A couple of weeks ago I was told by a friend of mine that a young Muslim brother I know is struggling. The young brother came from a good home with a good father; but while his sister was flourishing he was having problems. I will not delve too deeply into this aspect of the story because I am writing an article on this aspect for another website.
The reason I mention this is I know of a lot of young Muslims males who are suffering and yet their plight seems to be ignored by the community as any form of masculine expression has been discouraged by many.
Today I see an announcement from Imam Zaid Shakir that an organization will be found named United For Change which will be set up to solve the suffering within Muslim families.
It is my sincere hope that this organization will address the problems of men and boys and not just engage in quasi-feminist vilification of masculinity that alienates many males ( myself included).
If problems are going to be addressed more has to be looked at then just blaming men for all the problems we have. I will address the many factors I belive are responsible for a lot of our problems in the other piece; but here I would jsut like to deal with some white converts I have known.
First, let me say that the problem of black Muslim males in America has been talked about on this blog before and extensively at the blog of Tariq Nelson and other sites ( poverty, criminality, abandonment of wives and children, etc).
When I have attempted to talk about the problem of white Muslims I have gotten a lot of hostility and a lot of this has to do with the fact that white people don’t like to talk about whiteness and what it means and many white Muslims have embraced Islam but do not look at themselves, America, and Western Culture with a critical eye.
This will not be a long piece but let me just tell you of three Muslim males, who are all white and don’t know one another, and the problems they had.
All three came from white middle-class backgrounds and all had been educated, and believed in, the values of modern America. A part of these values are that we should encourage strong women and live in a gender-neutral society and as a part of this these brothers grew up in homes dominated by women ( one in a home where his mother lived with her lesbian lover and the family pets ate on the kitchen table).
Islam is a patriarchal faith that encourages strong male leadership in and out of the household. Traditional and more observant Muslim women are looking for a strong male figure; but these brothers were never given the nutrients to be strong men. For example, even if they played sports, many of the youth leagues are now ran by women and kids get closets full of trophies even when they loose all the time and are not good, because the emphasis is on their feelings and not competition. In some classes and books they will learn of manliness and masculinity solely in the negative.
Two of these males became addicted to S&M porn. One was upset that he could not find a black salafi sister who would tie him up and beat him ( he would discuss this in his sit downs). This kind of fetish may be normal for some white males, particular in the secular upper classes and around universities, but you are going to be hard pressed to find any black Muslim sisters who get off on beating a weak male. Now, you may find a sister who would love to play mind games with you, prey on your weakness, and spend your cash, but 9.9 out of 10 she is looking not to beat you but for you to beat it up.
The other brother was not salafi, as a matter of fact he hated salafis, but he also had a porn addiction and was looking for a woman who would curse at him while smoking cigarettes. Again, he has failed at finding a wife and a sexual partner without fingers.
The last brother was also from a female dominated home and not very manly. He was also kind of a nerd and into spiritual aspects of Islam and attracted to people like Hamza Yusuf and reminds me of a lot of white sufis I have met ( though certainly not all). I just learned that he has just made thouba and came back to the deen after a period in a gay lifestyle. He now says he is looking for a dominant black woman. Something is telling me he is going to have a hard time getting hitched.
What do all three of these white brothers have in common? All grew up in these secular liberal backgrounds dominated by women and therefore were not very manly and then entered a religion that requires a male to be strong and they cant make the cut. We should also realize that this is not just an issue with whites. There is a prominent masjid in the DC area were these issues are even in the leadership and I have had many Desi sisters tell me that they cant think of marrying a Desi male because they cant find one masculine enough.
If United for Change wants to make positive sunnah-based change then it needs to deal with the problems with brothers like this. Because, if it is not sunnah-based change, then it will be change based on the thoughts of modern fields of learning that have at their core secular values that contradict Islam.
