Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Assad: Morsi Oust 'is The Fall Of Political Islam'

Rate this topic


Qa'im

Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

again you are going into details talking about concept of ummah.

 

no I was talking about the concept of the Islamic State, which is the end goal for pretty much all proponents of what is called 'political Islam'

 

we are talking about simple and general statement of bashar about political islam. 

 

He is against Political Islam - he is a secularist - what is so difficult to grasp or surprising about that?

 

but concerning your obvious targeting of desperate anti WF attempts: if the people want islam, then they surrender to the sovereignty of Allah, therefore the IRI had an election where the people chose Islam as their political platform.

 

Well I don't see how this all connects, it isn't as if the people had a wide and varied choice in their elections, but then neither is any other democratic system, it is but an illusion of choice. Any candidate must be of and for the establishment.

 

this discussion, however, isn't about iran for now. it is about asad's statement which is general about Islam, whatever it may mean to you.

 

As said before, he needn't ascribe to the political ideology of his friends, otherwise Syria would be an 'Islamic republic' modelled on Iran, which it clearly isn't. He is against political Islam in all its manifestations or variants, whichever way you want to look at it. The dude is of the same political ideology as Saddam Hussain at the end of the day, just his alliances are different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are no perfect actions, only perfect intentions.

 

i believe that there are people like sayid nasr Allah and sayid Khamenei (may Allah prolong their lives and grant them success ) who have the right intentions, along with millions of other people, who support the same causes, in line with Islam of our prophets and imams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I don't understand the mindset of diehard WF supporters, assad as a ba3thi chellib is naturally against any association of religion with politics (yes ANY,that includes WF) and this is something Iran - merely an ally - is ready to acknowledge; yet the latter's fanbase begins to go to the height of denial and pretend to themselves assad is only speaking of takfiri salafists. There's really no need, it just looks desperate and delusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

again you are going into details talking about concept of ummah.

 

no I was talking about the concept of the Islamic State, which is the end goal for pretty much all proponents of what is called 'political Islam'

 

we are talking about simple and general statement of bashar about political islam. 

 

He is against Political Islam - he is a secularist - what is so difficult to grasp or surprising about that?

 

but concerning your obvious targeting of desperate anti WF attempts: if the people want islam, then they surrender to the sovereignty of Allah, therefore the IRI had an election where the people chose Islam as their political platform.

 

Well I don't see how this all connects, it isn't as if the people had a wide and varied choice in their elections, but then neither is any other democratic system, it is but an illusion of choice. Any candidate must be of and for the establishment.

 

this discussion, however, isn't about iran for now. it is about asad's statement which is general about Islam, whatever it may mean to you.

 

As said before, he needn't ascribe to the political ideology of his friends, otherwise Syria would be an 'Islamic republic' modelled on Iran, which it clearly isn't. He is against political Islam in all its manifestations or variants, whichever way you want to look at it. The dude is of the same political ideology as Saddam Hussain at the end of the day, just his alliances are different.

 

 

 

political islam = political islam. no need to delve into details here and talk about iran, syria.

 

you want to talk about islam you can talk about quran for instance

I don't understand the mindset of diehard WF supporters, assad as a ba3thi chellib is naturally against any association of religion with politics (yes ANY,that includes WF) and this is something Iran - merely an ally - is ready to acknowledge; yet the latter's fanbase begins to go to the height of denial and pretend to themselves assad is only speaking of takfiri salafists. There's really no need, it just looks desperate and delusional.

 

do you think i care how anything looks to you? do you think that makes any difference to me? who are you anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

political islam = political islam. no need to delve into details here and talk about iran, syria.

 

you want to talk about islam you can talk about quran for instance

 

Not quite. Political Islam isn't that simply defined nor is there a universal definition, it will vary from landscape to landscape.

 

You should read Modern Political Islamic Thought by Hamid Enayat (late and great Iranian academic).

 

A discussion about Political Islam, without mention about states or parties that are affiliated to it, will be a very very brisk discussion indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite. Political Islam isn't that simply defined nor is there a universal definition, it will vary from landscape to landscape.

 

You should read Modern Political Islamic Thought by Hamid Enayat (late and great Iranian academic).

 

A discussion about Political Islam, without mention about states or parties that are affiliated to it, will be a very very brisk discussion indeed.

 

political islam is very simple. it is islam in politics.

 

anybody claiming otherwise is fooling themselves.

 

we don't need authors other than messengers to explain that to us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of an 'Islamic Republic' is also arguably an oxymoron, given that the sovereignty belongs to God and not the people.

An Islamic Republic is only an oxymoron in some cases. You can also say an Islamic democracy is also an oxymoron, but not when most of a nation's people want their to be an Islamic form of government.

 

A democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly - through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. (thisnation.com).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

political islam is very simple. it is islam in politics.

