Assalamu Alaikum.

I have written this piece in 2 posts: 'Dirty Tricks? Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain and its Critics' and 'The Last Man-Made Ideology' as they deal with similar topics.

I did attend the informative meeting yesterday (Friday 2nd Nov) at the City Circle where the talk was delivered by Maajid Nawaz. I did learn a few new things with regards to the concept of ‘State’ and ‘politics’ in relation to Islam etc. He was very articulate (and I would expect no less from an ex-HT public speaker) and used logic in response to questions, some of which were challenging and critical of his stance. He and others like him are brave to come out and offer constructive criticisms of the group he belonged to.

I do have lots of points to make regarding Majid’s talk and also in light of my discussion with another ex-HT, Shiraz Maher, at the Conservative Party Conference. There are agreements and disagreements with both people. But for now I will limit myself to 2 points that I wanted to make during Q&A, unfortunately the chairman did a very poor job of managing the Q&As, where question selection was random (as opposed to sequential) and I had my hand up for 45 mins and others were being selected even though they had their hands up later. Anyways, enough of my ego. The main criticism of the chairman lies in his sprinklings of sarcasm when he criticised HT…which is not the remit of a chairman. This is compounded with the fact that he snatched the microphone away from Maajid when he was in full flow…to which Maajid rightly chastised him for. Hope this is constructive feedback for the chairman.

Now to the 2 points I wanted to raise and I hope they can be answered on this website (respondents please reply in the topic: The Last Man-Made Ideology, so I can keep track of feedback);

1. Question for Maajid: Because of my involvement in the British political system, the splinter group, Al Muhajiroun, which was headed by an ex-HT leader, Omar Bakri Muhammed’ had accused me and other Muslims involved in politics of being kafirs because we were apparently involved a system that made decisions independent of Allah (swt). The website had mugshots of myself and other Muslims hoping to get into Parliament. So I thought the best way to counter this is through debate in a peaceful setting. As I had attended ALM’s meeting at Finsbury Park Mosque where they spoke on the topic: ‘The Magnificent 19’, where the speakers praised these terrorists, I thought the best topics to debate Omar Bakri on were, ‘Were the Twin Towers Attacks Justified?’ and ‘Are Muslims Allowed to get Involved in British Politics?’. The debate was due to take place in 2005, but the ALM contact informed me a week before the scheduled debate that they were pulling out. He gave a flimsy reason. So my question to Maajid is that given he knows the mindset of Omar Bakri, why would someone like Omar B. pull out of a very important debate? Is it because (my hunch only) that he doesn’t have a string foundation to support his beliefs?

2. My disagreement with Maajid: He mentioned that Wahhabism was partly to blame for radicalisation. I have read the Fatwaas of Sheikh Bin Baaz and other Saudi scholars and they had strongly condemned suicide bombings and terrorism and that Osama bin Laden belonged to the Khawarij sect… i.e. nothing to do with Wahhabism. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia has itself been a target of terrorist attacks and the Saudi Govt. is rightly working with the US and UK governments to root out terrorist groups. So Maajid is quite wrong to lay a part of the blame on Wahhabism.

There are other things I would question him on his philosophical discourse on religion and politics and it is tempting to continue. For now I have had my voice heard now and would be happy to continue a dialogue with Maajid.

Wassalam
Hasan Ali Imam

Here are two sober and cogent treatments of this issue.

http://abu-ibrahim.blogspot.com/

http://traditionalislamist.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html

