Political Jihad - Vote for your Muslims MPs to better our society!!!!

[Qasim]

Assalam,

Do not try to be self-reliant and build up your community yourself, but have more Muslim MPs so that they can establish a better value for our Islamic needs.

Wassalam
Qasim

http://www.iuploads.com/free_image_hosting/images/QasimSpeaks/MuslimsMps.jpg

[Yahya]

I don't think you understand the purpose of this group.

It's not to secure the election of Muslim MPs but to oblige politicians to listen to the opinions of their Muslim constituents.

It is an activist organisation, not one which trusts others to look after the best interests of Muslims, whether in Britain or elsewhere.

Community self-reliance is both the cause and effect of such a struggle. It is far from the idea that we can rely on or trust MPs. It in fact operates on exactly the opposite premiss.

I would go so far as to say that the ghetto mentality of abstentionism is more likely to encourage Sarwar and Mahmood to betray their constituents than political activity on the part of ordinary Muslims. Political parties welcome passivity as the best way to avoid accountability.

[Qasim]

Assalam,

This is nicely said, but the fact is that MPs represent a party and abide by the party line/manifesto of their party.

As was seen recently from the action of Ms Oona Kings or Galloway MPs who are master of disguise. They will say one thing to their beloved constituents and another thing to their other beloved contistuents, as long as they can secure a vote - even if they promises go against one of their beloved constituent.

Once, they are voted they will follow the party line and that is it. Afterwards they have a carreer in line.

If you read carefully, my post you will realise that no one as discussed of ghetto mentality of abstentionism. By the way Sarwar and Mahmood were not voted in by having a ghetto mentality of abstentionism, and see the result.

It is very sad to see that people reduce their vision to think that the only way to fulfill our Islamic needs is to cross a piece of paper and drop it in a ballot box.

The prophet (SAW) undertook many political action without giving power to any entity who will establish non-islamics laws, which will certainly challenge our work to maintain our islamic values.

Our prophet used to challenge norms of society and was winning people over. Why is it so difficult for the Muslim to understand that whatever laws their establish cannot be implemented if the society are against it and strong public opinion reach those who implement these laws like the police force or the army.

Who prevent us to speak and debate?

For example there is a demo organise this Saturday against the terror bill. Why undertaking such action if one thinks that this has no effect upon how the society think of the matter?

The better of our familly, the community, etc is on our shoulder.
The representation of Islam as a challenge against the current values of society is on our shoulder.

If their is oppression because of our stance, then Alhamdullilah, because this the sunnah of the Message.

Cite me anyone in the history of Islam, from the first messager to any Scholar who has carry the pure call of Islamic principals and were not oppress?

Any way my advice is that we need to think a bit deeper upon the action that we are undertaking politically which can really establish changes that will insure our islamic values without compromising a bit?

Wassalam
Qasim

[Qasim]

Assalam,

Why I am exposing the MPs here is to remind whoever still want to vote for them (and I means any MPs) is that they abide by party line and not on behalf of their constituents. They may tell you before the election, but the reality is that their are not oblige to keep their promises. Moreover, if any of their promises goes against the party manifesto, they will be "wiped back" to the position of the party that they are representing.

I am not against what you said so far but I would like to understand what you means by:

It is far from the idea that we can rely on or trust MPs. It in fact operates on exactly the opposite premiss.

Because the last time I assisted to a MPACK gathering they were promoting the voting of MPs and not simply political activism

Wassalam
Qasim

[UmmZakariya]

pls do some more research into mpacuk read our about mpacuk section for instance we advocate political jihad that includes all forms of political activism including voting.

[Qasim]

Assalam,

I think I read enough to see that beside political activism MPAC promotes political participation by voting for MPs.

Moreover, they used some fiqh argurments where I think there are many points where there is a lack of understanding and relation with the current situation.

Firstly, the issue is not on voting itself as we will be surely asked to vote in order to appoint the next Caliph when the time comes, insha'la.

