Shaykh Hamza Yusuf – Revolution & fitna sedition, rebellion

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf outlines the classical Islamic position. Many militant Muslims today find it VERY difficult to accept but it is the understanding of the prophet and sahabah. It is the correct Islamic view. Like it or not.

screenshot 2019-01-24 at 17.27.05screenshot 2019-01-24 at 17.26.51screenshot 2019-01-24 at 17.26.22

 

source



Categories: Islam

55 replies

  1. But should a person seek to change their society or just accept it and hope for justice on the day of judgement?

    Liked by 1 person

    • change is not revolt

      Like

      • Isn’t it? To want change demands that we acknowledge that there is at least something wrong with society that demands an end to their authority in some way

        Like

      • give an example

        Like

      • Socrates apology for a literary example and the Henry VIIIs decision to separate from the Catholic church.

        Both represent the idea that there need not be torches and pitchforks to undermine and demolish the confidence of a nation’s long-held confidence in its own authority. Perhaps even the example of the Prophet Muhammad and his overturning of the authority of the gods in the Arabian peninsula.

        Like

  2. Socrates apology for a literary example and the Henry VIIIs decision to separate from the Catholic church.

    Both represent the idea that there need not be torches and pitchforks to undermine and demolish the confidence of a nation’s long-held confidence in its own authority. Perhaps even the example of the Prophet Muhammad and his overturning of the authority of the gods in the Arabian peninsula.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Al hamdulliah this^

      There are several points to make regarding this topic

      1. Generally, the leaders should not be revolted against as Paul has noted.
      This opinion did come from the Sahaba after the 1st and 2nd Fitnah. They went with the opinion that it was better to get justice on the Day of Judgement as Yassir Qadhi notes in his lecture on the life of Abdullah ibn Zaubayr(ra) (starts @ 59:20)

      There are other ways of bringing out change in society other than the sword.

      2. If it does come down to that as Yasir Qadhi noted some important points that when Abdullah ibn Zubayr(ra) initially revolted against Yazid:

      A. Nobody got hurt
      B. He was an alim(scholar) of high caliber
      C. Yazid attacked him

      The obedience to the leader is conditional and it depends on the circumstances of which is the worser evil. The problem with most of these groups is they are a bunch of laymen just blindly killing and acting without knowledge.

      Liked by 4 people

      • well said 🙂

        Like

      • Excellent response.

        Liked by 1 person

      • But Mohammad (by example, and what he started after the Higra in 622 AD), Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman all used the sword and force to take over the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire – it was all unjust warfare.

        “Nobody got hurt”

        What a joke that comment is – they already established their evil violence for many years before the Ali vs. Muawiyya and Yazid event.

        Hassan’s wife poisoned him.

        The whole root of Islam is unjust warfare and violence and seeking to overtake the world. (the whole Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb and Dhimmi principles development)

        Surah 9:5
        Surah 9:29
        Surah 8:39 – fight until there is no more fitneh فتنه = mutiny, sedition, chaos, confusion, turmoil. (like riots in the streets)

        Every Islamic majority country / government (even all since Caliphate was abolished ) interprets all rebellion and protests in the streets according to these verses combined.

        Like

      • ‘Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman all used the sword and force to take over the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire’ – a jihad of liberation. God willed it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • God allows evil to happen a lot in history. But at root, the whole system of Islam is evil and unjust.

        Like

      • and Umar and Uthman were violently murdered. What a total violent religion Islam is.

        Like

      • It was not “liberation” at all – it was oppression and evil and unjust. the Dhimmi system was unjust and slavery. But it was too late for the poor Copts and Syrians to protest or complain. All after that was force and oppression against the Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc.

        Like

      • Fact: The Muslims liberated the Christians and Jews who were being oppressed.

        Liked by 2 people

      • then they turned right around and oppressed them by the Dhimmi rules and Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb prinicples and it was then too late for them to protest or complain, because Islamic governments are oppressive to both Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians and later, wars vs. Hindus and Buddhists, etc. They had no right to attack the Byzantine Empire nor the Persian Empire.

        And Al Tabari wrote the history later and it is a cleaned up version of what really happened.

        Robert Hoyland has compiled some of the extant evidence that it is not totally true that the Muslims “rescued them from their Byzantine / Chalcedonian oppressors” –

        https://legrandsecretdelislam.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/r-hoyland-seeing_islam_as_other_saw_it.pdf

        Like

      • The Copts and Syrians were being persecuted by their fellow Christians long before any Muslim set foot in those lands. The Syrians and Egyptians welcomed the Muslims as heroes.