During the late 1990’s when large swathes of Muslim youth where rediscovering their faith and shedding the notion of complete subservience to material, personal and worldly propensities, there were several well-intended groups who had a weak , defective or non-existent understanding of the fundamentals of this faith such as Tawhid (Pure Monotheism), Ibadat (Acts of worship), Uloom ul Deen (Study of Islam), Islamic Tarbiyah (Islamic education), Tazkiyah (Self-purification) , Khuluqul Muslim (Muslim character building), etc. One such grouping, though fairly active in Dawah, prematurely introduced, over zealously force-fed and indoctrinated young, excitable and emotional minds with issues of a global nature for which they where not prepared. Many discerning, moderate and committed brothers and sisters who had been working for the cause of Islam since when these people where yet twinkles in their fathers eyes, persistently advised and admonished them against this intolerant methodology of stirring hatred, dissention and fitna in their respective communities. Due to a lack of and under-developed Islamic character the usual reaction from them was demeaning sneers and disrespectful verbal and physical assaults, some of which were even caught on camera. They knew it all, they were the ones who carried the ‘truth’…as predicted all this emotional attachment, hype and confusion led to many from amongst them discarding the faith completely once the group disintegrated into splinters and opposing factions.

Astonishingly today, we are seeing the re-emergence of ex-members of this very group, who have left the organisation, after spending many years propagating and dispensing its radical, obtuse, one-topic message, which has no doubt contributed to our current state of insecurity and national scrutiny, only to now renege and vault across the ideological expanse to the opposite mystical, folk, superstitous, pacifist, culturally convoluted and appeasement extreme, which is today in favour. They are found challenging and disputing the Divinely and Prophetically endorsed vision of just and equitable forms of Islamic governance, as practiced by the rightly guided caliphs and their successors. A caliphate, which in its dynamic period was at the heart of a great civilisation, leading the world in science, philosophy, law, maths and astronomy.

"Then We revealed the Book to you, (O Muhammed), with Truth, confirming whatever of the Book was revealed before, and protecting and guarding over it. Judge then, in the affairs of man in accordance with the Law that Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires in disregard of the Truth which has come to you. For each of you We have appointed a Law and a way of life." (Al Ma’idah 5:48)

Under the patronage and praise of known Islamaphobes and right-wing policy think tanks, these individuals today question the authority of Allah, they engender the campaign to malign and undermine Islam by precipitating manipulative and fallacious misnomer terminologies such as Islamo-Fascism and Islamism, they now have the audacity to preach to people of the middle-path, those who have always worked inclusively and systematically for the betterment of their communities in all spheres, understanding that this holistic faith is one which persists from cradle to grave, for the sake and pleasure of the Almighty, to serve humankind.

“Believers! If any of you should ever turn away from your faith, remember that Allah will raise up a people whom He loves and who love Him; a people humble towards the believers, and firm towards the unbelievers; who will strive hard in the way of Allah and will not fear the reproach of the reproacher. This is the favour of Allah which He grants to whom He wills. Allah is All Resourceful, All Knowing.” (Al Ma’idah 5:54)

Now Mr Majid Nawaz a former senior member of the religiously impoverished national executive of Hizbut Tahrir, unashamedly delivers his nefariously skewed and disjointed new methodology and turncoat credentials. With his consorts and partners in desertion and secularism, Ed Hussain, Gayasudeen Siddiqui and Mr Rashad in attendance, he implicitly denounced the concept of the Sovereignty of the Majestic over his creation, with his pathetic, lamentable and sometimes comical analogies and now freethinking narratives. What was most difficult to bear, was that his former masters and co-conspirators in prejudice and the dogmatically flawed approach he pursed for so many years, did not even have the decency, the courage or the sense of duty, to send any strong representatives to denounce or confront his views, something in which they used to revel in the past, when shouting down humble, moderate yet principally and scholarly far superior brothers and sisters, whose designs have been proven to bear much sweeter fruits, by the grace of Allah (swt).

I can reliably state that their members were encouraged to attend and challenge this charlatan, they however declined. This in itself is a clear testament of their true communal sentiments, duplicity and failure as an organisation, which has been the cause of leading people like Mr Rashad, Mr Shiraz, Mr Hussain, Mr Nawaz and who knows how many others astray. A Hizb (party, sect or cult) which has ultimately done more harm to this community than good, a community whose tolerance towards them will no doubt wane. Now that their true colours have been exposed, God-willing they will soon be the recipients of righteous hecklers and leaflet distributors, at future events they organise, no doubt concerning the one and only topic they think they are qualified to speak about, 'Khilafa'. I would recommend brothers to visit their exhibition stand at the upcoming GPU event, to question their 12 year stand and the damage they have done to sections of our second generation.