But rather for what are we voting for. Is it for an entity who will establish Islam or not?

In the current case, it is to establish parties which will implement a manifesto which goes against principales of Islam.

Again, lobby MPs by calling, talking, debating with him is not a problem. Moreover, I wondering why someone will call him if she/he follows our islamic needs. This is why they voted him/her at the first place, isn'it?

You can politically challenge the Minister, Lords, Civil servant, corporations, general public for debate in order to influence the public opinion.

However, the only issue in voting is that you undertake an action which definitely establish someone as a legislator (I will remind that this an attribute of Allah (SWT)) who will establish other than Allah (SWT) rules.

Moreover, MPs do not have much power, and they will only notice it when they opinion clash with those who have real power in the administration - as have Robin Cook and Clare Short have now understood.

Political activism is good but we need to understand where to undertake it. The British administration should not be thought as a naive body as they are, without any doubt, the most politically aware of all the international administration. Thus, The Muslim need to understand why are they inviting us to enter their system. Can a Muslim MP or any MPs drive the policies of the system in place?

There is a nice book written by Antony Sampson "Who runs this place?" ISBN: 0-7195-6566-9 which should shade light upon the reality of the system: an eleted dictatorship.

Also, if any of you have time they should read the documents published by the Rand Institute in 1995 :

The following is an excerpt from ''A sense of Siege'' under a section entitled The Politics of Inclusion :

''There is no easy answer about how to cope with the potentially negative, intolerant, anti-western tendencies of radical Islam, but there are two tasks to be met: The first is to change the more uncompromising policies and attitudes of Islamic movements where possible. Islamist movements are evolving and represent a considerable variety of ideas, tactics, leadership, and goals. It is important for western and Muslim governments to differentiate among them and deal with them. The second task is to marginalize the more extremist elements in ways that do not increase the use of violence on both sides, a trend that often serves only to strengthen, not weaken, the extremists.


The challenge is not a simple one. In the end, however, both problems can be successfully approached only by a policy of inclusion of Islam into the political system rather than exclusion. Exclusionary policies have simply not worked.


A policy of inclusion is based on the belief that once Islamist movements enter the political process, several different things happen.

The movement will have to move beyond facile slogans to declare its position on a variety of difficult issues; it will have to adopt a platform open to public scrutiny.

What had strictly been a movement will now have to adopt political responsibilities via participation?

Islamist politicians will have to deal with others whose principles they do not necessarily accept, forcing them top compromise their abstract principles in the direction of reality.

Islamist parties will soon fall into 'normal perspective' within the political system; that is, they will no longer represent something special but will start to resemble other political parties with their same strengths, weaknesses, mistakes, foibles, and even corruption. This process has in fact happened in Turkey and Pakistan, where Islamist parties are a normal and, very often, unexciting part of the political spectrum.


This strategy, which is designed to change, compromise, and educate the Islamist..''

''Often objections arise that Islamists will support democracy, as nearly all do while in opposition, only to eliminate it when they themselves come to power - the formula known as 'one man, one vote, one time'...

Radical parties such as the Islamists must be allowed to enter the process only gradually. If they spring overnight from an underground forbidden status via a strong protest vote into a massive electoral victory, they will gain near total power and will not have been subject to the 'taming' experience of sharing in, but not dominating, governance. This was the Algerian experience in the elections in late 1991. Instead the entry of radical parties must be gradual, perhaps by their gaining control of certain municipalities or a modest proportion in the legislature. Control over their actions should also be available: a president, an army, a court system, and other mechanisms that will prevent Islamist from gaining total power at the outset and forcing them to work within the existing system...

Clearly, power by the ballot box offer the best chance to constrain the radicalism of Islamists''.

This should be a clear warning for those Islamic groups that wish to bring the Shariah through the Ballot box as not only is it against the Sunnah of the Rasool-Allah Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam but it is falling in to the trap that the colonialist have laid for the Muslims to compromise their Islam.

