A Western Medina - Concepts and Framework

[Abu Hadi]

Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Rahim

 

As you all know from Islamic History, when the persecution in Mecca became too intense, the Holy Prophet went to Medina with a group of muslims to establish a 'homeland' for Islam and muslims that was physically separate from the kuffar. 

I have been thinking about this for a while now and would genuinely like input / thoughts from others. 

While we, as Muslims living in the West are not being physically attacked by the kuffar (at least this is not common at this time), our Islamic values are constantly under attack, being threatened, our children are being forced to learn things that are not part of our value system, we are being forced thru various ways to accept values that are against Islam or face serious threats, etc. This is leading to a general state of confusion amoung our youth and a general sense of dread amoung our older people. So here is the question. 

Is it time to physically separate ourselves, as Muslims living in the West. Is it time to establish our own communities that are physically separate ? Or is this a bad idea / not necessary. I am not sure and I go back and forth about this. 

At least in the US, there are many religious communities that have physically separated themselves in this way; The Amish, The Mormons, etc. It is lawful to do this in the US and it can be done, logistically. 

I have read the fatwa of marjaa on this and they all basically say the same thing. If you can keep your religion in all it's aspects, then you are allowed to live in a Western Country. At the same time, if you cannot stay away from haram, are forced to do haram in order to survive, or cannot keep the religion of your kids and your family safe in this way then you are obligated to move to a muslim country or any place where you can do this. I think for many of us, it is becoming more and more difficult and in some cases impossible to do this, with haram readily available on every corner and all the haram that is being continuously normalized in Western society and new forms of haram being legalized all the time. 

So is it time and do we need to start thinking about doing this, i.e. establishing a conceptual / ideological / legal / logistic / financial strategy for doing this ? 

BTW, I will be monitoring this topic. Any OT or trolling posts will be deleted / hidden. 

Also, before some people say 'Oh, well we have places like Dearborn...', let me just say that is not what I am talking about. Dearborn has all the issues that any other Muslim community living in the US has, all the issues I talked about. The only difference is that there are more Muslims and more Shia in one physical location vs other places in the US. Other than that, there is no difference between Dearborn and any other Muslim community in a Western Country. Just as a example of this there is a 'gentleman's club' (i.e. strip club) within spitting distance from the largest mosque in Dearborn. This mosque also has a school where little kids have to walk past this 'club' on their way to school. If the Muslims / Mumin actually controlled anything in Dearborn, at least they would have been able to solve this issue. This issue has been going on for more than 20 years and still not solved. 

Also, before people start saying, 'Oh lets just buy a piece of land and start building...'. this is step 20, lol. There are alot of other steps that need to be done before this. This is why I called this thread 'Concepts and Framework'. Step 1 is deciding if it is even necessary, desirable, and possible. I believe it is possible, btw, but would like to hear other thoughts. 

Edited July 23, 2023 by Abu Hadi

[Haji 2003]

On 7/23/2023 at 7:19 AM, Abu Hadi said:

The Amish, The Mormons, etc. It is lawful to do this in the US and it can be done, logistically. 

Those are the more traditional examples. There are newer examples of groups who have sought to set themselves apart from society with less successful outcomes e.g. David Koresh, the Rajneeshis and James Jones. I can't think of any successful recent groups that have sought to set themselves apart from broader society.

The common factor in the ones I mentioned above is the role of a charismatic, though flawed, leader. What you propose would overcome this with its reliance on the teachings of an established religious authority. The problem with that is that it would be seen as a possible fifth column within the US. representing a foreign power.

[Abu Hadi]

16 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

Those are the more traditional examples. There are newer examples of groups who have sought to set themselves apart from society with less successful outcomes e.g. David Koresh, the Rajneeshis and James Jones. I can't think of any successful recent groups that have sought to set themselves apart from broader society.

The common factor in the ones I mentioned above is the role of a charismatic, though flawed, leader. What you propose would overcome this with its reliance on the teachings of an established religious authority. The problem with that it is that it would be seen as a possible fifth column within the US. representing a foreign power.

The leadership is the most critical part of it. I would say step 2, once we have established that it is desirable / necessary, is to come up with a leadership structure that can be agreed upon. There also should be a heavy Shura aspect to this, since none of us are masoom. This is specifically designed to avoid those examples you talked about (Jones, Koresh, etc) which would be the nightmare scenario and would actually set the Ummah in the US backward instead of forward. 

In Islam, at least amoung followers of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)), we already have a non Masoom leadership structure, i.e. the Marjaa'. So any aspects of this where mumin/a disagree could always be referred to the marjaa'. Of course, for our Sunni brothers and sister who also wanted to participate / benefit from this, that might be a problem, but we would need to work that out. I would say it would be critical / necessary to get participation from our Sunni brothers and sisters, otherwise I don't think it would work. It would just be seen as another extremist / fringe community by the wider society which would put the community in a vulnerable position. That's step 2.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Abu Hadi

[AbdusSibtayn]

For practical reasons, I feel this is an impossibility. I will list those reasons in a post separately maybe after Ashura, inshallah, because the thoughts are all muddled in my mind right now. And a very big reason is the state of the Shi'a communities itself. 

Rather, those in the West should focus on moving back to the Muslim lands themselves, with the financial and human capital, and try to develop them. 

[Abu Hadi]

1 minute ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

For practical reasons, I feel this is an impossibility. I will list those reasons in a post separately maybe after Ashura, inshallah, because the thoughts are all muddled in my mind right now. And a very big reason is the state of the Shi'a communities itself. 

Rather, those in the West should focus on moving back to the Muslim lands themselves, with the financial and human capital, and try to develop them. 

Salam brother. Yes please post. I would like to hear your thoughts when you get a chance. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

18 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

The leadership is the most critical part of it. I would say step 2, once we have established that it is desirable / necessary, is to come up with a leadership structure that can be agreed upon. There also should be a heavy Shura aspect to this, since none of us are masoom. This is specifically designed to avoid those examples you talked about (Jones, Koresh, etc) which would be the nightmare scenario and would actually set the Ummah in the US backward instead of forward. 

In Islam, at least amoung followers of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)), we already have a non Masoom leadership structure, i.e. the Marjaa'. So any aspects of this where mumin/a disagree could always be referred to the marjaa'. Of course, for our Sunni brothers and sister who also wanted to participate / benefit from this, that might be a problem, but we would need to work that out. I would say it would be critical / necessary to get participation from our Sunni brothers and sisters, otherwise I don't think it would work. It would just be seen as another extremist / fringe community by the wider society which would put the community in a vulnerable position. That's step 2.

Salam it has been discussed partially in following thread about a successful example of making a Shia community in a western country as Le Moulinet Shia Muslim Converts In France which although a good  exmaple but on the other hand the Le Moulinet  community suffers from some problems likewise isolation from urban life due to being too far away from any city & transport problems which it still has not a proper road for traveling due to not supporting manupolicity 7 rest of  related offices french governmnet from  making a proper road  to any nearby city which the community has had to make a local bumpy-dusty road based on  financial resources of it's members also in similar fashion they only can give basic remote education to children in their society which after growing up children in their community so then they will have problem for receiving higher education although one of grown up children has  attentded in Hawza of Qom by supprt of other members to study in Hawza of Qom.

 

 

https://www.unifier.one/en/blogs/spirituality-blog/the-story-of-the-french-shia-mosque-le-moulinet/

http://sibtayn.com/en/index.php?option=com_hwdmediashare&view=mediaitem&id=412:en-shia-conversion-documentary-moulinet-france-mp4&Itemid=2129&category_id=921

https://www.al-islam.org/media/le-moulinet-french-revert-community

 

[Abu Hadi]

Salam Brother, I appreciate your comments. At the same time, there is a difference between the US and France. Here are the main differences, as I see them. 