We pray that Allah (swt) strengthens and blesses the true callers, thinkers, scholars and activists of Islam, whose consistent contribution to the establishment of institutions, schools, national organisations, Mosques, youth groups and publications here and across the Muslim world, stems from the notion that Islam is comprehensive for all areas of life and that we must incorporate a bottom-up as well as top-down approach in systems concerning the development, progression, benevolence, peace, harmony and establishment of a God-conscious society, Insha'Allah. I pray that Allah (swt) protects, preserves and elevates our Deen and its devoted, patient and sincere adherents.

Wasalamu' Alaikum,

‘Sour’ism

In my relative short stay in the UK, I have been able to attend many interesting and informative lectures and events. A recent one turned out to be a tad different- the first sign was the queues outside the venue. Who queues to listen to a lecture, I thought. But this was a high profile lecture that had attracted the level of attention it seems it intended to attract.

The speaker was a Maajid Nawaz, an ex-Hizb ut-Tahrir, senior member. To my knowledge, the group does not have a very visible presence in South Africa, so I was interested in the inside scoop from this ex-member. I guess I was misinformed; coz an inquest into the faults and flounders of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) was not forthcoming.

Maajid is a brilliant public speaker, perhaps a trait that served well in HT, which I came to understand, is a political movement. A political movement with an Islamic ideology. To be honest, I was not sure what HT was about before the lecture, and I am still not sure. But this is what I took away from the lecture.

Maajid explained his colourful history with HT, and some of the interesting experiences he had with them- from establishing HT as the power on his college, to spending time in a jail in Egypt. I was loving this guy and savouring every word he so eloquently delivered.

But as he went on, I found it difficult following his logic. For the sake of brevity, and to convey my understanding, I will merely explain the picture he painted in my head.

‘HT wants to establish an Islamic state. This is a fallacy that cannot exist in the world as we know it.’ (I could not agree more.)

But then he somehow came to the conclusion that, ‘Islam is not meant to interfere with politics. Islam is about your spirituality and personal life- for your political life you need to rely on pragmatism and logic only.’

Based on my base knowledge of HT, this thought of his seemed like the direct opposite, and most definitely not the balanced view. And when challenged by some of the audience members, apparent HT members and not, Maajid shamefully either evaded most of the challenging questions, or merely failed to respond in an intelligent manner.

I knew little of HT before this lecture, and I still don’t know much. I must admit that this has encouraged me to look into them at some point and see for myself what they are about. However, for what I have benefited from this lecture, I am thankful.

I remember not the challenging questions from the eloquent sister on Maajids view on ‘Islamism’, or the elderly gentleman’s caution against using ‘loaded’ terminology or the young mans implied accusation that this was a publicity stunt.

What I do remember is that Maajid mentioned his blog too many times. I could almost imagine him saying, ‘And if you visit my blog today, you will get an opportunity to be a member of my political campaign!’ Because that is the impression that soured my thoughts- was this guy just here on a PR campaign to build his reputation as a politician? Why was he saying the ‘right’ things, quoting the ‘right’ people and making it known of his association with the ‘right’ people?

The advert to the lecture asked these questions- What should Muslim politics really look like? How do we disentangle Islamism from Islam? Should our political attention not be more focused on developing our communities, contributing to wider society, and using all the democratic means at our disposal to inform, campaign and lobby on the greater issues affecting the Muslim world?

Sadly, I don’t see how this came even close to answering any of them.

The City Circle brother at the end made it clear that City Circle is an open platform for discussion and debate. I remember thinking to myself, this is brilliant. This is exactly what Muslims need- a platform where different thoughts, opinions and views can be expressed. Because from this, we can only grow and improve these thoughts, opinions and views and hence become better Muslims and better people.

But sadly, this brother messed it all up by resorting to juvenile insults of HT. And I didn’t need to be a member of HT to then leave with a sour taste in my mouth!