        Christians have been forever persecuting one another over who has the correct interpretation of their religion including your own hero John Calvin who had Servetus put to death for his views let alone the Evangelicals in America voting in the stable genius of Trump and George Bush who believed God was told him to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan to hell and back.

        The verses you quoted (9:5 and 9:29) refer to the dissolving of a treaty with the pagan Arabs.
        8:39 should be read in a context which is once again referring to the pagan Arabs who were fighting the Muslims at the time, here are some of their characteristics:

        “…those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you [from Makkah].”-8:30
        “… they obstruct [people] from al-Masjid al-Haram” – 8:34

        Remember also what the text also says for those who turn away from this:

        “…what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them” – 8:38

        Try again Ken 😉

        Liked by 2 people

      • //The whole root of Islam is unjust warfare and violence//
        Just a lie. Christians who praise the unjust authority of the pagan Roman empire and its unjust occupation of the world have no right to say a word about the just law of God.

        //against the Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc.//
        Again just a lie! Moreover, you have no right to speak on behalf of those whom christians themselves have been oppressing and persecuting for almost 2000 years! How dare you?

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Also including the Kharajites.

    خروج Khuruj

    does not mean “rebellion” per say; but “to exit”, “to go out” and other words like “outsiders”, and “foreigners” are build upon that root meaning.

    The whole root of Islam was violence. The Kharajites were just copying what they saw modeled in Mohammad and his example and the texts both in Qur’an and Hadith and Sunna, and Sira.

    Like

    • “Nobody got hurt”

      the whole Sunni vs. Shiite violence after those events was the result. Yazid ambused Hossein and hacked him to pieces. All the hatred between Sunnis and Shias and Arabs and Persians, even to this day is result of all that.

      What a nasty and violent religion Islam is – at root.

      Like

  4. Patrobin:

    The problem with the Qur’an is that there is not much historical context at all. The text jumps around and even Arabs admit they cannot really understand it. The author or compilers, had ADD and ADHD. Not divine at all. The Hadith and Tarikh and Sira and Sunna and Tafsirs all together give us evidence of this – that it is just a man-made document and man-made religion of motivating the fighters by promises of huris in heaven to fight and try and conquer the world. the way they attacked EVERYBODY until they were stopped, PROVES this.

    Europe finally stopped them in 722 AD – battle of Tours – Charles Martel.

    Then it took 500 years to drive them back to Morocco.

    Then the Muslims were finally stopped in the 1600s at the battle of Vienna, etc.

    Hindus in India.

    Buddhists in their lands, etc.

    It has been a negative thing on the whole world.

    You adding Calvin and Bush and Trump is a stupid argument. Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, but it was the Muslims who don’t know how to solve their own problems.

    It (Islamic history and cultures) creates dictators and tyrants Al Jabbar الجبار – even Iraqi Muslims called him (Saddam H.) that. When the west tries to leave, the result of ISIS and Al Qaeda type stuff.

    All my Syrian friends admitted that – Hafez Al Assad the same, even worse. Results of today is his fault.

    All educated Iranians admit that the same goes for Khomeini and current regime there.

    Hosni Mubarrak in Egypt also.

    Like

    • Calvin was not infallible and neither was Luther. They both had some issues and blind spots.

      But Calvin did not “have Servetus put to death”. The government at that time in Geneva, etc. did that – but that thinking was a leftover from Roman Catholicism, which, along with infant baptism, was wrong and not Biblical.

      Calvin approved of execution, but he did not do the deed. He had no authority. He wrote letters to Servetus to repent, but he would not listen.

      Anyway, just because I agree with some things of Luther and Calvin and others, does not mean I approve of all their behavior and ideas.

      Like

      • @ Ken Temple
        Please don’t speak on things you have no knowledge on because Abu Bakr, Umar Uthman, Ali or Muawiyah (may God be pleased with them all) wasn’t even relevant to what I was talking about. Thanks

        Liked by 4 people

      • The violence they all learned from Muhammad and his example spewed out all through Islamic history. Yes, totally relevant. They had no right to do unjust war and oppression.