28 responses so far ↓
MR // July 2, 2009 at 9:06 pm |
Bro, United for Change is fighting against Malaria:
http://www.muslimsunitedforchange.com/
Saqib // July 3, 2009 at 12:07 am |
Knowledge is from Allah and it is not secular. our understanding can be secular. I don’t understand the masculinity issue here. Males are natural leaders in human society. But males also tend to exploit that position. Also you haven’t made it clear what you mean by female dominated family. And what is your definition of masculinity? Muslim brothers need to treat their women kindly. And many of us don’t. This has caused so many problems. Therefore, it seems to me that in any dispute resolution special attention should be given to this matter. This is not to say that women can not be the source of any problem.
sis // July 3, 2009 at 9:51 am |
salaam,
This video seems to protray masculinity in a muslim society quite well, what are your thoughts on it? I’d love to read a review by you inshaaAllaah.
sis // July 3, 2009 at 9:53 am |
sorry I forgot the link
http://www.newmuslimcool.com/
Leila // July 3, 2009 at 11:16 am |
What is your definition of a “strong” men and women? Is a female who is assertive and confident “strong” and thus intimidating? Is it a man who plays sports and does not express his feelings considered to be “strong”? It is vague. If a man is not from a middle class white family, would he be considered to be masculine (even though he could have been raised without male role model and is broke most of the time and thus not fit to be a husband or father)
The three white men need some serious help, i dont know how much of their problems can be attributed to growing up in a female led household. I know they shouldnt be looking to get married to any females, muslim or non muslim.
Without defining strong masculine men, your post is reduced to a comparison between feminine males v thuggish males, most men do not fit into that box.
Kashif // July 3, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
When it comes to desi women, the issue isn’t as clear as you’ve quoted. They might complain that desi men aren’t masculine enough, but what they’re hiding is another issue: the tendency of desi muslim women to become incredibly vile/vindictive when their marriages go through a rough patch.
Typically, said desi woman* will be married to a desi guy and they have kids. Their marriage hits a rough patch and said desi girl goes nuts. With the full support of her family, she walks out on her husband taking the kids with her.
In the Western courts where the woman will get favourable treatment with regards to custody of the kids, the guy has two choices:
1) Be “masculine” and tell her to F*** off (which is probably what he wants to do)
2) Become demasculated, and grovel to get her back: not necessarily because he wants *her* back, but because he doesn’t want to abandon his kids to be brought up in a single-parent household.
And once he takes option #2, she knows his weakness and from there it is a slow descent for him into a life of complete demasculation.
Its a classic case of wanting your piece of cake and then eating it.
* said desi woman is likely to be “practising”
Abu Ibrahim // July 3, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
I think I understand what Umar means, and though I am not white, I totally agree.
Masculinity is so derided these days in modern American culture. Look at some of the most popular American shows.
The Simpsons – Stupid, fat, lazy, father; smart, kind, wise mother.
Family Guy – Stupid, fat, lazy, father; smart, beautiful, intelligent mother.
American Dad (I hate this show with a passion) – Stupid, fat, ignorant father; smart, patient, wise mother.
It goes on and on. Very rarely will you see a sitcom, cartoon, or movie where the father is wise and intelligent. If he is intelligent, then he is overbearing and old-fashioned (think, The Little Mermaid, Finding Nemo, Pirates of the Caribbean).
I wasn’t raised with my father, but Alhamdulillah, I spent three years studying Islam in West Africa. I saw what it meant to be masculine without being cruel.
So my boys play with toy guns. They love movies where stuff gets blown up. They love riding their bikes, baseball and basketball.
And when they get old enough, Inshallah, we will go hunting and fishing.
There is nothing stereotypical about male interests and female interests. These things are natural.
Muslim culture encourages masculinity in men without promoting cruelty.
There is a middle ground and our example is Rasulullah (pbuh).
The deterioration of masculinity in the West is just one more thing we need to struggle against as Muslims living in this part of the world.
Ummie // July 4, 2009 at 1:10 am |
Asalaamu Alaikum,
We can not separate the issue into schisms of white vs black and male vs female. In order to acheive a balance we have to look at the whole problem and that is clinging to our jahil backgrounds and not accepting islam and it’s tenents whole-heartedly. I am so sick of muslims saying “Yeah, but that was the Prophet (Companions/Wives) and I am not them.” Allah says in the qu’ran hasn’t the time come for the hearts to be affected by Allah’s reminder. This is the problem, too many of us take a muslim name but we don’t take islam into our hearts.
The other issue is the du’aat are so busy teaching usoolu thalaatha and such they do not take the time to teach what the islamic personality should be. We are creating a nation of parrots, regurgitating memorized lines, and not taking any of them to heart. Allah save our ummah. If we would only be upright, purify what is in our hearts and take care in how we treat each other, we would not have secret fetishes and gay muslims, weak men and over-bearing women and children lost somewhere in the middle.