In France, secular government and socialism are more embedded in the system vs the US. The people of France are much less likely to accept a religious community being separate because religion isn't that much a part of the lives of the people in general and France does not have a history of religious communities being separate. The US has a long history of this, so people are more likely to accept. Second, the roads and public transport in France are government controlled, much more so than in the US. In the US, most transportation is private (there are some exceptions like NY, DC, Boston, etc) i.e. most people in the US do not rely on public transportation to get around. They have their own private transportation. Third, the US is more spread out geographically, so people are used to driving more. France is mostly centered around a few major cities like Paris, Marseilles, Lyon, etc. 

I would say that the biggest difference is that the US is more religious, in general, and more accepting of religious differences. Religion is much more prominent in people's daily lives (not just for Muslims but for Christians and Jews also) and many people vote here based on religion, not just political affiliation. 

[Haji 2003]

On 7/23/2023 at 1:19 PM, Abu Hadi said:

At least in the US, there are many religious communities that have physically separated themselves in this way; The Amish, The Mormons, etc.

I wonder what the comparison would be with ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities e.g. New York, that have a certain level of separation, but it's unlike the Amish approach.

[Abu Hadi]

5 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

I wonder what the comparison would be with ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities e.g. New York, that have a certain level of separation, but it's unlike the Amish approach.

I've actually spent some time in this area of New York. It's near the famous area of Coney Island. There is no physical separation between this area and the rest of the city. It's just that people who are not Orthodox Jews don't usually live / buy houses in that area because they don't feel comfortable there. 

The area is called Williamsburg. It's in Brooklyn one of the five boroughs of New York City. Brooklyn has a lot of Jewish people but non Orthodox. Most of the Orthodox live in Williamsburg

Edited July 24, 2023 by Abu Hadi

[EiE]

There have been numerous like-minded individuals across various religions sharing this belief of separating oneself from the state. However, many of these groups often devolve into cult-like communities where leaders exploit members financially and sexually. While there may be a few exceptions, I have yet to come across any.

For the purpose of discussion, How are you going to do this?

As a citizen of your nation, you assume the position of an employee wherein your rights are limited. You are expected to comply with your superiors, who in turn, must comply with the highest authority of the establishment: the CEO of the company a.k.a president as in the president of a nation (company). Any violation of your contractual obligations may result in severe penalties, such as imprisonment or the separation of your family (the possible removal of your children by "social services").

As far as I am aware, neither the Amish nor the Mormons have actually achieved what you are suggesting. Despite their distinct lifestyles and practices, they are still subject to state laws and regulations, and must adhere to the agenda of the government.

[Abu Hadi]

9 hours ago, EiE said:

There have been numerous like-minded individuals across various religions sharing this belief of separating oneself from the state. However, many of these groups often devolve into cult-like communities where leaders exploit members financially and sexually. While there may be a few exceptions, I have yet to come across any.

 

 

For the purpose of discussion, How are you going to do this?

As a citizen of your nation, you assume the position of an employee wherein your rights are limited. You are expected to comply with your superiors, who in turn, must comply with the highest authority of the establishment: the CEO of the company a.k.a president as in the president of a nation (company). Any violation of your contractual obligations may result in severe penalties, such as imprisonment or the separation of your family (the possible removal of your children by "social services").

 

As far as I am aware, neither the Amish nor the Mormons have actually achieved what you are suggesting. Despite their distinct lifestyles and practices, they are still subject to state laws and regulations, and must adhere to the agenda of the government.

 

The goal is not to be 'not subject to the laws'. The goal is to create a community where as a Muslim, I can practice my religion and raise my family in an Islamic environment that is controlled by mumineen. I am surrounded by people I share common goals and values with, rather than random people. For example, in Islam there are many, many hadith that talk about how you need to take care of and have relationships with your neighbors. To my knowledge, no muslims that I know do this. The simple fact is that your neighbor might be a Satan worshipper, they might be an anti Islam bigot, they might be a fundamentalist Christian that thinks your going to hell and follow a false Prophet, they might be an atheist, or a vindictive narcissist who will call the police on you or report you to social services with no evidence. 

They also might be nice people, but you never know. In the US (and most Western countries), moving to a new house is like gambling with your future and your mental health. It might turn out ok, but then again you might get neighbors who make your life a living hell. You just never know. So how are you supposed to fulfill the rights of neighbors in that type of situation ? I know people will bring up the hadith about Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) whose neighbor used to throw trash and he visited this neighbor when they fell ill. At the same time, that was Rasoulallah, it was one neighbor, and a short time after that he moved to Medina. So I'm not sure how applicable that is in this situation. Yes, you should have good aklaq and try to make the relationships work. At the same time, you should also realize when you are over your head with the situation and try to think of an alternate solution. 

Another example is education. In the US, in the current situation you have only two choices. First is send your child to a public school and pray every day and do dua that your child doesn't get spiritually damaged or destroyed by the LGBTQ and other types of propaganda that is being taught now, even to small children (there have been many threads about this on SC and elsewhere on other Islamic websites). The second choice is that you can send your children to an Islamic private school, if there is one close by you, and for the majority of Muslims in the US there isn't one. If there is an Islamic school nearby, then it fits into one of two categories. It is either a 'discount' Islamic school. Low tuition but also very poor educational / academic quality, i.e. your children are being taught by bored housewives with no degree, no certification,  and no background in education OR You have an Islamic school with high quality education but the tuition is high, like 10k plus per year per child. So this is only a solution for wealthy muslims who live within 5 to 10 miles of the school. This is a very small percentage of the Muslim population. 

What I believe is a possible solution is a community, built from the ground up as a Muslim community. For example the city laws and ordinances will not allow the sale of alcohol or pork within the community, will not allow bars or any forms of 'adult entertainment' within the community. It will have a large masjid to accommodate all the worshippers for Salat and occasions. It will have a 'managed' Internet service that won't allow thru the haram content. It will be 'family friendly' in all it's aspects and even in the community physical layout. It will have high quality schools and the tuition will be subsidized based on a sliding scale of income thru property taxes, so that every family can afford to send their children to the local schools, etc. In other words, it will be a real Muslim community in all it's aspects. That is the goal. Whether it will happen or not, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) alim, but that is the goal. This is not a cult, it is a community of people with shared values. There are many of these in the US. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Abu Hadi

[Guest Window]

On 7/23/2023 at 7:19 AM, Abu Hadi said:

While we, as Muslims living in the West are not being physically attacked by the kuffar (at least this is not common at this time), our Islamic values are constantly under attack, being threatened, our children are being forced to learn things that are not part of our value system, we are being forced thru various ways to accept values that are against Islam or face serious threats, etc. This is leading to a general state of confusion amoung our youth and a general sense of dread amoung our older people. So here is the question. 

I completely agree with this. Sometimes I wish I wasn’t born in the US because of it. 

[Irfani313]

Salam - I wanted to share my thoughts on this wonderful topic and waited till the end of the 13 days of Muharram …

Ideal place is definitely Medina, because after all that is what the plan of God is anyway; the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth with the advent of the era of Imam Mahdi AF InshAllah.
 

The less ideal situation is what happens till then.. keeping in mind that until the whole globe turns into Medina, there will always be many Khaybers on regional, international, and institutional levels countering our Medina. With Shias being less than a million, Muslims maybe under 7 million in a nation of 350mil, with fluid economy, lack of unified resources, lack of commitment from larger scale of Muslims, and lots of overt hostility from religious Right that is 90% similar to us but is stupid enough to keep thinking us as their enemies, and lots of covert machinations from rabid left who try courting us for our votes which we stupidly keep giving them, that won’t stop at anything till we become like them in their very corrupted progressive ways … with all that and more ahead of us, would a Medina still be a viable option??? 

….And that brings me to a totally different option, that which is way more realistic, is currently happening all around us in families to communities level, and could turn into a tangible solution for Muslims.. and that is (drums), “Live in our non-Muslim homelands like Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) used to live in Makkah”. 

Prophet’s Makkah life would always be the most achievable lifestyle to emulate for us Muslims since that life and lifestyle adoption would pave the way for eventual journey towards Medina, that whenever it happens with the Faraj InshAllah. 
 