        Like

      • Faiz and others:
        There is a difference between 2 kinds of God’s will:

        1. God’s decretive will – decreed, decided beforehand that it would happen; sovereignly allowing evil things to happen, but not responsible for the sin or evil, not the author of sin, and not a sinner. God does not lie, nor deceive, unlike the god of Islam – the very best deceiver – Kheir ol Makareen. خیر المکارین
        The true God cannot sin or do injustice. I John 1:5; Hab. 1:13; James 1:13-14; Titus 1:2; Romans 9:14-23
        2. God’s moral will – the commands and principles of the Scriptures / the Bible; properly understood as NT fulfilling the OT.

        Like

      • He is an idiot! And look at this scum trying to blame the people of the land and Islam for the filth that the west has created in those lands.
        And btw kenny i would shut my mouth if I were you, talking about huris and this coming from a xtian who believes in a book written by horny men like the porn written in your “word of god”. Looj at the history of his evil cult. Death and distruction, genocides and opression was the norm for these filths, so much so that even the smaler sects welcomed the Muslims with open arms to defeat these scum. Get your pagan head out of your ass which is one ass in three different manifestations.
        Idiot.

        Liked by 1 person

      • the link worked for me. it is a scene from Scrooge from 1974 – Scrooge says to Marley – “you are an old potato, clump of mustard, crum of cheese, undigested beef”, etc.

        LOL

        Like

      • You seriously need to work on your sense of humour. Your sense of logical thinking is clearly a lost cause since you follow xtianity but there might just be hope for your sense of humour.

        Like

      • “Faiz and others:
        There is a difference between 2 kinds of God’s will:

        1. God’s decretive will – decreed, decided beforehand that it would happen; sovereignly allowing evil things to happen, but not responsible for the sin or evil, not the author of sin, and not a sinner. God does not lie, nor deceive, unlike the god of Islam – the very best deceiver – Kheir ol Makareen. خیر المکارین
        The true God cannot sin or do injustice. I John 1:5; Hab. 1:13; James 1:13-14; Titus 1:2; Romans 9:14-23
        2. God’s moral will – the commands and principles of the Scriptures / the Bible; properly understood as NT fulfilling the OT.”

        Blah, blah, blah. I couldn’t care less about your god’s “will”. When something is unjust by definition, no amount of mental gymnastics will make it “just”. Killing a defenseless and innocent infant is UNJUST and MONSTROUS. The true God would NEVER command such barbarity. Ergo, your god is a false god. The true God has forbidden oppression and injustice for Himself. He can do whatever He wills, but He has said that He will not oppress anyone or commit evil. Evil is evil. Killing an innocent newborn is evil.

        But that is besides the point. The point is that your rabid criticism of Islam is pathetic and ironic given your blind acceptance of your baby-killing god. It just screams HYPOCRISY, which is why no reasonable person would take your mindless babble seriously. Christians have a serious problem with hypocrisy.

        Now let me refute you further regarding the Muslim conquests. Here is what Christians and Jewish sources say about the Muslim conquest:

        The Encyclopedia Judaica states:

        “…there is no doubt that during the Persian conquest (614–28) Jews lived in Jerusalem. It seems that even after the recapture of the city by Heraclius many of them remained in its vicinity. This may have caused Sophronius’ request that no Jews be allowed to stay in Jerusalem. […]

        A document (in Judeo-Arabic) found in the Cairo *Genizah reveals that the Jews asked Omar for permission for 200 families to settle in the town. As the patriarch [Sophronius] opposed the action strongly, Omar fixed the number of the Jewish settlers at 70 families. The Jews were assigned the quarter southwest of the Temple area, where they lived from that time…”[60]

        In a separate entry about the Caliph Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), the Encyclopedia Judaica states:

        “Omar permitted the Jews to reestablish their presence in Jerusalem–after a lapse of 500 years–and also seems to have allotted them a place for prayers on the Temple Mount (from which they were driven out at a later date). Jewish tradition regards Omar as a benevolent ruler and the Midrash (Nistarot de-Rav Shimon bar Yoḥai) refers to him as a “friend of Israel.””[61]

        Rabbi Reuven Firestone echoes this sentiment:

        “[Umar] ended Christian rule over Jerusalem and allowed Jews to legally re-enter and live in the holy city for the first time since the failed Bar Kokhba rebellion in the 2nd century.”[62]

        If Rivera’s claim of mass killings of Jews at the behest of the Vatican was true, then why were Jews being allowed to settle in Jerusalem, which the Vatican wanted for itself? Clearly, Rivera was ignorant of history! Rather than persecuting and killing Jews, the historical evidence shows that the Muslims did the exact opposite. As Professor David Wasserstein succinctly puts it (emphasis ours):