This is some information to bare in mind, as they are even telling us how they will operate.

There is a Sheikh (rha) who said one day that "The only thing you can do is to put the Haq (truth) by the crooked line" [and then let the people choose]

May Allah make the Haq shiny and the crooked line obscured. (Ameen! Ameen! Ameen!)

Wassalam,
Qasim

[Yahya]

We don't live in a Muslim majority society. What relevance is the example of Islamist parties in Turkey and Pakistan to us?

We are not trying to establish an Islamist party in the UK, or any other kind of party for that matter.

So we're not planning to adapt to the system, or fundamentally change it from within. We are just seeking to influence in directions which benefit the Umma, i.e. sanctions on Israel, no war on Iran or Syria, no detention without trial for British Muslims, etc.

This is possible. Others have done it, e.g. the Zionists or the Anti-Apartheid movement.

[kosovan]

This is one surprising thing on this forum.Who was the best critique of the war in Iraq?
Robin Cook by a mile.
What doe his religion (or lack of it) have to do with anything.

[Qasim]

Assalam Yahya,

Well, the issue is not regarding the islamic party who were formed in order to better the life of the muslim which after entering the democratic system start to compromise until they become insignificant, but rather it is about making the Muslim and non-Muslim believe that they really affect the system. They want this system to become our system so that we give some legitimacy to it. Sometime they will give us crumbs through entities that we have appointed into the system to make us believe that we have indeed help in the modification or the implementation of this policy. But the reality is that they do not care about such policy as it neither affect the system in place nor their interest. Moreover, that calm us down, make us believe in the system, and prevent us from seeking its complete removal. I remind you that we have a deen to make overcome every other deen, isn'it!!!

Regarding Islamic party entering secular system the history is litter with such example. I believe that it is not very far when a Islamic party will demand to entering the road for power and will drag a part of the Ummah with her to fall into the trap of the British think tanks.

I think that whoever seek to influence foreign policy by establishing MPs must be very naive. I thought that the war wage on Iraq (despite having Super Top MPs against it and at least one millions of citizen) was enough for example...

Moreover, I am affraid that MPs does not affect internal policies neither...they are just there to follow the party line and that is it.

I proposed a book in my previous post I advise you to read it so that it become clear in your mind how the british "democratic" system works.

The US,UK,France,China,Russia are not in their current position by mistake. From the sole right to possess nuclear warfares to the sole right to imposing veto, they are the Top five of a priviledge club of five.

The biggest mistake we will make is to underestimate them and they political awarness of the only danger for their dominance of the world: Islam.

Wassalam
Qasim

[Yahya]

Again brother you have not addresses the point I raised.

We do not seek to influence policy by sending MPs to Parliament, and I for one do not believe that the democratic system is fundamentally an expression of poplular will.

What I believe MPAC is arguing (and I do not represent this group) is that strategic voting has the capacity to oblige MPs in areas with significant Muslim populations to take greater account of Muslim interests by making it clear that if they do not, their Parliamentary seats will be threatened. The purpose of this is to appeal to the lowest instinct of the politican, his desire to keep his job. It has nothing to do with placing any trust in them, as was suggested by your comment about my being naive.

This is exactly what the Zionists have done in America. When a congressman speaks out against Israel, pro-Israel lobbyist groups pour money into the campaign of his opponent. As a result even anti-Semetic politicians in the USA are frightened to criticise Israel. They, in fact, compete with each other about who supports Israel best.

It is indeed naive to believe politicians will abide by the promices they make to us. Except for a few of them, they are completely without principles. The intention of MPAC is to use the system, not let the system use us, as it has done until now. We should not do this naively, nor should we compromise one inch in our beliefs, as have the MPs you named. We don't have to. We are not going cap in hand to them, we are demanding that they serve us.

[UmmZakariya]

yahya one more you are completley correct.