 

anybody claiming otherwise is fooling themselves.

 

we don't need authors other than messengers to explain that to us

 

Then you can be so kind as to illustrate to us, based on the Quran (you mentioned if you want to talk about Islam refer to the Book, I am guessing the same would apply for "Islam in politics") where we are told on just how to govern a state?

 

This is something that has developed over the centuries of Islam. It would also be interesting to see where the Prophet s.a.w spoke in detail if any, about the ideology of WF. Seeing as Political Islam is apparently so obvious and straightforward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

President  Bashar Al-Assad is a Great Revolutionary Head of State and  Great and True Ally to The Blessed Islamic Republic of Iran The so-called Political Islam of The MB and the Wahhabsi is not in the best  interest of The Muslim World and for Shias in particular    and it should  be  combated and crush Iran and Syria are going to have to play in key role in this battle 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you can be so kind as to illustrate to us, based on the Quran (you mentioned if you want to talk about Islam refer to the Book, I am guessing the same would apply for "Islam in politics") where we are told on just how to govern a state?

 

This is something that has developed over the centuries of Islam. It would also be interesting to see where the Prophet s.a.w spoke in detail if any, about the ideology of WF. Seeing as Political Islam is apparently so obvious and straightforward.

 

one can write encyclopedias about that, and it's a topic of research of course.

 

but nobody can deny that the prophets applied religion in their politics, and that they preached for everybody to apply Islam in every aspect of life.

 

as i mentioned above, moses (as) going to pharaoh is a little example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Then you can be so kind as to illustrate to us, based on the Quran (you mentioned if you want to talk about Islam refer to the Book, I am guessing the same would apply for "Islam in politics") where we are told on just how to govern a state?

 

This is something that has developed over the centuries of Islam. It would also be interesting to see where the Prophet s.a.w spoke in detail if any, about the ideology of WF. Seeing as Political Islam is apparently so obvious and straightforward.

Its inferred, its the state that's going to cut the hands of thieves afterall, not your average bloke on the street. It's the state that has courts that facilitate for two witnesses in a divorce case, not a genie. There's little doubt religion has a lot to say in politics, my hunch is that many hojjatiyah-minded shias reject the application of sharia without the imam simply because they see it as incompatible with superior democratic values. EDIT: However I do agree that the structure of the state is left open to man's ijtehad, there's no elaborate system laid out.

Edited by Jahangiram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Its inferred, its the state that's going to cut the hands of thieves afterall, not your average bloke on the street. It's the state that has courts that facilitate for two witnesses in a divorce case, not a genie. There's little doubt religion has a lot to say in politics, my hunch is that many hojjatiyah-minded shias reject the application of sharia without the imam simply because they see it as incompatible with superior democratic values.

 

I am of course not in denial that Islam has a say on Politics, being a complete system as it were, and a civilisation in its own right not only a religion dealing with spirituality alone. There may also be numerous ayat dealing with laws. However, the concepts dealing with governing and ruling an Islamic state/empire is something that evolved over time. Whether it be the whole majlis or shura with the early caliphate and the bait al maal and other governmental departments, to the "diwans" implemented under the Abbassids which was an inheritance and influence from their Persian courtly predecessors, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

sister, just because there are sooo many hypocrites, we can't dismiss our religion. i can understand if ignorant people who have no connections with eastern or middle eastern world would make such a statement. but bashar? i don't know, maybe it's just me: but using "political islam" as if it's something bad isn't too smart in my opinion.

 

if he had said "use name of islam for personal agendas", or maybe "use religion for personal gains" "or use religion to gain immoral powers" .. something like that .. but "political islam" .. that is attacking all of islam. hopefully he didn't mean it that way. in sha Allah

 

i completely understand. but definitely at any time in history there was at least one good rightful religious ruler on earth, or politician. at the same time it's a matter of principle. this guy is allied with the party of Allah and the guardianship of scholars of Islam. :)

just sounds like he sold his only friends, that's all. i hope i'm wrong.

 

also sounds like he sold God, and again i hope i'm wrong :)

 

I told you Bashar is a secularist, you refused to believe it by saying he's allied to Iran and fighting the Sufyani...

Edited by Robin Hood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I am of course not in denial that Islam has a say on Politics, being a complete system as it were, and a civilisation in its own right not only a religion dealing with spirituality alone. There may also be numerous ayat dealing with laws. However, the concepts dealing with governing and ruling an Islamic state/empire is something that evolved over time. Whether it be the whole majlis or shura with the early caliphate and the bait al maal and other governmental departments, to the "diwans" implemented under the Abbassids which was an inheritance and influence from their Persian courtly predecessors, etc.