The chair of this event should resign. His personal comments at the end of the even regarding HT make him not fit to hold any position in the public forum as a representative of the intelligent silent muslim majority. He is an extremist in his own way.

Salaams,

I think maajid needs help! I am more convinced of the hizb now than ever before!

Thank you so much!

Appreciate the comments - including the criticisms- each chair has their own style- and my attempts to inject humour and socialise the event may not have been appreciated by all. Interestingly CC has received almost an equal amount of positive as well as negative comments in terms of holding the event which is the mark of a healthy debate, with the strongest objections centering around the definition of islamism and the role , structures and relationship of Islam in the political sphere.

We accept that this is a contentious issue and that Majid's comments required qualification or intellectual challenge from those established movements or groups who did not share his views and we will seek to to do that. As this was his first public appearance- it was appropriate to give him time to tell his story to a community audience.

The key ingredient in the current environment is communication in attempting to appreciate the myriad of views within our community and to resist the temptation of lazy categorisation which entrenches us into a form of ideological tribalism, and a war of egos more than a genuine search for public and community interest. On that point I really appreciate those who have sincerely commented and would welcome all groups to continue to participate and represent their views so we can appreciate the diversity of views as well as assess where we are all at as well as fostering an internal constructive/critical attitude.

Rashaad- were you the chair? You totally messed up at the end by making those statements. To be fair, perhaps you should apologise for what was clearly a mistake on your path.

A debate with both views represented is an excellent idea for the future- but a strong totally independant chair will be needed.

Keen for some feedback on the comments I left of the blog: www.freewriters.wordpress.com

'Mad' Melanie Phillips has now been joined by 'mad' Maajid. From the conveyor belt theory to the use of terms such as 'Islamism' and 'Islamist', the current replacement for the now discredited language of 'war on terror' and the wildly sensationalist description of non-violent resurgent political Islam as a 'perversion of the true religion of Islam'; such notions wreak of the stench of the neo con discourse despite the different gradations of its expression and the camouflaging of its true source. The madness that is secular reformism has the support and blessings of Home Office ministers, Newsnight, Ed Husain, Melanie Philips and Michael Gove and no doubt the list will grow longer, but that might not bode propitiously as hoped for given the nature of the endorsements and gives a new twist to the meaning on ‘cooperating on the good’!!!

Congratulations Citycircle for continuing with your rich heritage, culture and history of bringing the very best of the British institution to the panel once again.

In all honesty, Majid was woeful, lacked any intellectual argumentation in brief

The only audience Majid could possibly impress with his blend of Theology, Philosophy and other theories would be the CC crowd, who are quite a confused crowd in all honesty!

Lets have more of this stuff! Bring on Sardar...

Ummmmm. Who is Maajid Nawaz? No seriously, who is he? what are his credentials? "..period of study in Prison...?" It was nice to see the audience question his stance and yet not get back any satisfactory answer...as expected.

I am sorry even though i am neutral in this debate of Islamism..just obeserving this chap's statements and quotations looks all to be preparatory and devious.

In my view it would have been better to have a PROPER Debate and brng on a member of HT to panel rather than jump on the bandwagon like all the other media outlets have in condeming, ridiculing, and outright insulting HT.

City Circle I hope you make note of that point.

I wonder what Maajid Nawaz thinks about the fact that his own 'ideology' could 'legitimate' a secular tyranny. He should make it clear what he thinks about Shar`i law; he should state that a government that is negligent with regards to its implementation is a deficient government, and a government that rejects the notion of shar`i rule entirely is guilty of kufr. Does he agree with these premises?

Interesting - Maajid Nawaz and Ed Husain as well as others were free to advocate the totalatarian caliphate with its so-called 'Systems of Islam' - but the moment ex-HT people question those ideas, well, who do they think they are?

As long as you advocate Islamism, no problem. Question it - then, who are you?