Allahu Alim
Jami // July 4, 2009 at 3:13 pm |
We gotta accept the point abt Islam n Patriarchy. On this topic, we find the mind-benders, the cultural drifters, putting Islam on trial.
But the assumed ‘weakness’ of feminism is actually its ’strength’. It is a crafy, cunning, sly demolistion system of values, inverting and converting, while moralising its ‘claims.’
Muslims should readArthur Schopenhauer’s essay ‘On Women’ as this brilliant German philosopher predicts the present confusion :
“for woman is by no means fitted to be the object of our veneration, to hold her head higher than the man or to enjoy equal rights with him. The consequence of this false position are sufficiently obvious. It would thus be a very desirable thing if this number two of the human race were again put in her natural place in Europe too,and a limit set to the unnaturalness called a ‘lady’ at which all Asia laughs and which Greece and Rome would laugh at too if they could see it…”
muslim // July 5, 2009 at 10:27 pm |
as salaaam alaikum
I think you hit the nail on the head as to why so many ethnic Muslim sisters go for white converts (I mean they are THE prize). Its not just the fetish for light skin that pervades some Muslim cultures; its that these men are emasculated so they can be control or more importantly they wont be demading the rights a man has over a woman in Islam. See alot of sister have the hiajb, tajweed, Arabic, travelling for deen – but they dont like the fact that Islam commands a woman to obey their husband.
They are just feminists in hijab
Even amongst secular ethnic Muslim men this is understood (though those in the west are becoming namby pamby too) – the man is boss. Its a male dominated society. In western culture its the opposite so they want that husband who’ll let them lead their little feminist lifestyle and be a push over.
Ahmed // July 8, 2009 at 9:57 pm |
Could you please post this up on MM. They are censoring me:
@ Iesa
Assalamu ‘alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh,
Again, thank you for responding to my comments about your article. In the future though, can you make the feedback process a little bit smoother; I felt like it was a challenge simply getting my views up on this site and getting constructive criticism back.
Also, do you mind putting up my whole comment. The other half, and I think it contains most of my significant points, is still awaiting moderation.
That said I would like to respond to some of the issues you raised in your response and clarify some of the initial issues.
Here goes:
With regards to the argument you keep repeating about the article not being about you or the views not being yours, I agree that that is indeed the case. The argument I am making is a broader one, that doesn’t necessarily have a lot do with you personally, which is that as a media outlet the viewpoints and opinions that you consistently give way to, without challenge, are your opinions and arguments by default. I think that’s a generally established fact in the world of media studies. So for you to cry “these are not my arguments” is a bit puzzling.
As far as my post being characterized as one of “attacking”, I would ask what about my post is particularly hostile? I make neither insults nor threaten anybody in my post and I maintain throughout it logical and straightforward arguments. I don’t feel anything in my comment is unfair or out of place, as far as manners of argument go. When does a comment become out of line? When it challenges your view-points, all of a sudden I am “attacking” you? If you can point out where I stepped out of bounds in my manners of debate, I would love to know so I could rectify that in the future, insha’allah.
As far of your charge that I am “assuming knowledge of” your “beliefs” and peering into your heart to look at the ghayb (Unseen), I think that is a grave charge and it offends me. Like I explained, the views and opinions you consistently present as a media body, without allowing for the other side to at least rebut, are representative of the biases of your reporting. Otherwise, why would you give me such a hassle in countering Mr. Galloway’s arguments? Also, aside from simple journalistic integrity, lets not lose sight of the fact that you have an obligation, as a Muslim media organisation, to be Islamically responsible in your reporting. As a matter of principle I don’t think it was Islamically responsible for you to air the views of a disbeliever who is far, far away from the Islamic methodology without at least a disclaimer. Just so I am clear, what I am referring to when I say Islamically irresponsible are the following points I mentioned in my previous comment:
“By the consistent promotion of non-believers like Galloway as “the authority” on this issue you establish the basis upon which this issue will be approached… and I think you realize this. That means the issue of our holy mosque and holy land is presented as an issue of:
-Secular nationalism
-Civil rights
-Human rights
-Self-determination
-Political activism
I think its fair to say that to the bulk of the 1 billion Muslims on this earth, when you bring up this issue these are not the words that immediately come to mind.”
If you are bothered by the claim that you are promoting “secular nationalism”, then let me hear a clear statement that you do not support a secular nationalistic state of “Palestine” (otherwise that’s the idea readers would get) and instead support the Islamic principle that the government legislated by Allah (SWT) in His Book and on the tongue of His Messenger (SAW) is the government that takes as its constitution the Qur’an and the Sunnah and is a Muslim state that in all its laws and customs abides by the commands of Allah (SWT).