I’m not trying to simplify either, Makkah life had a lot more struggles, a lot more endurances, and Sha’b Abi Talib event could totally become a reality for us at some time, in certain geography in near or far future. Abu Lahabs would be on every corner, Abu Sufiyans would be throwing trash on us in our places of worship, and Abu Jahls would be defaming us on TVs and Radios, with Khalid bin Waleeds and Utbahs orchestrating occasional physical violence ….  Still yet it would be more worthwhile to spend our intellectual energies in tooling ideas, ways, and methods to live in our homelands as Makkan Muslims as opposed to jumping to the tenth step of the proverbial stairs that is Medina. 

I believe it would be worth starting another long-term permanent topic with the same protection of a Mod that is, the block power of unnecessary talks for “A Makkah in the West, Concepts and Frameworks”. 
 

ma’salam 

[ShiaMan14]

On 7/23/2023 at 7:19 AM, Abu Hadi said:

Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Rahim

Is it time to physically separate ourselves, as Muslims living in the West. Is it time to establish our own communities that are physically separate ? Or is this a bad idea / not necessary. I am not sure and I go back and forth about this. 

Salaam brother,

This is a fascinating and thought-provoking topic.

The first thought that came to mind was that the majority of Shias in America are immigrants who came here for a better way of life and in a lot of cases faced persecution in their home (often Muslim) countries. 

One of the benefits of USA is that as shias we are able to practice our faith without the fear of persecution. So the de facto answer may be no.

But if we peel the layer further and keep in mind the fatwa of marajae that we cannot stay in a non-Muslim country if our faith is in jeopardy, then we must further explore what you propose.

More on this later.

PS. Another thought was I wish we had the option that Italy is offering of whole villages being for sale. That possibility would definitely make this more achievable.

[Qa'im]

There is a book on this topic called "The Benedict Option" by Rod Dreher, written from a Christian perspective. He explores a few different options, from setting up intentional communities (like what you mention) to other models that don't involve leaving the city.

There are a few fundamental hurdles. One is that, other Muslim communities have tried this. Typically they don't last more than a generation, because the children don't always share the values of the parents, and many want to go to universities or find a job in the city. Secondly, internal disputes are pretty inevitable, which cause people to leave or prevent people from joining.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle is that Muslim immigrants largely came to the West for dunyawi reasons. Sure there are refugees who fled danger, but the majority came here to improve their quality of life. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but for many Muslim immigrants, living in an all-Muslim community is not high on their list of priorities, otherwise they would've stayed in the Muslim world. Shia centres were established mainly to commemorate Muharram, anything else is an afterthought.

Thinking out loud, we live in a time where physical separation is probably becoming less important. Living in cities has their problems, including the many corrupting influences that exist in 2023, but we truly are capable of living intentional lives anywhere in the world now. We choose what to watch on television, we choose what to follow online, we choose the schools we send our children to, and Muslim families are everywhere now for friendship/comradery/marriage. What needs to change is not so much physical separation, but a mental and cultural revolution. If the larger community cares only about becoming a doctor, making money, maintaining some random culture and language, and making white people happy, then it doesn't matter if Muslims establish a community on the Moon, it won't be of any benefit to them.

[kadhim]

11 minutes ago, Qa'im said:

probably becoming less important. Living in cities has their problems, including the many corrupting influences that exist in 2023, but we truly are capable of living intentional lives anywhere in the world now. We choose what to watch on television, we choose what to follow online, we choose the schools we send our children to, and Muslim families are everywhere now for friendship/comradery/marriage. What needs to change is not so much physical separation, but a mental and cultural revolution. If the larger community cares only about becoming a doctor, making money, maintaining some random culture and language, and making white people happy, then it doesn't matter if Muslims establish a community on the Moon, it won't be of any benefit to them.

This is a decent observation. 

[Abu Hadi]

22 hours ago, Qa'im said:

There is a book on this topic called "The Benedict Option" by Rod Dreher, written from a Christian perspective. He explores a few different options, from setting up intentional communities (like what you mention) to other models that don't involve leaving the city.

There are a few fundamental hurdles. One is that, other Muslim communities have tried this. Typically they don't last more than a generation, because the children don't always share the values of the parents, and many want to go to universities or find a job in the city. Secondly, internal disputes are pretty inevitable, which cause people to leave or prevent people from joining.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle is that Muslim immigrants largely came to the West for dunyawi reasons. Sure there are refugees who fled danger, but the majority came here to improve their quality of life. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but for many Muslim immigrants, living in an all-Muslim community is not high on their list of priorities, otherwise they would've stayed in the Muslim world. Shia centres were established mainly to commemorate Muharram, anything else is an afterthought.

Thinking out loud, we live in a time where physical separation is probably becoming less important. Living in cities has their problems, including the many corrupting influences that exist in 2023, but we truly are capable of living intentional lives anywhere in the world now. We choose what to watch on television, we choose what to follow online, we choose the schools we send our children to, and Muslim families are everywhere now for friendship/comradery/marriage. What needs to change is not so much physical separation, but a mental and cultural revolution. If the larger community cares only about becoming a doctor, making money, maintaining some random culture and language, and making white people happy, then it doesn't matter if Muslims establish a community on the Moon, it won't be of any benefit to them.

I have studied this also. What I found from my research is that the most important component is leadership. The past communities tended to focus their efforts on acquiring land, buildings, and offering a wide range of services to the community members. Although this is important, without a just leader and a just and well thought out leadership structure, the community goes down one of two paths. The first is the path of a cult like structure centered around an individual (think FLDS (i.e. Warren Jess), Jim Jones, etc). The second is a hijacking of leadership by a specific interest group who then use their community for their own narrow interests, and not in the interests of the community in general. After the community  / project is hijacked by this group, the people no longer trust the leadership so the project fails and collapses. 

The second thing has happened many times in Dearborn with various projects. I am not going to name names but most here who live in Dearborn can think of a few examples of this. That is why I said at the beginning that the leaders and leadership structure are more important than the buildings and the land. The first major hurdle is getting the ones who are 'bought in' to the project to agree to the leader and leadership structure and that this leader and structure is a just one (adl) in accordance with Islam and teaching of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). This is a major hurdle, requires cooperation and trust, and will signal the ultimate success of failure of the project / community. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barkatuh,

A lot has been written in response already, but since I had pledged a response and for which, after a great deal of delay due to some unforeseen health- related derailments, I have found some time,  alhamdulillah, and therefore I shall drop a few observations.

1. The aspiration for relatively homogenous and insulated communes organized around common principles has several instances in both recent and distant history. Karl Marx and Friedreich Engels mention some of these communities dotting the trans-Atlantic occident in the 19th Century organized around a common worldview, in this case socialism, in their 'Communist Manifesto'. They make a very pertinent observation here. Describing their ideologues as 'Utopian Socialists', they explain, and correctly so, that the reason why none of these colonies were able to survive was because though they had worked out their self governance in great detail, none of them had factored in the dynamics external to them, which were of decisive importance regarding their survival. Bear it in mind that none of these colonies were completely isolated settlements; in fact they had organic ties with the surrounding world as a matter of necessity, and it is these very ties which proved to be their undoing. They could not survive as islands of socialism in a capitalist- imperialist world system, and inevitably collapsed. I would have dug up a few names, but the devil lies not in the datum of names and places, but in the details of the general trajectory and ideas. None of these communities were self- sufficient units, and understandably so, and succumbed to external influence.