The very logic that allows these guys to call for Islamism ensures they too can speak out against it.

salaam brother maajid

I have just watched the whole of your lecture and checked out your blog as well. you seem to sound like someone who is certain that what you are saying is 'right' and for the 'good'. how is it that you claim yourself to be a person of The true understanding? Where is your understanding emanating from? You have rejected Islam to be the basis for running the affairs of mankind. You make it look like it is a complete waste of time to study Islam since it really doesn't matter as the ineterest of the people will dictate the rules. Plus who decides what is in the interest of the people? the power hungry sell outs? This world shows that the muslims are in a very sorry state today. In every nook and corner they are being oppressed and are also being propped up against each other to break the muslims' morale.Your love for using the loaded words like 'Islamism' does nothing but drives the wedge of division further within the muslim community. There is a dire need of an Islamic revival, the revival of the Ummah. A governance which will bring back the strength and respect of the muslim nation.And yes many muslims accross the globe are struggling towards this. Your selective approval of certain movements and rejection of others depending on how closely they feel Islam is to governance. The type of governance you are calling for has the danger of fulfilling the interests only of the elite few; a kind which already exists. It takes away the concept of accountability as you will have no basis to hold the government accountable against. It is an obligation of the muslims to study the problems of the ummah in the light of Islam and work togther as an indivisble body to rid the Islamic nation of the stench of secularism and nationalism.

Majid Nawaz has clearly denied the concept of an Islamic state, is he then satisfied with the ‘reality’ of being ruled by kufr forever? Does he also deny the inevitable coming of the state?

Salaam.
I watched this circle on YouTube. I am still spinning after watching it. From working with Hizb utTahrir and now pole vaulting to the side of neo-conservatism leaves me lost.

We can criticise HT, but the caliphate does not belong to them. The Muslims in India championed it with the Ali brothers. It has a long and undeniable mark on history. Now for someone to say after all these years, "by the way Islam is secular" I find impossible to digest and cant help feel that something fishy is going on.

Ron

I am confused. I attended a HT rally outside the American embassy only last year where Majid spoke. I recall him saying that he believed in the values of HT more today that before he was imprisoned in Egypt.

But that was a couple of years ago. I cant understand that if he changed his ideas, why did he rejoin this group for 2years, supporting their agenda and then suddenly leave. I have not found an answer to this from him or his blog or his friends

I know that the intlligence was keen to infiltrate Islamist im just wondering if this is part of that plan.

Mak

In the lecture majid says that HT is not well represented in the Arab world because people have access to Arabic literature. However they are in large numbers in other countries in Central Asian etc.

This is nonsense. Many arabs speak arabic but are worse in behaviour that Muslims in India or Indonisia or the central republics. Look at the behaviour of Arabs in Dubai, Iraq (during Saddams time), in Lebanon and Jordan.

Not only that but Arabs in Saudi accept the totalitarian rule of the Saudi monarch.

I was very disappointed with his arguments.


I hope city circle give opportunity to someone from the Islamist camp preferably HT to argue the otherside.

A point Maajid very cunningly skirted over was the sincerity of conviction to his new found ideas.
He states that he had time to think about Islam prison and thus came to different conclusions. If Majid was indeed conviced of such ideas and was indeed sincere to those ideas as he makes himself out to be, he would have renounced his association with the Hizb at that time, as opposed to joining the National Executive and going on bbc hardtalk, arguing the case for the Khilafah infront of millions. One cannot be sincere to contradictory concepts. So the question begs: What on earth is his real motive? He waited to get into the National Executive of the Hizb and then in a blaze of glory (not sure under whose orders) declared his new found ideas which had "obvious" contradictions with those ideas he held for most of his life! There is definitely something sinister at play here.

Salaams

I listened to the speech and in particular his critique of the 'post modern' terms of 'Sovereignty' and 'State' what comes to mind is Shakespears Romeo and Juliet, 'What is in a name? If a rose were to be called by any other name it would still smell as sweet.' And really that sums up my thoughts why make such a big deal about the terms used rather we should look behind the reality of these terms and try to understand whether these 'modern' terms agree or disagree with the islamic texts.