About your counter-counterpoint #1)
Yes, I mentioned Salahudeen and I, in fact, don’t hold him only to his success in “liberating Palestine” but what I intended in mentioning him is to establish some points. When I ask you these questions, they are heart to heart, muslim to muslim, and I ask you them in the spirit of brotherhood and the search for truth and following it, so please take me seriously and don’t respond with ridicule and arrogance:
By Al-’Asr (the time). Verily! Man is in loss, Except those who believe and do righteous good deeds, and recommend one another to the truth, and recommend one another to patience. (1-3. 103)
What do we mean when we say Salahudeen “liberated” Palestine? Don’t we mean that he routed the Crusader army at Hittin, marched to Al-Quds, abolished the Crusader “Kingdom of Jerusalem”, and the government and authority in Al-Quds returned to the Muslims under the “Ayyubid dynasty of Saladin”? If you accept that reading of events, then a perfectly synonymous turn of events today would go something like this:
“X routed the Zionist army at X, marched to Al-Quds, abolished the Zionist “State of Israel”, and the government and authority in Al-Quds returned to the Muslims under the “X dynasty of X”.
Now if you lay claim to Salahudeen and agree with what he did, would you have the same thing happen today, with brave men following in the footsteps of his legendary example?
As for the next point, yes it is true that today Salahudeen is universally regarded as a just figure who waged a just war and conducted himself with justice. But let me ask you, do you think that was the perception of Salahudeen in Europe back then? Clearly, the answer is no. In fact, ever since the third, of 9, crusades, Christian Europe fought to recapture Al-Quds from Salahudeen, long after his death. That is all to say, that if we expect that someone will raise the banner of Jihad to liberate Al-Quds today and not be called a “terrorist”…then we are sorely misguided. As for the issues of treatises and contracts of peace, then if you are drawing a constrast between Salahudeen and the contemporary Mujahidin, then I would just like to clarify that the Mujahidin like Salahudeen before them have consistently offered peace and treaties to the Yahood and her supporters, chiefly America, as recently as June 2, when Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the leader of al Qaeda’s operation in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al Jazeera television what is summarized below:
“Abu Al-Yazid set out five conditions: “to withdraw from Muslim countries, stop supporting the occupant (Israel) in Palestine, end the support of apostate governments and usurpers of power in Muslim countries, stop any aggression against the Muslims and release all Muslim prisoners in US prisons.”
“In this case, there will be a truce between us of, for example, ten years,” said Abu Al-Yazid.
“We will invite them to convert to Islam. If they refuse to convert, we will impose Jiziah on them (a tax paid by non-Muslims who live under the rule of a Muslim government). If they refuse, there will be war,” warned the number three of the terrorist network (after Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri).
“But we believe they will refuse. Therefore, the Nation of Islam is called to prepare for jihad.”"
http://www.middle-east-online.com/English/?id=32906
But if people expect peace and treaties when the above-mentioned conditions are not met, then that is not called a peace treaty, that is called surrender.
Yes, I also believe that the Shari’a provides us with many tools to stand against oppression and I also believe that we should use all of them, including military force or, as it is called in Islam, Jihad. Do you also agree that we should use all of our tools including military force, or that we should use all of our tools except military force? If it is the latter, then how do you expect to liberate Palestine? “Please, Mr. Netanyahu, I hope you can recognize the legitimacy of my claims to this land and how you have illegally settled our land and our homes after driving us out of them through demolitions and genocide. I put my faith in your kindness and integrity, that you will simply return this land to us and to our authority just on the basis that it is the right thing to do.”?
Also with regards to your statement:
“Furthermore, with no Amir of the Believers, no Islamic state, no unity among the Ummah, the authoritative representation of a unified Muslim position – let alone, just military action – is not pragmatic.”
