Islamic Revival

After Paris, the West ask, ‘why do they hate us?’ and ‘what is wrong with their religion’? They are asking the wrong questions. The question after Paris should be, ‘How has the Muslim Ummah displayed such remarkable restraint at the hands of brutal western colonialism?’ The year was 1857, across India the mutiny had erupted against British colonial rule. The British fought back with brutal force. The then figurehead of the rebellion, the last Mughal Bahadur Shah Zafar, was captured. To underscore their brutality, when requesting food, the British brought to him the heads of his two sons they had just slain. With immense composure he replied, “Thanks to Allah, the descendants of Timur always come in front of their fathers in this brave way”. Zafar died in captivity. In Algeria, the rebellion against colonial independence from France from 1954 was met with sheer European brutality. The French adopted a policy of  ratissages, combing through towns and cities and slaughtering everyo

O n a primary level, question of  talab al-Nussrah  (seizing power vis-à-vis those who possess the material capacities to do so) is not to be deliberated on the basis of whether or not we perceive it to be an “optimal” strategy or not. It is a question of whether or not this  hukm-Shari’  is binding. More than often, “Islamists” construct their methodology, which they go on to justify with Islamic references, on the optimal and expedient political strategy at hand. The  usulliyun  have explained that a particular action of the Prophet ( f’il ) is a  hukm-shari’  when it is related to a legal-verse from the  Qur’an  ( ayaat al-Ahkaam ). It is for this reason scholars, in explaining the relationship between the  Qur’an  and  Sunnah , defined the  Sunnah  as those actions which make the  Qur’anic  injunctions manifest ( tibyaan al-Qur’an ). The Prophet’s, peace be upon him, seeking of Nussrah is an explicit example of such. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in his magnum opus  Fathi ul-Bar

In July of this year, British Prime Minister David Cameron laid out his five-year strategy to deal with terrorism and extremism. His plan went beyond tackling violence, spelling out his desire to deal with non-violent ‘extremism’ and to tackle head on ‘ideology’. This came after a series of policy initiatives his government has revealed over the past year, including his desire to introduce ‘deradicalisation programmes’, that would deal with what he described as a growing number of radical youth in the Muslim community, the power to regulate madrassahs and their curriculum and close down Masajids that did not adhere to strict codes of conduct. Since 9/11 the British government, like many western governments, have rolled out a series of measures to clamp down on the Muslim community and deal with what some have described as a fifth column within western society. A number of sincere Muslim voices within the community have, understandably, shown alarm. Calling for Muslim action and th