        “Islam saved Jewry. This is an unpopular, discomforting claim in the modern world. But it is a historical truth.”[63]

        It is also interesting that Christian sources refer to the generally just treatment by the Muslims of Christians too, even those which were critical of Muslim government. Let us look at some of these Christian sources (which it will be noticed are not Catholic sources, and would have been hostile to the Vatican):

        John of Nikiu (Coptic Christian) –

        As the historian Hugh Kennedy states:

        “John was no admirer of Muslim government and was fierce in his denunciation of what he saw as oppression and abuse, but he says of Amr [Ibn Al-As]: ‘He exacted the taxes which had been determined upon but he took none of the property of the churches, and he committed no act of spoliation or plunder, and he preserved them throughout all his days.”[64]

        Isho’yahb (Nestorian Christian) –

        Isho’yahb was the leader of the Nestorian church from 649-659 CE.[65] In a letter addressed to a man named Simeon, Isho’yahb mentions the generally just treatment the Muslims afforded to Nestorian Christians:

        “[a]s for the Arabs…you know well how they act towards us. Not only do they not oppose Christianity, but they praise our faith, honour the priests and saints of our Lord, and give aid to the churches and monasteries.”[66]

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/06/13/islam-jack-chick-and-the-battle-for-souls-the-prophet-part-ii/

        So keep your ignorant BS to yourself.

        Like

      • Robert Hoyland’s evidence reveals it was a mixture of good and bad; and then since Islam won, and re-wrote the history books and sanitized it; and the Copts and Syrians and Armenians could not complain or protest because of Dhimmi principles, it is your view that is BS and “blah, blah, blah”

        Like

      • “Robert Hoyland’s evidence reveals it was a mixture of good and bad; and then since Islam won, and re-wrote the history books and sanitized it; and the Copts and Syrians and Armenians could not complain or protest because of Dhimmi principles, it is your view that is BS and “blah, blah, blah””

        LOL!! Oh the irony!!

        Kenny says that “it was a mixture of good and bad”, but if that was the case, then why is Kenny always trying to make it seem like Islam is so bad? Hmmm….

        And if Islam “sanitized” the history books and Copts like John of Nikiu “could not complain or protest”, then how come John’s critiques of Muslim government remain to this day? Why didn’t the victorious Muslims “sanitize” that? Clearly, Kenny is full of crap. But we already knew that.

        And anyway, how does any of this change the fact that Kenny defends INFANTICIDE but whines about supposed Muslim “oppression”? Yes, there were periods when the ruling Muslims became oppressive (even to their own people), but by and large, Muslims were welcomed by the conquered people. But none of the “bad” periods compares to Kenny’s evil god and his hordes. In fact, they pale in comparison. Who would take Christians like Kenny seriously?

        Liked by 2 people

      • No, you are full of crap, since the Dhimmi principles made it impossible to get accurate information; and the Copts and Syrian Oriental Orthodox and Armenians could not complain because of your unjust laws.

        Like

      • Lol, just mindless repetition and no actual proof. Kenny being Kenny…

        Liked by 3 people

      • Kenny is at it again. Poor lil Kenny.

        Like

    • Ken the reality is that in an imperial age, empires fought each other all the time and to not expand would have exposed them to danger, how do you think modern nation-states came about? How do you think Christianity spread so rapidly? It was due to being the state religion of an empire that conquered others and took their land!

      That’s how the world worked so simply condemning the Muslims for doing what was necessary to survive while failing to mention your own religions history of expansion is a double standard so large as to defy any means of accurate measurement.

      With respect to dictators in the Islamic world, nobody denies they exist(ed) and we have no problem denouncing them but equating them with Islam is just plain weird since both were leaders of secular, socialist parties (people might I add that the west had no problem being allied with including Mubarak)

      Ken the reality is that you falsely equate Islamic history, Muslim civilizations, and Islamic theology as one and the same whereas anyone with a child’s Madrasa education would know how ridiculously naive that is.

      Finally, I noticed that you didn’t address my response to your claims about the Qur’an teaching violence and ‘unjust warfare’ which is interesting and your talking to an Arab who happens to understand something of the Qur’ans teaching. Funny that 😉

      Liked by 4 people

      • The verses you quoted (9:5 and 9:29) refer to the dissolving of a treaty with the pagan Arabs.