In fact, not only do we have an Amir of the Believers, we actually have 2:
Amir al-Mu’minin Mulla Muhammad Omar, Amir of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan
Amir al-Mu’minin Abu Omar al-Qurashi al-Baghdadi, Amir of the Islamic State of Iraq
Preferably we should only have one Amir as the Prophet (SAW) taught us, but these leaders don’t claim to be the Khalifa and call their states Caliphates but instead an Imaara’ and Dawla respectively, so they exercise control over their respective regions (as was the case many times in Islamic history). And Insha’allah when Allah defeats the enemy and establishes us on the earth, one of these men will assume the role of Khalif over an Islamic Caliphate…the one the Prophet (SAW) prophecised was to come at the end of times: “khilaafa ‘alaa minhaj an-nubawaa – a Caliphate upon the prophetic methodology. So why don’t you recognise these men? Are you waiting for the U.N., the U.S, and Europe to “recognize” them, change their maps, and send a delegation from the United Nations to Kandahar to assume diplomatic ties with the Ameer? If that is what people are waiting for, then they have never read a page of Islamic history. These men will be recognized when the West can no longer pretend they don’t exist. Now, obviously, these men and their soldiers are currently in a full-scale war with the most advanced military power the world has ever known, and that’s what the fight over there is about, and once they achieve victory, Insha’allah, the issue will become even clearer.
And of course, we have 2 Islamic States as I mentioned, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and the Islamic State of Iraq, and we have a Wilaayah (Province) in Somali as declared by the Mujahideen there, and in time they will come under the authority of the state that emerges under the current circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And of course we have unity among the Ummah and we do indeed have an “authoritative representation of a unified Muslim position” however much it can still be built upon and improved. We all agree:
-We want to liberate our lands that are under enemy occupation
-We want to spread the message of Islam, through the sword and the pen
-We want Shari’a and not Secular law
-We want our enemies to stop massacring us
-We want our enemies to stop exploiting our natural resources
-We want safety, security, and opportunity in our lands
-We want to defend ourselves against anyone who threatens us
So who disagrees with that? Are you waiting for there to exist no Munaafiqeen and traitors in the Ummah…that will never happen because were it to happen it would have happened in the Prophet (SAW)’s time, when we know there was a whole movement of Nifaq, headed by Ubay’ Ibn Salul, so how much more in our time which the prophet described in the Hadith:
“Just before the Anti-Christ there will be years of great deception in which people will disbelieve one who tells the truth and believe the liar. They will distrust one who is trustworthy and trust one who is treacherous. And the ruwaybida will speak.” They asked: “What is the ruwaybida?” He said: “The minor scoundrel (al-fuwaysiq) who will have his say in general affairs.” Narrated from Anas by Ahmad
So your statement is out of line with reality when in fact we do have the sort of centralized authority figures who are capable of leading this ummah that you pretend we don’t. We also know that the defeatist paradigm that that comment comes from is wrong. The one that says we are not able to confront our enemies militarily, we are too weak, “oh, what would we do if America left the region!”, and so on. The ummah is more than capable of confronting and defeating its enemies in battle and to prove that just consider the fact that after 9/11 the Mujahidin have faced the full force of America’s might head on and where does the battle stand now? The answer is obvious. Also consider that that force of the Mujahidin is what compared to the full resources, manpower, strength, wealth, and collective will of the ummah? 0.0001%, 1%, 2%, maybe 3%? So how about if 10% of the ummah engaged in this struggle or 20%?
I think it’s so ironic that you state the following: “Understand, by the meaning of the word deen (religion) which for us should equate to the complete way in which we live our lives, means we should not separate or reserve Islamic guidance for specific issues or parts of our lives. Rather, we should try to please Allah with all of our actions. ” If you don’t see the irony in your statement, I simply challenge you to go back to the Aaayaat and Ahaadith of Jihad and evaluate the place Allah reserved for it in the life of a Muslim and compare that to its place in the life you advocate for the ummah here on MM.
As for your saying: “My position that Islam allows for much more variety of action than you seem comfortable with.” My position is that when Allah (SWT) unequivically orders us with a command I am not comfortable disobeying Him (SWT):
O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things. (38, 39. 9)
Do you think there is “variety of action” here?
About your counter-counterpoint #2)
Yes, absolutely I am calling for taking back Andalus. What, you’re not? Isn’t the Hukm (ruling) clear? We are obligated to re-conquer that land, and the non-muslims there will be forced to pay jizya. Do you have another Hukm? My impression was that in Islam, we follow the Ahkaam (rulings); we follow the Qur’an and Sunnah. What is your impression of Islam?
As for your statement: “In my understanding, there is no single type of governmental system enshrined in the Shari’a, however the Shari’a does give us the principles (moral guidance) from which a system of government can be administered correctly.”