It is important for the prospective Western Madinah to heed this warning for history. Let us suppose that the Muslims in the West are able to work through the tedious preliminary processes of setting up such demarcated communities, aimed at shielding their lives from the corrupting influence of the sinful environment. Will they be able to set up a parallel and resilient political, economic and socio-cultural order? Because without this it will be no use making a segregated community. Will the revenue of this city be entirely self-generated, or will it have to, and inevitably so, depend on Federal and State financial support? If so, will not the host society use these levers to strong-arm the Western Madinah into submission to its values? How far will the Western Madinah be able to evade and bypass the Federal and State laws in enforcing its values, such as banning certain activities licit under those laws, or refusing to serve certain unwelcome customers in its commercial establishments? It must be borne in mind that the bulk of the residents of this prospective Madinah are either themselves economic migrants, or descended from them. Their economic interests and sources of livelihood are scattered throughout the landmass of the host country. Will it be practically possible to gather them all in the newly founded Islamopolis (hehe, that's my neologism and doesn't exist in any dictionary, at least not yet)? Most important of all, if we are to evade the corrupting cultural influences of the environment hostile to Islamic values, will it be possible for the Madinah to set up, in effect, a parallel education system? And no, I am not talking about setting up a few schools and madrassa- esque nurseries and kindergartens in the wards and boroughs, I am talking about a full-fledged education system, right from playschool to the university level, because it is no use setting up Muslim schools if at the end of their secondary and senior secondary education, the children will be forced to head to the same academic dens of moral and intellectual decadence- the secular universities- which the Muslims dread, and have fled from. The émigré Muslims in the  West seem to have done not very well in this regard. After straining my eyes, the only possible exception that I can spot is Zaytuna College. And even this project had to seek affiliation with UCLA or UCB if I am not mistaken. Suppose they even manage to accomplish the humongous task of setting up an autonomous Islamic education system outside the mainstream one, will they be able to get the national regulatory bodies and commercial establishments, and prospective employers to recognize the degrees issued by their institutions? Equally importantly, will the residents of this Madinah be able to set up a parallel entertainment industry to bypass the corrupting influence of Hollywood and the OTT platforms such as Netflix? Mind you that we are talking about cultural and intellectual autonomy and resistance here, the very reason why this Madinah would be set up- to safeguard our values. 

2. All of what has been said above brings us to our second related point- the reason why the actual, historic Madinah was able to persevere and emerge victorious was chiefly its status as a sovereign military and economic power, able to hold its own against its hostile surroundings. This is a factor that can never be underscored enough. It was, ultimately, the military might of the nascent Muslim state which prevented the kuffar from physically annihilating Islam from the Hijaz. Moreover, any person with even a cursory understanding of how the world works will never deny the crucial status of wealth in the success of any project. Madinah was a major commercial and agrarian centre even before the arrival of the Prophet (S). Even if its trade and commerce were not as expansive as that of Mecca, what gave it an edge was its agrarian wealth due to its arable, well-irrigated, and fertile hinterlands in contrast to Mecca's stony terrain. It was, thus, the wealth of the Ansar and the might of the Dhulfiqar which made Madinah and Islam persevere. One needs only compare the precarious and servile status of the Muslims at Mecca, with their strength at Madinah. Now, this status as a sovereign or even autonomous military and economic power is out of the question for our proposed Western Madinah. Suppose tomorrow the host country decides to move in troops to enforce terms. What, then, will our Madinah do? This is not a hypothetical scenario. The South of France has a substantial Muslim demography; rather, they are even the majority in some areas. Yet the government is able to impose its will upon them. The cultural cleansing of Muslims from the former USSR and present-day China is also pretty much due to the fact that the Muslim populations there did not and do not have the wherewithal to resist, since they are economically and politically subject, and not sovereign populations. What the Chechens, the Kazakhs, the Azeris, the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, the Turkmen, and the Tatars of the USSR, or the Uyghur and Hui Muslims of China, lacked was neither demographic strength nor uniform communities and communitarian living to resist their cultural cleansing; what they lacked was military and economic power because they were not sovereign nor economically and militarily powerful. 

For these reasons I believe this project is not a viable one. Will get back with more input inshallah.

[Qa'im]

Nobody disagrees with having good leadership, but it's another case of easier said than done. Leading a town is different than leading a mosque, and mosques go through the same power struggles every decade - imams vs boards, boards vs themselves, community vs boards, etc. Some disputes will be on legitimate theological grounds and not just personal or moral grounds - which maraji` to follow, politics, which cultural practices to encourage, where money should be spent. There are also many sociological and legal nuances that go into building a town - what we see today in the West is the culmination of centuries of work and (in some cases) pain. This is people's lives we're talking about, where someone lives is very personal, and tens of millions of dollars would be spent just for the very basics.

The Jonestowns of the world are the extreme example, I would suggest you research Islamberg, Baladullah, the Islamic Party of North America, etc. I have a shaykh that grew up in an intentional community, and while he has some fond memories of it, it seems that almost all of these initiatives are doomed from the start.

Any communal initiative requires us to understand the Muslim diaspora. The diaspora largely consists of middle class urban professionals. They like to move to cities with an existing Muslim population, centres, halal foods, higher education, and ways to mingle with people from that country. We may be better off creating institutions that serve those communities, like in Dearborn or elsewhere. You can't redeem everybody - even in any town in any Muslim country - but you can educate, uplift, and create a lasting impact, rather than putting all your energy and money into a faraway hamlet. I think the Muslim community can become a real force for good in the heartlands of North America, once their priorities are set right.

[Irfani313]

40 minutes ago, Qa'im said:

Nobody disagrees with having good leadership, but it's another case of easier said than done. Leading a town is different than leading a mosque, and mosques go through the same power struggles every decade - imams vs boards, boards vs themselves, community vs boards, etc. Some disputes will be on legitimate theological grounds and not just personal or moral grounds - which maraji` to follow, politics, which cultural practices to encourage, where money should be spent. There are also many sociological and legal nuances that go into building a town - what we see today in the West is the culmination of centuries of work and (in some cases) pain. This is people's lives we're talking about, where someone lives is very personal, and tens of millions of dollars would be spent just for the very basics.

The Jonestowns of the world are the extreme example, I would suggest you research Islamberg, Baladullah, the Islamic Party of North America, etc. I have a shaykh that grew up in an intentional community, and while he has some fond memories of it, it seems that almost all of these initiatives are doomed from the start.

Any communal initiative requires us to understand the Muslim diaspora. The diaspora largely consists of middle class urban professionals. They like to move to cities with an existing Muslim population, centres, halal foods, higher education, and ways to mingle with people from that country. We may be better off creating institutions that serve those communities, like in Dearborn or elsewhere. You can't redeem everybody - even in any town in any Muslim country - but you can educate, uplift, and create a lasting impact, rather than putting all your energy and money into a faraway hamlet. I think the Muslim community can become a real force for good in the heartlands of North America, once their priorities are set right.

Yes- my 2 votes for the Makkah model. 

[Qa'im]

As a sidenote, Mecca and Medina were both centres of commerce. Mecca was a trade route and Medina made money from date palms. The Prophet (s) and the Muhajirin did not establish a new town, they were a small number of people who moved to an existing town that had previously been predominantly Jewish and pagan Arab tribes. The same goes for the hijra to Abyssinia.

[Abu Hadi]

1 hour ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barkatuh,

A lot has been written in response already, but since I had pledged a response and for which, after a great deal of delay due to some unforeseen health- related derailments, I have found some time,  alhamdulillah, and therefore I shall drop a few observations.

1. The aspiration for relatively homogenous and insulated communes organized around common principles has several instances in both recent and distant history. Karl Marx and Friedreich Engels mention some of these communities dotting the trans-Atlantic occident in the 19th Century organized around a common worldview, in this case socialism, in their 'Communist Manifesto'. They make a very pertinent observation here. Describing their ideologues as 'Utopian Socialists', they explain, and correctly so, that the reason why none of these colonies were able to survive was because though they had worked out their self governance in great detail, none of them had factored in the dynamics external to them, which were of decisive importance regarding their survival. Bear it in mind that none of these colonies were completely isolated settlements; in fact they had organic ties with the surrounding world as a matter of necessity, and it is these very ties which proved to be their undoing. They could not survive as islands of socialism in a capitalist- imperialist world system, and inevitably collapsed. I would have dug up a few names, but the devil lies not in the datum of names and places, but in the details of the general trajectory and ideas. None of these communities were self- sufficient units, and understandably so, and succumbed to external influence.