For instance to state that the term, 'state' does not appear in the Islamic scriptures, then does it follow that islam is divorced from politics? Similarly are we to say that Islam simply calls us to be 'good Muslims' and allows us to perform our politics anyway we want to?

Let me quote the 14th Century CE Maliki Jurist, historian and founder of modern Sociology, Ibn Khaldun in his famous work Al Muqadimmah who states, 'The purpose (of human beings) is their religion, which leads to happiness in the other world. Therefore, religious laws have as their purpose to cause (them) to follow such a course in all their dealings with God and their fellow men. This (situation) ALSO APPLIES TO ROYAL AUTHORITY, which is natural in human social organisation. (The religious laws) guide it along the path of religion, so that everything will be under the supervision of the religious law. Anything (done by royal authority) that is dictated by force, superiority, or free play of power of the wrathfulness, is tyranny and injustice and considered reprehensible by (the religious law), as it is also considered reprehensible by the requirements of political wisdom. Likewise, anything (done by royal authority) that is dictated by considerations of policy or political decisions WITHOUT supervision of the religious law, is also reprehensible, because it is a vision lacking the divine light. At the resurrection, the actions of human beings, whether they had to do with royal authority or anything else, will all come back to them.'
Ibn Khaldun, 'Al muqadimmah' Chapter 'On dynasties, royal authority, government ranks and all that goes with these things', Sub section, 'The meaning of caliphate and imamate'

I believe ibn khaldun wrote that before these post modern terminologies.

wasalaams

Abu Laith

Fo many years certain sections of the politically active Shi'a community here in England have been saying just what this individual and others have now found the courage to say.

That the Khilafate system as it is called is one which has no Qur'anic basis. Rather the system of Imamate as instituted by the Prophet(as) is that which leads to the correct governance of the Muslim Ummah.

Pity it is only after misleading many that they have been guided to the truth themselves. Better late than never I suppose...

I came across Maajid on a number of occasions when he was at SOAS before he went to Egypt when he tried to 'chat up' potential recruits to HT in the way only the HT then could. I am happy to say I never fell for it and did my best to avoid his ilk. But what I find disconcerting now, is not so much his message (I don't have a problem with people who change their minds) but it is that the conviction and swagger with which he preaches his current message is exactly the same as he deployed when he preached on behalf of HT. The only difference is that his message is now the diametric opposite of what he then preached.

As I say, I don't have a problem with people developing (and perhaps radically changing) their thoughts per se, but Maajid's case, I find it extrodinary that his views have shifted so radically, so suddenly that surely he should at least have kept out of the media spotlight for a sufficient amount of time so that he could develop his new thoughts with time to reflect so that he has fully evaluated and reflected upon his new thoughts before going straight into the media.

What is to say that he may turn around in a few months time, and say he has had another conversion and preach that with the absoulte conviction he now employs?

The only constant in Maajid's story seems to be preaching a message with conviction, not the message itself. This leads me to question his motives.
Maajid has argued that the reason why he is articulating his views in the media is that he is trying to undo the damage he caused when he was preaching on behalf of HT. I don't buy this. If he really wanted to undo the damage, he would have stayed away from the media and crystalised his views before coming into the open. That way, using his own argument, he would not cause further damage.

The Messenger al-Habib (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said, "One of the worst people is a double-faced man, who come to one group with one face and to another group with a totally different face." (Related by Al-Bukhari and Ibn Hibban). A similar Hadith is reported by Ammar ibn Yasir, an early companion of the Prophet, who quotes him as saying: "Whoever is double-faced in this life will have two tongues of fire in the hereafter." A big man then passed by and the Prophet said: "This is one of them." (Related by Al-Bukhari in Al-Adab Al-Mufrad, Abu Dawood, Al-Darimi and others).

Remember that Al-Habib Rasoolallah (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said, "Indeed a servant speaks a word (which is pleasing to Allah) to which he pays no attention and for which Allah elevates him many grades. And indeed the servant speaks a word (which is displeasing to Allah) to which he pays no attention and for which he shall fall in Jahannam." (Bukhari)

"Among the words people received from early prophets are: if you feel no shame, then do as you wish." (Related by Al-Bukhari, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, Ahmad and others).

http://sumayyahevans.blogspot.com/2007/09/has-maajid-nawaz-been-double-faced.html

Maajid's comment about Najm Uddin at-Tufi is an outright LIE.
Majid claimed that the hudud punishments can be stopped because of maslahah, he then tries to put this into at-Tufi's mouth without providing any evidence.
What at-Tufi said was that the Hudud are an exception to the rule "there is no harm or reciprocating harm in islam". Najm uddin at-Tufi tried to claim that punishments below the level of hudud could be halted due to maslahah, but he explicited said that the hudud CANNOT be halted. This he argues because the hudud are definitive (qati'i).

Due to at-Tufi's view that NON-HUDUD punishments could be halted if the maslahah is elsewhere he was branded a deviant by Imam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, the great Hanbali Imam who is one of the foremost reference points in the whole Hanbali madhhab.

Shaykh Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari, a promiment Hanafi scholar of the Uthmani Khilafah, labelled at-Tufi as an out right heretic (zindiq) and he (al-Kawthari) said that ANYONE who calls for what at-Tufi said is WORSE THAN TUFI!!

Looks like al-Kawthari would say that Maajid Nawaz is worse than a zindiq!!!!!

Something for Maajid and his new friends to think about.

May Allah protect us all.

I can't belive in this day and age there are a few people think that by not practicing many parts of Islam (that Allah has clearly laid down upon us) will somehow win favous on the day of jujdment. The last time Muslins tried to go down the path of sufism and secularism was about 800 to 900 years ago when the Muslims were in our situation today, disjointed, disorientated, disunited and being totally subdued by the Spanish, Mongols and Crusader efforts to remove Islam. Sufism added fuel to the fire. We should have learnt our lessons from then. Sufism and non-political involvement will not restore Islam or help the Muslims. Of course it took the Uthmani Khilafah to reunite the Muslims and restore Islam couple of hundred years later. It definitely wasn't Sufisma nd secularism that revived the Muslims then.

This current debate on Islam as a system is fuelled by the Governments desire for the Muslims to be pacified and sit at home and never to question their authority when Muslim lands are being attached and pillaged. Allah will ask us on the day of judgment where we stood when all this was happening. Majid and his crew are doing a pathetic job for the government in trying to throw confusion within the Muslims.

Muslims know that Islam as a system is from the book of Allah and within the Sunnah of the prophet, where ALL our solutions must come from, no matter how hard it is and when it is.

'Allah (swt) forgive us'

Hello Mr. Nawaz,

I came to know your good name at BBC Doha Debate. You really are a good debator and your views are extremely balanced. What impressed me and what really made you a credible speaeker on the issue of "Islamism" is because you were once a member or an advocate of it.

Truly, now I believe there are still Muslims out there who really want peace and who can co-exist with non-Muslims like me.

The world needs you Mr. Nawaz, at least to shift from Islam as a religion of intollerance to Islam as a religion of tolerance. If that could be possble with your intelligence and knowledge, I would be feeling better witht any Muslim. I pray for your safety and blessings.

If I could piggy back on what al-Malaki stated, ading to the fact that Tufi opined to what al-Malaki outlined, his opinion was an extreme shadh opinion of all, and the ummah has opined otherwise minus a 20th century revisionist mindset that has no basis in Islam

asalamu alaikum

Aa,
Having watched this debate in its entirety and the q+a session I was surprised to note the state of people's manners in addressing the speaker. Telling the speaker that he was wrong, interrupting him, that he had misunderstood a question that was so complicated in its phrasing even the questioner had to write it down to remember it...the best of all adab and the most important question in my opinion came from the English woman. As a muslim, it seems to me we would do better to take a long hard look at perfecting the islamic attributes that the English have in abundance, than fighting one another over such obtuse issues. The truth is pure and simple.