I think that whoever seek to influence foreign policy by establishing MPs must be very naive.

khilafah i cant believe you are ignorant maybe you should read more about how the neo-cons/zionists/christian evangelists have influenced foreign policy in the US by voting in sympathetc congressman and voting out unsympathetic ones i suggest you read Paul Findlay: They dare to speak out.

The anti-Islam groups have influenced policy to the detriment of Muslims all the while you are arguing endlessly on a forum encouraing other to forsake helping the Ummah. You wish to marginalise us further well alhamdulilah you are in a minority more and more Muslims in the West are waking up to the need to affect both foreign and domestic policy inshallah once more learn and bit more about the work of CAIR, MPACUK and SPT among other active orgs.

also pls read:http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/DreamOfAntiIslam.html

The Dreams: Anti-Islam forces would love to see a modified Islam that would include the following:

1. Removal of Jihad from Islamic teachings. This is the scariest part of Islamic teachings that a fighter is a ghazi or shaheed; it is win-win situation for a Muslim mujahid. The West is willing to support any kind of Islam that does not have Jihad in the meaning of qital in its theology. A mushrik values two things most, his life and his property, the things that a true Muslim cares the least about in the Way of Allah. Remind yourself of the Hadith of wahn, the disease that will destroy Muslims and will render them subjects of their enemies. They welcome Qadiyanis, Tablighi Jamaat, Sufis, and similar other groups. These Muslim groups, by their opposition or silence about Jihad in the meaning of qital, are fulfilling the dream of the enemies of Islam. Qital is a part of Islam but it is relevant only in its place and time; it is not for everywhere nor for every time there is opposition to Islam. Muslims have a duty to attempt and exhaust all peaceful means before resorting to qital. On the other hand, those who incite to qital for every Muslim problem are also fulfilling the dreams of their enemies because this gives them an opportunity to project Islam as advocating terrorism and war.

2. Removal of politics as a part of Islam. There are two things under this topic: (a) Separation of politics and "religion", which is the fundamental dogma of secularism, and (b) discouraging Muslims from political participation in the West, which is a wish and a dream so that Muslims do not gain power and do not disturb the power of the Zionists and Christian Fundamentalists. The separation of politics from religion is rooted in the brutal rule of the Catholic Church over Europe lasting over one thousand years in the name of religion. Secularists see Islam in the mold of Catholicism, which is foolishness on their part and those Muslims who support them.

Political participation of Muslims in America is hated by anti-Islam forces because this will change the status quo and Muslims will begin to gain political power in the U.S. They love the movements of Qadiyanis, Tablighi Jamaat, Sufis, Hizb At-Tahrir, Tanzeem-e-Islami, and similar groups who agree with the enemies of Islam in maintaining the status quo through their opposition to political participation. These groups (anti-political participation Muslims) make the dreams of the anti-Islam forces come true. If Muslims become active in politics in an organized manner the power of the Zionists and Christian Fundamentalists will dissipate in time and Muslims may gain the position of dictating their policies domestically as well as globally. Please do not tell me that allowing the enemies of Islam to realize their dreams against Islam is part of the teachings of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet(S). The absence of Muslims from politics leaves the field wide open for the enemies of Islam to work freely without any resistance and obstruction.

[Qasim]

Assalam,

As I quoted early on "The only thing you can do is to put the Haq (truth) by the crooked line" [and then let the people choose]

I presented similar reality at the time of the Prophet (SAW) and how he (SAW) responded to it. He (SAW) did not come to make other share legislation with Allah (SWT), but he came, as Allah (SWT) order him, to make Islam overcome every other deen. Moreover, this is why he (SAW) refused to compromise and seek the military support of a huge amount of tribe...(read the sirah for that)

Why military support? How do you implement an ideology which will compete with the others?

I gave reference to a book so that you may understand how the british democratic system works and who influence it. Moreover, it is not MPs...

Also, my name is Qasim and not Khilafah for your information.

Finally, you said something very strange which make me think that you are not aware of what is going on really.