It is important for the prospective Western Madinah to heed this warning for history. Let us suppose that the Muslims in the West are able to work through the tedious preliminary processes of setting up such demarcated communities, aimed at shielding their lives from the corrupting influence of the sinful environment. Will they be able to set up a parallel and resilient political, economic and socio-cultural order? Because without this it will be no use making a segregated community. Will the revenue of this city be entirely self-generated, or will it have to, and inevitably so, depend on Federal and State financial support? If so, will not the host society use these levers to strong-arm the Western Madinah into submission to its values? How far will the Western Madinah be able to evade and bypass the Federal and State laws in enforcing its values, such as banning certain activities licit under those laws, or refusing to serve certain unwelcome customers in its commercial establishments? It must be borne in mind that the bulk of the residents of this prospective Madinah are either themselves economic migrants, or descended from them. Their economic interests and sources of livelihood are scattered throughout the landmass of the host country. Will it be practically possible to gather them all in the newly founded Islamopolis (hehe, that's my neologism and doesn't exist in any dictionary, at least not yet)? Most important of all, if we are to evade the corrupting cultural influences of the environment hostile to Islamic values, will it be possible for the Madinah to set up, in effect, a parallel education system? And no, I am not talking about setting up a few schools and madrassa- esque nurseries and kindergartens in the wards and boroughs, I am talking about a full-fledged education system, right from playschool to the university level, because it is no use setting up Muslim schools if at the end of their secondary and senior secondary education, the children will be forced to head to the same academic dens of moral and intellectual decadence- the secular universities- which the Muslims dread, and have fled from. The émigré Muslims in the  West seem to have done not very well in this regard. After straining my eyes, the only possible exception that I can spot is Zaytuna College. And even this project had to seek affiliation with UCLA or UCB if I am not mistaken. Suppose they even manage to accomplish the humongous task of setting up an autonomous Islamic education system outside the mainstream one, will they be able to get the national regulatory bodies and commercial establishments, and prospective employers to recognize the degrees issued by their institutions? Equally importantly, will the residents of this Madinah be able to set up a parallel entertainment industry to bypass the corrupting influence of Hollywood and the OTT platforms such as Netflix? Mind you that we are talking about cultural and intellectual autonomy and resistance here, the very reason why this Madinah would be set up- to safeguard our values. 

2. All of what has been said above brings us to our second related point- the reason why the actual, historic Madinah was able to persevere and emerge victorious was chiefly its status as a sovereign military and economic power, able to hold its own against its hostile surroundings. This is a factor that can never be underscored enough. It was, ultimately, the military might of the nascent Muslim state which prevented the kuffar from physically annihilating Islam from the Hijaz. Moreover, any person with even a cursory understanding of how the world works will never deny the crucial status of wealth in the success of any project. Madinah was a major commercial and agrarian centre even before the arrival of the Prophet (S). Even if its trade and commerce were not as expansive as that of Mecca, what gave it an edge was its agrarian wealth due to its arable, well-irrigated, and fertile hinterlands in contrast to Mecca's stony terrain. It was, thus, the wealth of the Ansar and the might of the Dhulfiqar which made Madinah and Islam persevere. One needs only compare the precarious and servile status of the Muslims at Mecca, with their strength at Madinah. Now, this status as a sovereign or even autonomous military and economic power is out of the question for our proposed Western Madinah. Suppose tomorrow the host country decides to move in troops to enforce terms. What, then, will our Madinah do? This is not a hypothetical scenario. The South of France has a substantial Muslim demography; rather, they are even the majority in some areas. Yet the government is able to impose its will upon them. The cultural cleansing of Muslims from the former USSR and present-day China is also pretty much due to the fact that the Muslim populations there did not and do not have the wherewithal to resist, since they are economically and politically subject, and not sovereign populations. What the Chechens, the Kazakhs, the Azeris, the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, the Turkmen, and the Tatars of the USSR, or the Uyghur and Hui Muslims of China, lacked was neither demographic strength nor uniform communities and communitarian living to resist their cultural cleansing; what they lacked was military and economic power because they were not sovereign nor economically and militarily powerful. 

For these reasons I believe this project is not a viable one. Will get back with more input inshallah.

Salam Brother, InShahAllah you are feeling better. 

I will limit my response to point 2 because I think this is the crux of the issue. I don't believe you need to be a sovereign military state in order to meet the goals of establishing and maintaining an Islamic community in the West. At the same time maybe I should define what I mean by an 'Islamic community in the West', i.e. a Western Medina. 

This Western Medina would have the goal of preserving and maintaining a community which facilitates preserving and maintaining an Islamic identity for all its community members, both children and adults. In order to do this, Haqq would be upheld as the standard, Haqq as taught by Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) and Munkar would be discouraged and shunned. Munkar is what is recognized as Munkar by Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and teachings of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). 

The question is, could Haqq be upheld in all it's aspects (even those that have to do with taxes going to fund Israel, various unjust wars, international political stances, etc), no. You are correct that without a sovereign state the goals would need to be more limited than that, if it were in a Western Country. Our Marjaa' are our leaders and they say that if you decide to live within another sovereign country, i.e. the West, you need to obey the laws of that country so long as those laws do not contradict Islam. There is a way to do this without becoming a soverign country, IMHO if you limit the goals enough to where you do not come in direct conflict with the soverign state but also enough to preserve the Islamic identity of the community and make it a 'refuge' where those who want to abide by the religion of Islam. 

The analogy with the actual State of Medina can be applied in many areas but not all areas since this community existed in a different time period of history. At that time, the City-State was the default form of government. Each City-State was ruled by a tribe or a sheik who was the absolute authority in the City-State. Their word was law and there were no checks and balances on their power, nor was there any type or level of sovereignty (such as the State, the City, within the City) that was recognized other than the top level. This was the norm of the time and this was the norm in the Arabian Peninsula (Jazirat Arabia).  

We live in the time of the Nation State. A soverign nation, but within that nation there are various other levels of government (the city, state, province, etc) all of which have some level of autonomy and authority that applies to the citizens of that area. As far as the National Level, i.e. the Nation State, not much can be done at this time, but alot can be done at the City level and even maybe the State level, in certain states with large populations of Muslims. In addition to the Nation-State, we also have a system of voting and democracy which, though very far from perfect, at least can be used for the purposes of establishing a community. So, for example we have the City of Dearborn. I am using this because I am most familiar with this City and there are other areas in the US that might actually be better for this. 

Dearborn was not founded as a Muslim community. That is obvious to most people since the laws and city ordinances allow for alcohol to be sold, adult entertainment clubs, etc, etc. Also, although Dearborn is majority Muslim (more than 50%) you still have a large population of Christians and other groups who don't hold Islamic values. Those other groups control many aspects of the city, such as the School Board, City Counsel, etc. The laws of the city allow for many things which are against Islam. You have a large muslim population with very little power to enact change except on a very surface level and therefore no ability to protect themselves and their children from anti-Islamic influences. 

Now suppose those Muslims from the local area (South East Michigan) got together and said 'We want to live in a community where we can practice our religion, in all it's aspects including protecting ourselves and our children from anti-Islamic forces and groups' and they wanted to use the City and State ordinances which are already US laws in order to do this they could do it within the laws of the US and the State of Michigan. They wouldn't need to declare independence or make themselves a separate state in order to do it. We have very cleaver lawyers in our community, but unfortunately they don't use their skills and talents for projects like this, but I believe it is possible. There is even a leadership structure that could be used to do this and is perfectly legal (I could go into detail about that in another post if requested) but this would require trust and cooperation across different Islamic organizations that have been set up in Dearborn. Yes, it would also require funding (like you said, many millions of dollars) but that is the easy part. The hard part is establishing trust and cooperation across organizations, all of whom currently have their own leadership and would they be willing to put themselves under a 'macro' leadership structure, i.e. a community leader. That part I don't know and that is the tricky part, IMHO. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

6 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Salam Brother, InShahAllah you are feeling better. 

