InshaAllah this will be the last post on this article and we can carry on discussion at a near future when I have more time to write a detailed part 2 to clarify how our terms of engagement should be.

1. No doubt, the points that I have made are clouded by people’s interpretation of the particular words that I have used to phrase them. Based on this, people have jumped to conclusions and yet others have read through my clarifications and understood what I intended in the article – and we hope for guidance for everyone.

2. Sh Anwar’s article on my piece is largely sensationalism and picking on wordings devoid of context – except for one important point which I believe is the core argument that I will address – that of maslahah of the dawah and the maqasidus-Shariah versus core principles of our deen such as wala and bara and tawheed. This is really the main issue – because categorically in no case was I ever suggesting that we ever work for anti-terror agencies, take funding from them, take our agenda from them, let them dictate our mandate, let them tell us what deen to follow and what not to, tell us who to work with and who not to, tell us what is extremism and what is not. Never at all. If we were to do that, we would cease to be independant and would loose all credibility. And if I knew of an individual who does that, then I would distance myself from him and would never work with him much the less associate with him. It is under these and similar conditions Yusuf alaihis salam cooperated with the non-Muslim government of his time.

3. Lastly, I urge everyone including myself to be objective in their criticism and to not draw conclusions on an individual. We may disagree on the manner of engagement of the authorities but that does not mean that anyone is a sell out or anyone has left being the people we once were.

Jazakallahulkhair and I will inshaAllah ponder deeply on what everyone has written and hope to carry on discussion of these points in the future when time permits.

Tawfique

I agree with Abu ‘Abdissalam. In particular “They have defined extremism as Islam and therefore they harm the preachers of this true Islam”.

The fact that Sh Tawfiq is hesitant (and he is not the only one) to openly talk about the validity of Jihad is testament to this, I wonder if he will also shy away from mentioning the validity of the Hadd punishment or the restoration of teh caliphate?

You see, what you have done is boxed yourself in their construct of the debate, it would be better if you had created the terms of your enagement and constructed your own premise about what is extreme and what is not.

Please don’t get more wrong, I am glad you’re for enagement, as anyone who understands this deen will know that engagement is a constant principle of Islam – we have no concept of disengagement or isolation, Islam is about interaction, governed by Allah and His messenger, peace be upon him.

So we as Muslims should engage, but on our own terms.

Wasalam,

We avoided Imam Anwar’s comments in the past (such as the voting issue), but this is now different.

His article posted above is a DIRECT attack on Shaykh Tawfique and directly/indirectly MM and Al-Kauther.

I am not calling for online posts where shuyookh attack shuyookh, but at WHAT POINT will the writers and scholars on here respond to Imam Anwar?

Silence is not an option. Confused Muslim Americans like me have no idea who to follow and what is the right opinion.

The lack of understanding of jihad and khawaarij in today’s realm is massive and the only options seem to be extreme assimiliation or extreme disassociation.

Where is the middle path?

Am I the only one that understands the implications of whether Imam Anwar or Shaykh Tawfique is correct?

If MM will not respond on Imam Anwar’s piece AT LEAST, insha’Allah, address the subject itself so there will be no more confusion.

Jazakullah khair,

May Allah reward, forgive and maintain Shaykh Tawfique, Imam Anwar and all the present day scholars and dae’ees.
Ameen

My amazement is that people have so easy time calling other kafir and I think it would not happen if enough scholar are bold on truth and gain trust of ummah. There will always be weirdos out there, but for most people in middle who are thirsting for strong leadership, would be happy if the scholars take strong leadership roles.

As I said earlier, our scholars need to worry more about us (muslims) and gaining our trust than gaining trust of non-muslim governments (although that could be a mean to other activities). Yes we need scholars to fight extremist elements in our ummah to correct them, but we need scholars to fight non-muslim extremist elements threatening muslims. Why are our scholars so vocal only in condemnation of terrorism done on name of Islam, and never participate (or motivate atleast) for legitimate fight in sake of Allah. Unless they think there is no legitimate fight in sake of Allah on earth now?