So in your understanding, there is a single type of system enshrined in the Shari’a for washing oneself, performing prayer, responding to the call of nature, having sexual relations with ones spouse, dealing with neighbors, slaughtering animals for food, and so on and so forth but when it comes to the all-important, all-encompassing, absolutely critical issue of who will exercise authority on God’s earth we simply have “moral guidance” from which “a system of government”, I take that to mean any, can manage? Think about that again for a second…do you think that is logical?
And what of this thing we call the sunnah? Aren’t we suppose to follow all the guidance of the Prophet (SAW)? Yes, but except for all the functions of statehood, government, and politics?
The form of government that Islam mandates is the governments of Rasullullah (SAW), Umar bin Al-Khattab (R), Umar bin Abdul-Aziz (rah), Al-Mu’tasim (rah), Harun Ar-Rashid (rah), Salahudeen Al-Ayyubi (rah), and so on up until the present with Mullah Muhammad Omar (hfdh). Were talking about the Rashidun, Ummayun, ‘Abbasiyun, Mamaalik, Ayuubiyun, Uthmaniyun, and Insha’allah the “At-talibaniyun”:
“Prophethood will remain among you as long as Allah wills. Then Caliphate (Khilafah) on the lines of Prophethood shall commence, and remain as long as Allah wills. Then corrupt/erosive monarchy would take place, and it will remain as long as Allah wills. After that, despotic kingship would emerge, and it will remain as long as Allah wills. Then, the Caliphate (Khilafah) shall come once again based on the precept of Prophethood.“” Ahmad.
“It has been reported on the authority of Nafi, that ‘Abdullah b. Umar paid a visit to Abdullah b. Muti’ in the days (when atrocities were perpetrated on the People Of Medina) at Harra in the time of Yazid b. Mu’awiya. Ibn Muti’ said: Place a pillow for Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman (family name of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar). But the latter said: I have not come to sit with you. I have come to you to tell you a tradition I heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). I heard him say: One who withdraws his band from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahillyya. ” Sahih Muslim.
And the statements of the scholars:
Al-Qurtubi said in his Tafsir[29] of the verse, “Indeed, man is made upon this earth a Caliph”[30] that:
This Ayah is a source in the selection of an Imaam, and a Khaleef, he is listened to and he is obeyed, for the word is united through him, and the Ahkam (laws) of the Caliph are implemented through him, and there is no difference regarding the obligation of that between the Ummah, nor between the Imams except what is narrated about al-Asam, the Mu’tazzili …
Al-Qurtubi also said:
The Khilafah is the pillar upon which other pillars rest
An-Nawawi said[31]:
(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khalif
Al-Ghazali when writing of the potential consequences of losing the Caliphate said[32]:
The judges will be suspeneded, the Wilayaat (provinces) will be nullified, … the decrees of those in authority will not be executed and all the people will be on the verge of Haraam
Ibn Taymiyyah said[33]:
It is obligatory to know that the office in charge of commanding over the people (ie: the post of the Khaleefah) is one of the greatest obligations of the Deen. In fact, there is no establishment of the Deen except by it….this is the opinion of the salaf, such as al-Fadl ibn ‘Iyaad, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others.
Anyways, this comment is getting too long. Please try and respond to some of the most important points.
May Allah guide me and you the straight path. Ameen.
doc pak // July 15, 2009 at 2:36 pm |
Salam,
by female dominated family, a family in which decision is made by the woman of the house and not the man of the house. Is it clearer now?!!!
farzadw // July 16, 2009 at 9:17 pm |
Salam Umar,
Translation of the Holy Qur’an 13:11
“Surely Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change their own.”
You are absolutely correct about the condition of the youth and their addiction to many ill things not just porn.
It takes more than an organization to address these issues, it takes an entire community effort.
Thanks for the article, very intriguing.
Chris // July 17, 2009 at 8:39 pm |
You wrote:
Two of these males became addicted to S&M porn. One was upset that he could not find a black salafi sister who would tie him up and beat him ( he would discuss this in his sit downs). This kind of fetish may be normal for some white males, particular in the secular upper classes and around universities…
To say this type of fetish may be normal for some white males shows a great deal of prejudicial ignorance. Where did you get that idea from?
Orbas // July 21, 2009 at 11:41 am |
Hey MR,
Stop being a smart alec. United for Change is not solely fighting against Malaria. This is their first project. The organization isn’t limited to just this. I didn’t know you had a pea-sized brain brother. Stop acting like you know it all. Thanks and no offense. You’re my brother in Islam.