I will limit my response to point 2 because I think this is the crux of the issue. I don't believe you need to be a sovereign military state in order to meet the goals of establishing and maintaining an Islamic community in the West. At the same time maybe I should define what I mean by an 'Islamic community in the West', i.e. a Western Medina. 

This Western Medina would have the goal of preserving and maintaining a community which facilitates preserving and maintaining an Islamic identity for all its community members, both children and adults. In order to do this, Haqq would be upheld as the standard, Haqq as taught by Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) and Munkar would be discouraged and shunned. Munkar is what is recognized as Munkar by Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and teachings of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). 

The question is, could Haqq be upheld in all it's aspects (even those that have to do with taxes going to fund Israel, various unjust wars, international political stances, etc), no. You are correct that without a sovereign state the goals would need to be more limited than that, if it were in a Western Country. Our Marjaa' are our leaders and they say that if you decide to live within another sovereign country, i.e. the West, you need to obey the laws of that country so long as those laws do not contradict Islam. There is a way to do this without becoming a soverign country, IMHO if you limit the goals enough to where you do not come in direct conflict with the soverign state but also enough to preserve the Islamic identity of the community and make it a 'refuge' where those who want to abide by the religion of Islam. 

The analogy with the actual State of Medina can be applied in many areas but not all areas since this community existed in a different time period of history. At that time, the City-State was the default form of government. Each City-State was ruled by a tribe or a sheik who was the absolute authority in the City-State. Their word was law and there were no checks and balances on their power, nor was there any type or level of sovereignty (such as the State, the City, within the City) that was recognized other than the top level. This was the norm of the time and this was the norm in the Arabian Peninsula (Jazirat Arabia).  

We live in the time of the Nation State. A soverign nation, but within that nation there are various other levels of government (the city, state, province, etc) all of which have some level of autonomy and authority that applies to the citizens of that area. As far as the National Level, i.e. the Nation State, not much can be done at this time, but alot can be done at the City level and even maybe the State level, in certain states with large populations of Muslims. In addition to the Nation-State, we also have a system of voting and democracy which, though very far from perfect, at least can be used for the purposes of establishing a community. So, for example we have the City of Dearborn. I am using this because I am most familiar with this City and there are other areas in the US that might actually be better for this. 

Dearborn was not founded as a Muslim community. That is obvious to most people since the laws and city ordinances allow for alcohol to be sold, adult entertainment clubs, etc, etc. Also, although Dearborn is majority Muslim (more than 50%) you still have a large population of Christians and other groups who don't hold Islamic values. Those other groups control many aspects of the city, such as the School Board, City Counsel, etc. The laws of the city allow for many things which are against Islam. You have a large muslim population with very little power to enact change except on a very surface level and therefore no ability to protect themselves and their children from anti-Islamic influences. 

Now suppose those Muslims from the local area (South East Michigan) got together and said 'We want to live in a community where we can practice our religion, in all it's aspects including protecting ourselves and our children from anti-Islamic forces and groups' and they wanted to use the City and State ordinances which are already US laws in order to do this they could do it within the laws of the US and the State of Michigan. They wouldn't need to declare independence or make themselves a separate state in order to do it. We have very cleaver lawyers in our community, but unfortunately they don't use their skills and talents for projects like this, but I believe it is possible. There is even a leadership structure that could be used to do this and is perfectly legal (I could go into detail about that in another post if requested) but this would require trust and cooperation across different Islamic organizations that have been set up in Dearborn. Yes, it would also require funding (like you said, many millions of dollars) but that is the easy part. The hard part is establishing trust and cooperation across organizations, all of whom currently have their own leadership and would they be willing to put themselves under a 'macro' leadership structure, i.e. a community leader. That part I don't know and that is the tricky part, IMHO. 

Salam, 

Thank you for taking the time to respond, brother. I agree that I laid a bit too much emphasis on the political and economic aspects of the question. Perhaps more than was needed.

Nonetheless, let us confine ourselves to a purely cultural/ethical/moral dimension of the issue. Even if we are to talk about preserving our values, it involves these questions-

1. The question of education. As I have pointed out earlier, what is happening in the public schools and secular universities in the West scarcely needs to be discussed afresh. How will this new Muslim community counter this? If it relies on the existing public instruction system, then everything comes back to square one, and the very purpose of the project is frustrated. If not, do they have the physical and intellectual capital to set up a parallel and autonomous education system? How will they do it? 

2. What kind of art and culture does this new Muslim community consume? Is it sourced from the existing entertainment industry- Hollywood or OTT- or are they going to set up a parallel, autonomous entertainment industry, which adheres to Islamic principles? If yes, then how?

3. To what extent will the secular laws of the host country allow them maneuvering room to preserve their values? As in, how far can they push things before they reach the boundaries of the local/municipal legal autonomy that the law of the land offers them? Consider the example of refusing to serve unwelcome guests at their commercial establishment. Is it likely that the Muslim will be sued for discrimination and will ultimately have to bend to the secular laws?

4. Have to do the unpopular task of addressing the elephant in the room- what are you going to do about the sectarian issue? Do you think that the local Sunnis of whichever hue will agree to a Shi'i becoming a mayor of such a township? Experience so far has shown that 'Islamic' movements and institutions led by the other school spell bad news for the Shi'a, and unless the latter are demographically the majority or in a secular setup where the other school doesn't hold political power over them, they aren't able to live peacefully. If this new Muslim enclave means going from  smoke to smother, from the frying pan to fire, from the Scylla of secular-liberal degeneracy to the Charybdis of Sunni majoritarian tyranny, what incentive do I have to choose one over the other?

[Abu Hadi]

3 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Salam, 

Thank you for taking the time to respond, brother. I agree that I laid a bit too much emphasis on the political and economic aspects of the question. Perhaps more than was needed.

Nonetheless, let us confine ourselves to a purely cultural/ethical/moral dimension of the issue. Even if we are to talk about preserving our values, it involves these questions-

1. The question of education. As I have pointed out earlier, what is happening in the public schools and secular universities in the West scarcely needs to be discussed afresh. How will this new Muslim community counter this? If it relies on the existing public instruction system, then everything comes back to square one, and the very purpose of the project is frustrated. If not, do they have the physical and intellectual capital to set up a parallel and autonomous education system? How will they do it? 

2. What kind of art and culture does this new Muslim community consume? Is it sourced from the existing entertainment industry- Hollywood or OTT- or are they going to set up a parallel, autonomous entertainment industry, which adheres to Islamic principles? If yes, then how?

3. To what extent will the secular laws of the host country allow them maneuvering room to preserve their values? As in, how far can they push things before they reach the boundaries of the local/municipal legal autonomy that the law of the land offers them? Consider the example of refusing to serve unwelcome guests at their commercial establishment. Is it likely that the Muslim will be sued for discrimination and will ultimately have to bend to the secular laws?

4. Have to do the unpopular task of addressing the elephant in the room- what are you going to do about the sectarian issue? Do you think that the local Sunnis of whichever hue will agree to a Shi'i becoming a mayor of such a township? Experience so far has shown that 'Islamic' movements and institutions led by the other school spell bad news for the Shi'a, and unless the latter are demographically the majority or in a secular setup where the other school doesn't hold political power over them, they aren't able to live peacefully. If this new Muslim enclave means going from  smoke to smother, from the frying pan to fire, from the Scylla of secular-liberal degeneracy to the Charybdis of Sunni majoritarian tyranny, what incentive do I have to choose one over the other?

1. At least in the US, public schools (elementary thru High School) are funded by local property taxes. Since in this scenario the 'local community' would be mostly mumineen and muminat, they would have a large say and veto power over what is taught in the schools. This would be the dream scenario for most parents in the US. They property taxes that they already pay would go toward schools that teach their own values. This would solve the problem of K-12. 

The university education is step 2, but I think that a child who has been brought up since primary school in a system which teaches values that are at least not opposed and contradictory to Islam  would be well grounded in the Islamic Identity by the time they get to college so they would not be so confused (like what we have today) by these contradictory values once they are exposed to them. The other solution is an Islamic University, but again this is outside of the scope at first. 