Oh ye, I conceded as much in my edit lol. The structure of the state is indeed left open to ijtehad, but I wouldn't say its an exaggeration that many of the formalities of political islam proceed from Islamic principles (shura for example is something emphasised upon in the quran). Mawardi actually held a lot of detailed ideas on how to run a caliphate, ideas including a majlis and even elections. All in the 11th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told you Bashar is a secularist, you refused to believe it by saying he's allied to Iran and fighting the Sufyani...

So what? They both have common interest and  thats all that matters in politics... especially when their enemies are disgusting backward savages. 

Edited by ~Rose~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its shocking that many shia were e surprised by his statement. Assad is a secularist, for God sake.

He does not want his country to be goverment by islamic laws, hence he is a taghuti.

Surely We revealed the Taurat in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allah) judged (matters) for those who were Jews, and the masters of Divine knowledge and the doctors, because they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allah, and they were witnesses thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and do not take a small price for My communications; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers.

5:44

Edited by Nima
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syria's Assad says political Islam being defeated in Egypt

 

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says what happened in Egypt 'is the fall of what is called political Islam'

 

 

Reuters, Wednesday 3 Jul 2013

 

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, fighting to crush a two-year-old uprising against four decades of rule by him and his late father, said on Wednesday the upheaval in Egypt was a defeat for political Islam.

 

 

"Whoever brings religion to use in politics or in favour of one group at the expense of another will fall anywhere in the world," Assad was quoted as telling the official Thawra newspaper, according to an official Facebook page.

 

"The summary of what is happening in Egypt is the fall of what is called political Islam."

 

Relishing the possible downfall of one of Assad's most vocal critics, Syrian television carried live coverage of the huge street demonstrations in Egypt demanding the departure of President Mohamed Mursi.

 

Assad's late father, Hafez al-Assad, used the military to crush an armed insurgency against his rule led by the Muslim Brotherhood, killing many thousands in the conservative city of Hama, which became a centre of pro-democracy demonstrations when the uprising against the younger Assad erupted in March 2011. Thousands of leftists were also jailed and tortured.

 

The Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood became one of the most powerful factions behind the mostly Sunni Muslim uprising against Assad, who belongs to the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam, and is being helped by Lebanon's Shi'ite Hezbollah militia.

 

Mursi has expressed support for foreign intervention against Assad and attended a rally two weeks ago calling for holy war in Syria.

 

A month ago, Syrian authorities responded to a wave of protests against Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, another fierce opponent of Assad, by calling on him to halt what it said was violent repression and step aside.

Veiled way of saying, it's the failure of "Political Wahabism" or even "Political Sunnism"... Old form of which "POLITCAL NASIBISM" of Ummayads, Banu Abbas, and Ottomans failed miserably leaving a hordes of 1 billion sheep cluelessly running around false gods in 21st century.

POLITICAL ISLAM never failed, will never fail, can never fail, because Political Islam is the Islam of Muhammad (pbuh) and Ali (as) which started with the establishment of the first nation state in Madina headed by the top high ranking Prophet (s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

He didnt said that, he said political islam, not salafi islam...

 

Is Muslim Brotherhood not hijacked by salafi Islam?

It is very difficult to find what is real Islam and political Islam.  The best way to differentiate it is if political Islam is with knowledge then it is real Islam.  Or else it is political Islam.

 

The greatest divide of real Islam and political Islam started right after the Prophet (pbuh).  The prophet (pbuh) said he is leaving two things Quran and Ahlulbayt (as), that is knowledge and those who follow this Islam is real Islam, rest everything is political Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Muslim Brotherhood not hijacked by salafi Islam?It is very difficult to find what is real Islam and political Islam.  The best way to differentiate it is if political Islam is with knowledge then it is real Islam.  Or else it is political Islam.

 

The greatest divide of real Islam and political Islam started right after the Prophet (pbuh).  The prophet (pbuh) said he is leaving two things Quran and Ahlulbayt (as), that is knowledge and those who follow this Islam is real Islam, rest everything is political Islam.

You are missing the terminology dude. Political Islam is the real Islam. Anybody who says otherwise is doing treason to Sayeda Fatima Zahra (as).

Imam Ali remained spiritual imam even though people paid allegiance to the '1st monkey on the pulpit'.

It was Sayeda Zahra (as) who waged a one woman struggle to establish the worldly leadership of her Imam and became shaheed in the process.

Watch your terminology bro -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

what is wrong with my terminology.

 

If you say majority is right, then why Quran condemed the majority so many times.

 

I again say.

 

The best way to differentiate political Islam from real islam is those who are with knowledge is real Islam.  Or else it is political Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is wrong with my terminology.

If you say majority is right, then why Quran condemed the majority so many times.

I again say.

The best way to differentiate political Islam from real islam is those who are with knowledge is real Islam. Or else it is political Islam.

You must be from Pakistan or India. Politics is tantamount to a curse word there.