Orbas al-Shadhili
usama c. // July 31, 2009 at 9:38 pm |
Assalamualaikum,
I know this is irrelevant to your blog post but do you know of any islamic bookstores in st. louis?
Z is for Um Zakariya // August 1, 2009 at 9:54 pm |
what was wrong with my comment?
Dawud // August 2, 2009 at 7:33 am |
http://campaign.constantcontact.com/render?v=001onZapu78TQ4QlMOdz54VeFLTYwAB02XmHSht1XAtYGKCS1fwN2WL14WdS2uQguGM3_ImDZNY633_lPaEAaCJLJ5rc_cQiB-QP-6skNBl_uYss2fQ3oT76wMEDdef8EHK
A'sha // August 4, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
Asalamu Alaykhum Umar,
I like how you talk about the ‘un-talked’ about white (muslim) male issues.Its probably harder talking about such issues as opposed to black muslim issues or women muslim issues.I guess being at the top ranks of social status and the white male priviledge we all assume that white males have life easier,guess not ! and perhaps its time for people to start talking about such issues to help out people in difficult situations.
I feel sorry for those guys with masculinity issues,perhaps you should work on a grassroots approach,start with the small number of people you know who are going through such issues and work them out of their problems.I dont think United for Change is targeting such issues,so perhaps this as opportunity for you to help out these guys.
Just my 2 cent comments.
A’sha
anonyma // August 6, 2009 at 5:39 am |
It’s really disturbing that these men are looking for Black women. It seems they’ve fetishized the stereotype of the “strong Black woman” and are looking for that stereotype so they can slack off on being men. So not only do they have gender issues, but seemingly some racist inclinations as well.
Sophie // August 17, 2009 at 1:53 am |
A desi not masculine enough? Even non-practising desi Muslim males love wielding the back-home culture or Islam as it’s narrowly defined for many desis because it means that the woman is subservient. And I agree with Saqib’s post.
Jamal Ahmed // August 18, 2009 at 2:04 pm |
I think freedom is being abused in the western society. Islam is a natural way of life. It provides solution for the problems we face. Islam encourages us to avoid extremism in any sphere of life. Women and men should live within their own boundaries which is set out by Islam. Men should treat the women kindly and the women should respect men and obey them.
Phil // September 3, 2009 at 1:37 am |
Love the crass generalisation and psudo-marxist comment from some posters. (sarcasm)
Umar, just a suggestion but perhaps make a post in the future talking about “what it means to be a man” because some people honestly have no idea. Particularly the issue of where does masculinity stop and casual sexism start.
PS. Muslim if it was not Ramadan, i would have a few choice words about what you wrote.
another white brother // September 4, 2009 at 1:08 pm |
Since when are white convert brothers THE prize? Years of searching for a wife have shown this not to be the case. However, I have noticed the tendency for the femjabis to approach me… and quickly backtrack when I tell them that I expect a wife to be (and I know this is a shocking concept to you “enlightend, western sisters” a wife and not a co-earner/roommate.
I have seen many weak fellow white convert brothers though. Even before I took shahadah, I loathed the metrosexual, emoish, touchy-feely stance many males of my generation are taking.
Mu'adh // September 14, 2009 at 6:08 am |
I’m not sure if someone else has already mentioned this before in the comments as I didn’t trawl through the whole list before replying. I have to say Umar, while I agree that masculinity has been derided in Western culture, your reaction to it is equally Western, built upon a Western conception of what it means to be manly. This is achieved through a glorification of power and violence as seemingly ends in and of themselves. It appears to be more about asserting one’s individual power through force rather than self-sacrifice and standing up for the rights and protection of others and the deen. This is a hyper liberalised understanding of manhood, based nearly entirely on the individual, at odds with the Islamic conception of man, and very much in line with aspects of the jahili Arabs concept of manhood.
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf himself speaks of this issue of Islamic manliness or futuwwa/chivalry being a largely absent trait from the world, as does an article on Suhaib Webb’s blog:
http://www.suhaibwebb.com/blog/general/no-cry-no-woman-defining-manhood-and-the-facade-of-being-hard-by-yasmin-mogahed/
I would recommend you read that second article especially.