2. I think any Art and Culture that does not 'Celebrate' values that contradict Islamic values or violate clear Sharia rulings would be ok. There is alot of art and culture which falls within these parameters.I will address this also in the next point

3. At least in the US, the laws of the country allow wide latitude for local communities to make their own laws thru passing City Ordinances, Zoning Laws, and other legal vehicles. A lawyer would know more about this but if you have traveled around the US, you see cities and towns with vastly different laws and ordinances. In some places in the US, it is illegal to buy or sell alcohol (called 'dry counties'). There are not that many of them left, but there are some. These are local laws that prohibit this. Most laws which do not contradict federal laws can be passed in local communities. You just need a city council who will propose the laws and then the majority of the people who will vote for it. So, for example, if a 'pride festival' came to the community and wanted to set up shop in say the Western Medina (which probably would happen at some point), you don't need to go outside the law to stop this. You just simply pass a law (which most cities have) which say that public events in the City need a permit and the permit must be approved by a majority vote on the City council. If the City Council are mumineen, they would never approve a permit for this. Perfectly legal. 

This is going on right now in Michigan with Marijuana. A State law was passed a few years ago that made this legal in Michigan. At the same time, if someone wants to open a store that sells this, they must open it in a particular city. The city needs to pass an ordinance making this sort of business legal to operate in the City. Right now in Michigan, even though it is legal, very few cities have these types of stores (there are only a few cities that allow this) and this is due to local ordinances, not State law, because it is legal in the State. 

4. Like I said in my original post, it is critical that we get 'buy in' from our Sunni brothers and sisters otherwise this wouldn't work. There are plenty of countries and places in the world where Shia and Sunni live side by side with no issues, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. The sectarian infighting are fueled by outside groups with some ignorant Shia and Sunni that act as their allies or are paid off. There are differences in fiqh, etc, but there is absolutely no reason or excuse from stopping us from living together, working together, and cooperating together for a common cause. Even the issue of Salat and Jummah prayer can be solved, and there are many different solutions for this. I think beyond the leadership issue, this is the second most critical issue, i.e. this is a Muslim community and not a sectarian community. If it even happens, the first thing the media will do is try to paint it as a 'cult' or a 'sectarian community'. If we have buy in from our brothers and sisters, this message will fall flat, otherwise it might work and doom the project from the start. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Abu Hadi

[AbdusSibtayn]

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

There are plenty of countries and places in the world where Shia and Sunni live side by side with no issues, Lebanon, Iraq, etc

This is simply not true. The picture is either of these countries is- and has been - anything but one of 'living side by side with no issues'. But this will derail the thread.

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

The sectarian infighting are fueled by outside groups with some ignorant Shia and Sunni that act as their allies or are paid off.

Well this has been the 'they- lived- happily- until' narrative of the 'unity' project- that they were living a peaceful and idyllic life with us until the diabolical Western serpent entered the proverbial paradise of sectarian harmony and like the bull in the china shop, upset everything, but their hatred towards us predates colonial intervention or the Western media narrative. Their scholars have even prepared digests of classical, not modern, opinions calling for our extermination. The 'unity' narrative tries to push this under the carpet but this is just hiding the problem, not solving it.

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

There are differences in fiqh

Fiqhi differences or even doctrinal difference is not even remotely the problem. They differ more amongst themselves than with us on these points. The real 'difference' is that our very existence is an anathema and provocation to their grand narrative because we keep challenging it. From the clean-shaven, cigarette-chomping Ba'thist or secular-nationalist Sunnis, to the trimmed-bearded, dancing, music-listening, mawlid- celebrating Sufi Sunnis, to the thick, unkempt- bearded, oversized qamis and undersized 3/4 pajama-wearing Salafis, this is the common axis that unites different hues of Sunnism- We are a threat that needs to be exterminated.

 

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

but there is absolutely no reason or excuse from stopping us from living together, working together, and cooperating together for a common cause. Even the issue of Salat and Jummah prayer can be solved, and there are many different solutions for this.

Most of the mainstream Sunni scholarship deem mingling with Rafida haram, not to speak of praying with them, so I don't get where this is coming from. Some politically- henpecked ulama, beholden to the secular Egyptian state, from al-Azhar whom their own congregations don't listen to, or people like Saeed Ramadan Buti and his few students are the only known exceptions.

But again, if the goal is a no-nonsense, business-like cooperation toward common interests, with enough enforceable safeguards for us, then well and good. Otherwise it is mass- suicide. Knowing from experience, the first thing that these Sunni- majority townships and municipal boards are going to ban is not alcohol or marijuana, but Ashura processions. This is how it has been when the overarching authority of the secular state is not present and they have the power to dictate terms. If you counter that they cannot do this because the secular laws of the land will be our safeguard, then this is the very point- it is ultimately the secular state and not some idyllic mutual goodwill based on 'unity', which is coming to our rescue. Pinning hopes on their magnanimity is doomed. The only way you can do this is if you are negotiating terms from a position of strength.

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by AbdusSibtayn

[Irfani313]

20 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

This is simply not true. The picture is either of these countries is- and has been - anything but one of 'living side by side with no issues'. But this will derail the thread.

Well this has been the 'they- lived- happily- until' narrative of the 'unity' project- that they were living a peaceful and idyllic life with us until the diabolical Western serpent entered the proverbial paradise of sectarian harmony and like the bull in the china shop, upset everything, but their hatred towards us predates colonial intervention or the Western media narrative. Their scholars have even prepared digests of classical, not modern, opinions calling for our extermination. The 'unity' narrative tries to push this under the carpet but this is just hiding the problem, not solving it.

Fiqhi differences or even doctrinal difference is not even remotely the problem. They differ more amongst themselves than with us on these points. The real 'difference' is that our very existence is an anathema and provocation to their grand narrative because we keep challenging it. From the clean-shaven, cigarette-chomping Ba'thist or secular-nationalist Sunnis, to the trimmed-bearded, dancing, music-listening, mawlid- celebrating Sufi Sunnis, to the thick, unkempt- bearded, oversized qamis and undersized 3/4 pajama-wearing Salafis, this is the common axis that unites different hues of Sunnism- We are a threat that needs to be exterminated.

 

Most of the mainstream Sunni scholarship deem mingling with Rafida haram, not to speak of praying with them, so I don't get where this is coming from. Some politically- henpecked ulama, beholden to the secular Egyptian state, from al-Azhar whom their own congregations don't listen to, or people like Saeed Ramadan Buti and his few students are the only known exceptions.

But again, if the goal is a no-nonsense, business-like cooperation toward common interests, with enough enforceable safeguards for us, then well and good. Otherwise it is mass- suicide. Knowing from experience, the first thing that these Sunni- majority townships and municipal boards are going to ban is not alcohol or marijuana, but Ashura processions. This is how it has been when the overarching authority of the secular state is not present and they have the power to dictate terms. If you counter that they cannot do this because the secular laws of the land will be our safeguard, then this is the very point- it is ultimately the secular state and not some idyllic mutual goodwill based on 'unity', which is coming to our rescue. Pinning hopes on their magnanimity is doomed. The only way you can do this is if you are negotiating terms from a position of strength.

 

Can vouch for everything you said above, Shia -Sunni unity is possible only when Shias are in majority and are in the position of power in certain geography. 
 

Flip it, and the Shias would be living below the level of cattle and cats.
 

Sunnis by design don’t have the class to allow a Shia population thriving among them wherever they are 1% more than the Shias. 
 

We have seen it in centers built by Shias that were taken over by Sunnis, or centers where we invite them and they graciously come with the intention to “convert” us. 
 

Coming back to the Medina solution, put plainly the Medina solution isn’t viable at all. 
 

The only way we can live in the western homelands is either the way Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) lived in Makkah or the way Muslims lived in Habsha under Jaffer ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام). 

[AbdusSibtayn]

3 minutes ago, Irfani313 said:

Can vouch for everything you said above, Shia -Sunni unity is possible only when Shias are in majority and are in the position of power in certain geography. 
 