Islam of Prophet Ibrahim, David, Solomon, Moses, Muhammad (pbuh) is called POLITICAL ISLAM.

REAL Islam is POLITICAL Islam.

Edited by Waiting for HIM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You must be from Pakistan or India. Politics is tantamount to a curse word there.

Islam of Prophet Ibrahim, David, Solomon, Moses, Muhammad (pbuh) is called POLITICAL ISLAM.

REAL Islam is POLITICAL Islam.

 

You are gone crazy.  Now you are associating me with Malangs.

 

Let me make my stance clear.  I said if political Islam is with Knowledge then it is real Islam or else it is only political Islam.

 

I have regards for Iran because it follows both Quran and Ahlulbath (i.e knowledge) and this real Islam and not political or majority islam hijacked by Takfiris who follow the political divide that is abubakr umar and Uthman and not Quran and Ahlulbayt.

 

I hope you get it this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Veiled way of saying, it's the failure of "Political Wahabism" or even "Political Sunnism"... Old form of which "POLITCAL NASIBISM" of Ummayads, Banu Abbas, and Ottomans failed miserably leaving a hordes of 1 billion sheep cluelessly running around false gods in 21st century.

POLITICAL ISLAM never failed, will never fail, can never fail, because Political Islam is the Islam of Muhammad (pbuh) and Ali (as) which started with the establishment of the first nation state in Madina headed by the top high ranking Prophet (s).

 

.. exaaaactly

You are gone crazy.  Now you are associating me with Malangs.

 

Let me make my stance clear.  I said if political Islam is with Knowledge then it is real Islam or else it is only political Islam.

 

I have regards for Iran because it follows both Quran and Ahlulbath (i.e knowledge) and this real Islam and not political or majority islam hijacked by Takfiris who follow the political divide that is abubakr umar and Uthman and not Quran and Ahlulbayt.

 

I hope you get it this time.

 

the word used for political ISLAM is still islam, therefore, it can not be bad. unless you believe islam is bad. islam is islam, wether it is political or private 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

salam aleikum,

 

i do not like hairsplitting but...

 

is there not a fine line between the terms "political Islam" and "Political Islam" etc. as they term it?

 

In the frist alternative the adjective adds a meaning to the separeted noun, while pure Mohammedan Islam includes ist political dimension as an essential part. Brother peace seeker explained it in clearer words

 

and every religion wants acts, and acts are done in public and societies. and a society acting against fitrah can never be stable - a lesson hopefully learned by some politicians and wahabists ... inshallah

 

salam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Can any other Arabic speakers in here verify this?

No he simply states political Islam, not the so-called political Islam.

 

The statement in Arabic read: the fall of the MB in Egypt represents the fall of the so-called political Islam.

Can you please elaborate? 

Assad has said that political Islam has fell and that this is the fate of anyone in the world  using religion in favour of a group over another.

 

 

Why is anyone surprised by this? Ba'thist in such as Saddam and Assad have rejected and re staunchly against the use of religion in politics (whether Sunni or Shia). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

I am not at all surprised about this statement, being that he is a Secularist after all.

 

But I must say it does lose a bit of my respect for the man. Especially when you have such allies in IR of Iran and Hizbullah etc laying their lives on the line. He should of chose his words more wisely. Ok, fair enough it can be understood if he used it in the case of a religiously diverse nation like his, but to say Islam/Religion has no place in politics at all is very foolish of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

No he simply states political Islam, not the so-called political Islam.

 

Can you please elaborate? 

Assad has said that political Islam has fell and that this is the fate of anyone in the world  using religion in favour of a group over another.

 

 

Why is anyone surprised by this? Ba'thist in such as Saddam and Assad have rejected and re staunchly against the use of religion in politics (whether Sunni or Shia). 

 

I ain't surprised by this. Bashar is a Ba'thist and a heretic (Nusayri). But I saw the statement in Arabic, and it had the word "so-called" in it. I think Bashar doesn't want to offend Iran, eventhough he clearly disagrees with their regime (Baathis and Alawis are proud seculars).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I ain't surprised by this. Bashar is a Ba'thist and a heretic (Nusayri). But I saw the statement in Arabic, and it had the word "so-called" in it. I think Bashar doesn't want to offend Iran, eventhough he clearly disagrees with their regime (Baathis and Alawis are proud seculars).

That quotation on the word "Islam" is added by the news paper for them not to insult/offend Islam.  That might of made you  think it was "so-called Islam".

But the main body of the article where Assad was quoted the quotation marks were not there.

This is a common practice (to use quotations) when Arab media report Islam being criticised to state that they do not agree with such statements.

 

 

Many Arab commentators in the media (especially Islamists) have stated that it is ironic for Assad to say this while allying with Iran and Hizb. 

Edited by Mousa54321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...