Muslim Bro // September 21, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
As salaamu alaykum:
Brother, you seem to ALWAYS say that there are BIG PROBLEMS with “white” Muslim converts/reverts, that “white” Muslims converts/reverts (except for ones that are seemingly “pro-ghetto” as if this has anything to do with Allah’s Deen and the Sunnah of RasoolAllah (saw)) are so soft, seemingly faggy, weak, punkish, too PC, etc., and that pretty much everything negative happening to Muslims in America (and possibly the world) is caused by these ignorant, soft, weak, seemingly “faggy,” “white” Muslim converts/reverts.
Brother, you do consider yourself a true, “real,” “hard,” “strong,” “keepin’ it real,” “white” brother, right?
If so, I don’t want to be unfair to you, but sometimes you seem to blindly defend and take the side of the kuffar (and not even the fair minded ones, but the ones openly fighting against Allah’s (swt) Deen), the enemies of Allah (swt) — that is if they are the “right” complexion or color.
I mean, you talk of the “white” convert/revert Muslims (as if unfortunately many Muslims of all colors don’t have this un-Islamic weakness) being too PC, being soft, being weak, punkish, etc., but at the same time brother, you seem to also in many instances, act in this way, and do not “keep it real,” in my opinion.
What about the way you (and some of the other posters) on your blog seem to have no problem at all, defending, and praising the dirty taghoot, kaafir war criminal, leader of the current day anti-Muslim Crusaders, the enemy of Allah (swt)? I find this to be utterly un-Islamic, embarrassing, and very soft, weak and punkish, in my opinion. It seems, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you are the ones now being “PC” as you give this evil taghoot, the leader of the Crusaders, the butcher of innocent Muslims, a “pass” because of his “color.”
Why don’t you truly “keep it real,” and mention what these evil Crusaders, and other Kuffar (the criminal zionist entity, etc.) are doing to our real brothers and sisters all around the Ummah? (our brothers in al-Islam, not our brothers because of ignorant jahil concepts, such as “ethnic” origin, or “skin color”)
Why don’t you “keep it real” and talk about this taghoot, this leader of the Crusaders (the one with the right “color”) you seem to respect so much, and his heinous, evil slaughtering, and murder of hundreds and hundreds of innocent men, women, and children, in Afghanistan, in the NWFP in Pakistan, in Crusader occupied Iraq, etc., and in the dozens if not hundreds of gulags and concentration camps such as Guantanamo, Baghram, and the many other prisons and permanent Crusader military bases, known and unknown in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and in the many Taghoot, pro-Crusader, puppet Muslim countries, etc.
Everyday, these evil Crusaders are slaughtering innocent men, women, and children, and blindly supporting and helping the criminal zionist yahoodi terrorists with billions and billions of dollars of weapons with OUR TAX MONEY, to slaughter innocent men, women and children, in zionist occupied Palestine. But maybe you don’t notice this because, the leader of these dirty Crusaders, the Enemy of Allah (swt) is the “right color?”
Brother, insha’Allah, you need to be careful about openly taking these evil, war criminal, fanatically pro-zionist, anti-Muslim Crusaders, or at least it’s leader (and it’s government), as your brothers, instead of Muslims, who happen to be “white” (or any color) converts/reverts (for all the faults they may or may not have), and that is just plain wrong. (And BTW, I’m not talking about supporting “extremist” Muslims or certain groups who act in very un-Islamic ways, such as saying it’s perfectly halaal to intentionally kill non-combatants, as I also don’t support these groups at all and believe they are a fitnah)
“O you who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies, they are allies to each other, and anyone of you who takes them as allies is one of them, and Allah will never guide the oppressors (disbelievers)” [EMQ 5: 51]
sacrosanct // October 27, 2009 at 2:21 am |
I think you are being quite harsh and generalizing a bit too much. I do see some truth in what you are saying though.
white bro # 3 // October 28, 2009 at 1:13 am |
Salaam , LOL@wite brothers a prize…maybe the sisters want white brothers because they see good deen and a job in them. Maybe they see the white brothers as my wife seen me , a hard worker who tries to practice the deen in a majority white society being an outcast..then we move to germantown phila and are outcast there , because no one else is white , I can go on , these brothers who pretend to be hood , knowing they come from suburbs in the nice houses…leave race out of it. its foolish , whats next accusing white brothers of wanting a black sister because he still has the master mentality ?
white brothers , please stay white , sellig t shirts and oils is for them..the ones who bash us behind our backs. in words that you will understand..HOLLA