        9:5 is usually answered by Islamic an apologetic حجت or حجه (Hojat) in that way, but it does not apply to 9:29. 9:29 has to be taken in context with 9:28, (about Christians and Jews, not pagan Arabs, as in 9:5 and surrounding context) and it is obvious and confirmed by Ibn Kathir’s commentary on this verse, is that the reason for attacking the Jews and Christians is because of what they believe and do and also because the Muslims were not getting the revenue anymore from the taxes on pilgrimages (verse 28, “if you fear poverty, Allah will reward you; therefore fight them . . . ” etc.), so they had to attack the Byzantines and because they had expelled the Nazran Christians from Yemen. (hadith – “no 2 religions will be left in the hijaz”; and Umar said “I will expel the Christians and Jews from the Arabian peninsula”. racist and oppression.
        8:39 should be read in a context which is once again referring to the pagan Arabs who were fighting the Muslims at the time, here are some of their characteristics:

        like I wrote, there is not much context. There is some, but not much. the author of the Qur’an truly had A.D.D and A.D. H. D. Islamic scholars debate over Surah 8 and 9 – originally one (?) – because 9 is the only one with no “bismillah” at the beginning. Hadith is contradictory because some Hadith say 9 is the last one revealed, and others say some verses from Surah 5 were the last, and others say 110 was last.

        “…those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you [from Makkah].”-8:30
        “… they obstruct [people] from al-Masjid al-Haram” – 8:34

        Remember also what the text also says for those who turn away from this:

        “…what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them” – 8:38

        Problem is, they killed all the pagans, or they converted, and then the Hijaz and Arabian peninsula was united, but after Muhammad died, many rebelled and were unwilling to pay the Zakat. Conversion in Islam does not change the heart. Just external rules and punishments. So Abu Bakr was busy killing the fighting the wars of apostasy. That same attitude broke out again everywhere Islam expanded, viewing everyone who does not submit as a pagan idolater. “War is deceit” and “if you submit, you will be safe” (all through the Hadith literature)

        The whole thing does not pass the smell test. Islam is still a violent unjust and oppressive religion of external dead rituals and harsh punishments.

        Like

      • The reason for attacking them was not because of their beliefs but because of their perceived aggression against the Prophet and the Muslims (namely the Byzantines and neighbouring arab tribes)

        The chapter in around verse 40 goes on to clarify what is being talked about, the expedition to Tabuk, which didn’t result in any battle after a period of scouting and the Prophets army suffering a terrible drought after which they returned to Medina.

        The pagans were all killed or converted as after the conquest of Makkah they were given the option to leave without being harmed.

        The Ridda wars from what I understand were in response to arab tribes who rebelled against him based on the belief that he had no authority over them as the Prophet did (whom they swore allegiance to) which seems more to do with politics of succession than it does over religion.

        You seem to be unwilling to read statements of the Qur’an in context but rather pick and choose what you like to suit your agenda of defamation. If you read the Qur’an as a whole you’d know what the position is regarding war (its conditions and justifications) as well attitudes towards people of other faiths as peaceful so long as they’re peaceful with you.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Yes it is, Surah 9:29 says “attack them that believe not in Allah, from the people of the book”.

        Like

      • The pagans weren’t* all killed… sorry for the typo

        Like

      • Ken, I know what the verse says I’m trying to encourage you to read onward to find out what the text is actually referring to… 😦

        Liked by 4 people

  5. Kenny being Kenny, as usual. Who even takes this guy seriously?

    Killing babies – oh, it was God’s will and a just war. By the way, God loves you!

    Conquering the corrupt and brutal Byzantines and Persians – oh, how horrible. What a horrible religion Islam is! (Foams at the mouth)

    Liked by 2 people

  6. @ Ken
    How is Abdullah ibn Zubayr’s (ra) revolt against Yazeed in which no one got initially hurt and is about ohh.. idk like 50+ years after Abu Bakr’s(ra) caliphate relevant? This is like me saying the Korean and Iraq war influenced each other. So give me a link or reference using authoritative sources please since you believe you’re knowledgable about the subject or jut be humble and say you were trolling poorly.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. @ patrobin
    Also as a quick note during the Ridda wars, Persia was sending arms to the apostates to fight the Caliphate. (See Dr. Sallabi’s Life of Abu Bakr)

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: