page 10 - it is up to him to adopt and then legalize or make illegal something and further yet outside the hudood, criminalization and punishment is a matter of Tazir (State discretion) hence the state does not have to punish people for violating the hukm shari.

In fact regarding the issue of hadd (pl.hudood – prescribed punishments), the hadd can be abandoned or delayed (both) for the sake of an interest (maslaha), according to Imam Ahmed ibn Murtada al-Mahdi the author of Hadaiq ul-Azhar in the chapter of hudood (volume 3 of the Beirut-Damascus edition of Sayl ul-Jarar mudaffiq ala Hadaiq ul-Azhar). Hence the abandonment of the hudood in and of itself is not a basis for stating that the system is one of "kufr", as this is an Ijtihad that is considered, and respected by classical jurists.

Even it wasn't then it would be a matter of ikhtialf and still not kufr. More than this we know that there is classical ikhtilaf on the permissibility of making political agreements which allow the authority noot to impose teh shariah as a whole. To quote for you from Shawkanis's Nayl ul-Awtar (that you have relied upon in your article as jurist and a source of shariah rulings and hadith shuruh (explanation)).

Chapter on the validity of Islam with a fasid (irregular) condition (volume 4 page 210 dar ul-kutb ul-ilmiyah Beirut) Nayl ul-awtar (min ahadith sayd ul-akhbar saruh muntaqa ul-akhbar) Imam Muhammad bin Ali al-Shawkani on the collection of hadith collated by Ibn Taymia.

Hadith number 3209 - On the authority of Asim al-Laythi, a man amongst them, said verily he went to the prophet sallallhu alaihi wa alihi wasallam and agreed that he would embrace Islam on (the condition) that he would pray two prayers and he (saw) accepted it from him. Narrated by Ahmed.

Hadith number 3210 - On the authority of Wahb who said I asked Jabir regarding what transpired at thaqeef when they gave the bayah (pledge) and he said: the placed the condition (shart) on the prophet (saaw) that there would be no sadaqa upon them, and no jihad. Verily I heard from the messenger (saw) himself say: They will give the sadaqa and the will fight Jihad! Narrated by Abu Dawud.

Hadith number 3211 - On the authority of Anas: Verily the Messenger (saaw) said to a man, "embrace Islam" and he responded "I find myself somewhat pressured (ajidunee kaarihaan" and He (saaw) said, "embrace Islam even so (in kunta kaarihaan)" narrated by Ahmed.

In these ahadith there is evidence of the permissibility of taking the bayah (pledge of allegiance) and the acceptance of Islam from a non-Muslim even if he stipulates (batil) invalid conditions, or even if there is an element of compulsion. Abu Dawud was silent (i.e. he viewed it as authentic as he states that anything he stays silent about in his sunan he believes is at least hasan - Imam al-Nawawi in his Majmou or ibn Hajar al-asqalani in al-Isaba or Shawkani himself in dararayn al-mudiyah) and al-Mundhiri, regarding the hadith of Wahb that we have mentioned, Wahb ibn munbih and its isnad (chain of narration) is flawless (la bas bih - a phrase used for hadith which are sahih - rigorously authenticated by the scholars of hadith).

So it is certainly not kufr to make such agreements. I have seen the response of Shaykh Ata and his Ijtihad that this is khass (special) to the nabi, a conclusion which is not supported by others such as Imam al-Izz ibn Abdul-Salam in his Qawaid ul-Kubra and Qadi Ibn Taymia and Allama Shawkani as I have mentioned above - and supported by the likes of Mawdudi in recent times amongst others.

Hence you can not describe this as kufr unless you are going to ascribe Kufr on such Ulema and describe them as kafir - Allah save us from this. Hence the onus returns to you to establish how when there is ilkhtilaf, kufr can be substantiated, rather according to the Hizb criterion the adoption of the ruler is binding (amr ul-Imam yarfaul khilaf/the order of the leader settles the dispute) and if they adopt the ahlul-Sunnah position, then unless there was a mazalim to remove him according to his adopted position then rebellion wouldn't be allowed neither would military other throw of a regime that is valid, be allowed according to the criterion of HT – hence they state that though the ruler should removed for fisq, by the mazalim (high unjust acts court), there can not be khurooj (forceful removal) – see the book Hizb ut-Tahrir by Hizb ul-Tahrir.

So the activity that you are undertaking would be invalid according to your criterion; the lands by your criterion would remain Dar ul-Islam according to your criterion (even though they are dar ul-Islam according to other criterion mentioned by HT in volume 2 of Shakhsiyah Islamiyah which is the position of Imam Abu Hanifah as mentioned by Imam Kasani in Badai ul-Sana'I and mentioned also by the translator Reliance of the Traveler as the position of the Hanafi Imam, Muhammad Hamid in his rudud alal-abatil).

I await your detailed response after you publish my comment, for the sake of fairness and justice and allowing people to judge for themselves.

Jazakumullahu Khairan

Your Brother with love,

Rashad from Sheffield.

[For the Record]

As of yet the questions haven't been posted on Abu Ismail's his site, let alone answered.

[Bengali HT Daris]

It wont be.

HT is about pushing forward their point of view, not having sincere discussions about the truth.

That is why its own members who've left have been censured. I've personally been told by members of HT that it was wrong to remain on speaking terms with them beyond a brotherly salaam because they are our enemies.

I've also heard all kinds of slander about them. When they are in the party 77 excuses but when outside its open season on their personality/intention/creed you name it.

I have respect for those guys in HT who still treat them as THE SAME brothers who changed their points of view. The others are CORRUPT POLITICIANS, EQUALLY CORRUPT as any other politician in the Muslim world.

That is why that post will never make it onto his 'open' blog. Fairness is not something he or they are interested in.

[Bengali HT Daris]

I will continue to give the inside scoop on HT on these forums.

I believe it is ESSENTIAL when they are trying to censure the strong arguments being made against them by their own top members.

For the record the members have an oath to the party but the Dariseen (students) are under no such obligations.

bengali ht daris, you talk about making excuses for your brothers and then you go and slander others !

[Bengali HT Daris Sympathiser]

I feel your pain.

Whilst we're on the subject of slander.

I was told that Rashad Ali was the source to go to for Hizb culture questions by members in the Wilyah structure.

I was told that he was the source mushrif for many books due to his understanding of the party culture.

As soon as he changed his views I was told by the same person that he has character issues and should not be trusted due to insincerity.

[Bengali HT Daris]

I'm explaining what is happening.

I will not mention our corrupt members by name unlike all the impersonators on this forum.

But it is important to know what events are transpiring.

bengali ht daris, you sound like an informant !
if you do not agree with ht then why are u studying with them. sounds hypocritical!

[Waco Rememberance]

"A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community."

West, L. J., & Langone, M. D. (1985). Cultism: A conference for scholars and policy makers. Summary of proceedings of the Wingspread conference on cultism,

[Waco Rememberance]

To the person who doesn't leave a name: Are you a cult member? Cults always dismiss others who disagree with their views with accusations such as being a traitor, informant or agent or the like.

You've demonstrated that characteristic very well, as has the debt collector and others.

When cults are unable to hold an argument they will resort to these tactics in the hope that the other cult members will dismiss them as people with 'issues'.

[Waco Rememberance]

To the person who leaves no name.

In the opinion of Benjamin Zablocki, a professor of Sociology at Rutgers University, groups that have been characterized as cults are at high risk of becoming abusive to members. He states that this is in part due to members' adulation of charismatic leaders contributing to the leaders becoming corrupted by power. Zablocki defines a cult here as an ideological organization held together by charismatic relationships and that demands total commitment.[44]

Dr. Zablocki, Benjamin [12] Paper presented to a conference, Cults: Theory and Treatment Issues,

....

I understand the mind control tactics they have used. Have you suffered any abuse at their hands - such as being told you may burn in hell if you don't work with them?

to waco,
who on this website is giving their true name ?

i did not say ht daris was an informant but sounds like one ! that is based on what he himself said. get your facts straight!
if i need medical advice dont worry i will not be coming to you !!

[Clint Eastwood Fan]

To the person who leaves no name.
Are you a fan of Clint Eastwood films TOO?
Is your favourite film 'A FIST FULL OF DOLLARS'

love u 2

[Bengali HT Daris]

Initially because they told me I will die the death of Jahillya unless I work with them.

But the party is suppossed to be open so what difference does it make if I study with them or not?

Actually I am of the view that HT BLATANTLY hides its call from everyone because it is so unacceptable.

They like to talk about elections and just rulers because its flowery but they will not talk about coups and civil wars and the fact they consider these vital issues which they would be happy to kill over except in their private circles.

So it needs someone like me to present the whole truth.

[no name]

clint are u happy now, i have given you a name. by the way are you the real clint eastwood or just impersonating like everyone else on this site ?
ht daris, i am starting to take the view that you are no daris. the hizb is blatently open with its call for the establishment of the khilafah and how this will be achieved.
the methodology has been clearly stated over the years.

[Clint Eastwood Fan]

no name

It has become obvious that you can't read I'm not Clint Eastwood but a fan as it says in the name!!

You must have been indoctrinated by HT because they preach illiteracy.

Illiteracy in their own culture and books.

Illiteracy in what the classical scholars say.

Illiteracy in what the modern scholars say.

All that leaves is a lot of talk and accusations without substance.
Sometimes the truth hurts but get past it and learn to read. Remove the cotton wool from your ears and your eyes.

to clint eastwood fan how about making excuse for your brother if he made a mistake or are excuses only for brothers you like !
as for indoctrination, you seem well indoctrinated already.
you dont seem like a person that is willing to discuss so i wont bother !!

[Chancellor to the one who leaves no name]

No one has exposed the corruption of HT members - they are I believe sincere and just.

It's just their leadership tells them things like "its not about the issues, its an attack" from the current HT leader in Britain.

Or when the global leader, states "You deserve severe punishment" to those that dare to question his decision to suspend members because they question the HT application of the method.

Or maybe when the leader falsely asserts no-one states that you can abandon the forceful imposition of the shariah rules; quoting from Nayl ul-Awtar which states this was the view of Khattabi outside Salat, and the view of the author al-Shawkani and the view attributed to the Qadi Ibn Taymia. Admittedly he may have been unaware that it was the view of Imam al-Izz ibn Abdul-Salam in his qawaid and but he wasn't unaware of the views in Nayl ul-Awtar from where he was quoting and sourcing the hadith - as he has done on several occasions - see Beirawi's web page.

Or the false assertion that toppled pyramid and Rashaad Ali are incorrect in their view of the classical ulema - something that is factually incorrect and even contradicts the quotation from Beirawi's post!! Though he makes the same assertion.

Or that in the Khilafah conference in the UK in a talk which I actually listened to and no-one is gonna say to me otherwise , I HEARD Abu Zahrah mock the Ulema and an Alim of great learning and repute the Shaykh Ali Juma (hafizahuAllah), just becasue he disagreed with Ht's politics. This is corrupt. Nobody here has accused any one individual by name (kunya [agnomen] or position is a different matter) - although as the leaders are political figures such accusations are, on the public domain and acceptable accordng to HT as they do so all the time.

I may not agree with all of the posting of Toppled Pyramid and Rashaad Ali, but on the whole they have not resorted to personalising attacks rather discussing issues.

I ask you oh nameless one! Have you done the same? If so then all is well if not then remember Kaburan maqta indallah antaqoolu malatafaloon/It is a grave matter that you advise others with what you do not do.

Remember the mighty Umar (ra) was of those harshest against those who showed elements of nifaq in amal (hypocricy in deed) - and May Allah help me and you and all the Muslims to overcome this in their souls!

[traitorsensor]

A blame seems to be on the ht for exposing the traitors. the general people are calling them traitors. ed. maj rash and all those other jokers, tell them to go to the mosque and call for their views and they will find out the general views of the muslims.