Flip it, and the Shias would be living below the level of cattle and cats.
 

Sunnis by design don’t have the class to allow a Shia population thriving among them wherever they are 1% more than the Shias. 
 

We have seen it in centers built by Shias that were taken over by Sunnis, or centers where we invite them and they graciously come with the intention to “convert” us. 
 

Coming back to the Medina solution, put plainly the Medina solution isn’t viable at all. 
 

The only way we can live in the western homelands is either the way Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) lived in Makkah or the way Muslims lived in Habsha under Jaffer ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام). 

* Hugs *

I don't know what analogous examples from the USA will be, but the day Shi'a centers start appearing in neighbourhoods like Green Lane in London/UK, I'll be ready to concede that the unity project* has a point.

*(mind you, not 'unity' in the sense of peaceful coexistence and cooperation itself; when I say the 'unity project' I mean the blind, agenda-driven appeals to sanitize/whitewash history and our belief to please the other side and sacrificing transcendental doctrinal truths for political expediency)

[Eddie Mecca]

Grandfatherly advice from Sheikh Imran Hosein...'Proposed Ideal Muslim Village Projects in Different Parts of the World'...eyes on Pakistan (9 min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARIMRWipocY

 

[Eddie Mecca]

1 hour ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Well this has been the 'they- lived- happily- until' narrative of the 'unity' project- that they were living a peaceful and idyllic life with us until the diabolical Western serpent entered the proverbial paradise of sectarian harmony and like the bull in the china shop, upset everything, but their hatred towards us predates colonial intervention or the Western media narrative. Their scholars have even prepared digests of classical, not modern, opinions calling for our extermination. The 'unity' narrative tries to push this under the carpet but this is just hiding the problem, not solving it.

'Divide and Conquer Strategy' Let's Talk About US Foreign Policy Shall We?...Richard Medhurst 3 minutes 40 seconds

 

[AbdusSibtayn]

3 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

'Divide and Conquer Strategy' Let's Talk About US Foreign Policy Shall We?...Richard Medhurst 3 minutes 40 seconds

 

 

2 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Well this has been the 'they- lived- happily- until' narrative of the 'unity' project- that they were living a peaceful and idyllic life with us until the diabolical Western serpent entered the proverbial paradise of sectarian harmony and like the bull in the china shop, upset everything, but their hatred towards us predates colonial intervention or the Western media narrative. Their scholars have even prepared digests of classical, not modern, opinions calling for our extermination. The 'unity' narrative tries to push this under the carpet but this is just hiding the problem, not solving it.

 

1 hour ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

* Hugs *

I don't know what analogous examples from the USA will be, but the day Shi'a centers start appearing in neighbourhoods like Green Lane in London/UK, I'll be ready to concede that the unity project* has a point.

*(mind you, not 'unity' in the sense of peaceful coexistence and cooperation itself; when I say the 'unity project' I mean the blind, agenda-driven appeals to sanitize/whitewash history and our belief to please the other side and sacrificing transcendental doctrinal truths for political expediency)

Spare us the non- sequiturs.

[Irfani313]

9 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Grandfatherly advice from Sheikh Imran Hosein...'Proposed Ideal Muslim Village Projects in Different Parts of the World'...eyes on Pakistan (9 min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARIMRWipocY

 

North of Pakistan!!! Is he stealing land from the Shias of Pakistan and building a Sunni hamlet there??? 
 

North of Pakistan is heavily Shia and they have been purposefully kept poor and without economic activity for them to sell their lands to various land mafias such as paki army etc. emerging from pakis heartland and paymaster from oil rich West Asian countries. 
 

They already have a sad history of silent genocides and their demographics have been constantly on decline from the cities previously 99% shia only 50 yrs ago, granted their ancestors were stupid who fought a mini war with British and India to “liberate” their valleys and mountains only to give them to the state of pakistan.

Nonetheless for the purpose of this topic, Imran’s model of Muslim village won’t work in the West because we won’t have sympathizers in govt. facilitating such enterprises. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Irfani313

[Ashvazdanghe]

Salam just for information

Kufa

Its reconstruction is attributed to Muslims. Basra and Kufa are regarded as the first cities which Muslims built. It is said that Kufa was a permanent military camp of the Muslim army at the time of their conquests.

Quote

Kufa was the first city with a large population of Shi'as. According to a number of hadiths, living in Kufa is preferred to living in Mecca and Medina.

 

Quote

In the time of the conquests of Arabs, most Arab tribes migrated to Kufa were from Yemen. Most Yemeni tribes, especially Hamdan, were Shi'a and followers of 'Ali b. Abi Talib (a). As reported, Hamdan was a dominant and leading tribe of Yemen who were faithful followers of Imam 'Ali (a).^[10] Also the tribe of Tay who fought alongside 'Ali b. Abi Talib (a) in the Battle of Jamal and Siffin, were another influential supporting tribe of Imam.^[11]

Asha'riyyun was another immigrant tribe from Yemen, who supported Imam 'Ali (a). However, when al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf came to power, he prosecuted Shi'a Muslims, then Asha'riyyun migrated to Qom, where they settled and developed Shi'ism in Iran.^[12]

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Kufa

Quote

he historians and linguists differ in the origin of naming of al-Kufa; they have stated that al-Kufa is the red-circled sand, or any piece of sand mixed with gravels,it is a substance of Kuf, Takuf, Kufa, Kufan(red sand), called so because people met there.There are other meanings close to  this one.

 

Quote

Yaqut al-Hamawi, on the substance of al-Kufa, has stated in his saying ((the capital that is famous as Babylon land from the villages of Iraq, and they called Virgin cheek.

Abu Baker Mohammed Bin al Qasim said that it named al-Kufa because of its circled shape taken from the Arabs’ saying,” I saw Kufann, (with Dhama on letter (k) and Fatha on circled sand). It has said, that it named al-Kufa as Kufa because it is a meeting place for people as (their saying,” the sand has gathered “)).

Al-Hamawi said,” Abu al-Qasim said,” a few thought that it named Kufa because of its location on the ground and every piece of sand mixed with gravel, called Kufa. Others said,” it named Kufa because mountain Satima surrounded it as palms of the hand. Ibn al-Kalbi said, “it named for a small hill in its center, they called it Kufan…)).

https://en.shafaqna.com/65177/foundation-of-kufa-city/

 

[Diaz]

Salam, can't believe I read each and every post in here because I was very interested in what you all were going to say. I remember 3 years ago I made a thread about planning to immigrate to western countries because of  "Job", but now I'm glad that I was born and raised in middle east and tbh, I prefer to stay here forever. Yes I know arab countries are slaves to USA and the west but atleast many muslims specially the arabs, whether they are muslims or christians, still hold on their traditions and follow their religion as much as they can. It's very safe here, stable job, can practice your religion with no issues (depend on which arab countries we r talking about), and much more. Maybe the weather is horrible here but that's only on July and August. I recommend every muslims to leave these kuffar countries and live in a muslim countries where you can practise your religion, your children won't be brainwashed by the LGBT community, halal food everywhere etc.

[Qa'im]

20 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Its reconstruction is attributed to Muslims. Basra and Kufa are regarded as the first cities which Muslims built. It is said that Kufa was a permanent military camp of the Muslim army at the time of their conquests.

Something to keep in mind is that these garrison towns were built for the military to overlook Persian cities (like Hirah) and they were funded by the caliphs. Eventually, they grew and became part of the cities. I would say that this is different from an intentional community in America. Intentional communities are not garrison towns, they are self-funded, they are further from the major cities, they are under the jurisdiction and law of the American government, and they cannot merge with the broader community (because that would defeat the whole purpose).

On a related note, the The Abode of the Message community (in New Lebanon, New York, set up by the famous American Sufi mystic Vilayat Inayat Khan) announced recently that they will be selling their land. Most of their members were white American Sufi baby boomers, and it seems like their children do not hold their ideals - at least not enough to preserve their community. This is the common problem with these communities.

[Eddie Mecca]