They love the movements of Qadiyanis, Tablighi Jamaat, Sufis, Hizb At-Tahrir, Tanzeem-e-Islami,

Firstly, you need to research much more upon the methodology of these groups before making comments about them. Each of these group have a perticular method of implementation of Islam as a competing ideology in order to make it the dominant ideology. I will not comment on MPAC as I do not know their methodology of implementation of Islam as a competing ideology in order to make it the dominant ideology of the world. However, I will search the web site for information.

Secondly, the flaws of your argument can quickly appear when it is well know that the Nixon Center think tanks and the Rand as warned about some of these groups and how to dismantle them as quick as possible, as their represent an ideological threat.

Go to:
http://www.nixoncenter.org/
Read "The Challenge of Hizb ut-Tahrir: Deciphering and Combating Radical Islamist Ideology" There many other document on that group

or

http://www.rand.org/paf/pubs/terrorism.html
read "The Muslim World After 9/11" which touch on most Islamic groups

Sister you definetly need to listen more objectively. This is not a competition of argument. You want to follow a set of opinion after the clear example from the sirah of the Prophet (SAW) and the well accepted fiqh principles of "Whatever leads to an Haram is itself Haram" (Knowing that most scholar as acknowledge that the action of voting for a non-islamic party is Haram - but their argument is that we do not have a choice and must choose the Best of the two Evil, as if Allah (SWT) establish only two possibilities and both are Haram). Moreover, where goes the well establish principles of "Whatever leads to an Haram is itself Haram"?

Or are we mocking Allah (SWT) by throwing behind our backs a principle that is well establish for another one which cannot be defined with certainty like Allah (SWT) said:

"Fighting is enjoined on you, and his an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know."

As an example of this the principile of the less of the two evil, Bush was elected over Clinton and what was the result? Afganistan, Iraq, etc...

It seems that the less of the two evil might have turned to be the worst of the two evil. And Allah (SWT) knows best...

Anyway as I said ealier and I cannot do much more then "to put the Haq (truth) by the crooked line" [and then let the people choose]

If I said anything useful it is from Allah (SWT), and if I said anything bad this is from me and the Shaytan.

Adkhulu Dawah wahamdullilahi rabi 'alamin

Wassalam
Qasim

[respect]

This is one surprising thing on this forum.Who was the best critique of the war in Iraq?
Robin Cook by a mile.
What doe his religion (or lack of it) have to do with anything.


Kosovan - yeah he was against the war this time, but about about the first war? maybe you wanna read below for some facts about your labour hero ... He was only against the war now because he had nothing to loose ...

SOURCE: http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/iraq/pilger-deaths.htm



Try as he might, Robin Cook cannot give credence to his vast lies
- how does he explain away the deaths of 200 Iraqi children every day?

By John Pilger
New Statesman, 3rd April 2000



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The facts of Iraq's epic suffering are now unassailable. The latest report by Unicef says that half a million young children have died in eight years of economic sanctions. That represents almost 200 deaths every day. Without in any way mitigating Saddam Hussein's tyranny, Unicef says: "The Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivation in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." The liability of the Security Council, said the French ambassador to the UN, was "indisputable". Denis Halliday, the UN's Assistant Secretary General, resigned rather than administer "an immoral and illegal" policy. His successor as the senior UN humanitarian official in Iraq, Hans von Sponeck, followed him in despair, along with the head of the World Food Programme. Few doubt that sanctions would have been lifted long ago were it not for the intransigence of the United States and Britain.
Last week, the New Statesman published a reply by Robin Cook to my catalogue of Foreign Office lies about Iraq.

Cook's reply fails to engage with any of the points raised. It is lying to get out of lying. For example:

Cook: "The humanitarian programme is entirely unconditional . . . There is nothing to prevent Iraq ordering more medicine."

Fact: A billion and a half dollars' worth of vital supplies to Iraq is currently blocked by the UN Sanctions Committee, including food and fifty million dollars' worth of medical supplies. The supply of 16 heart and lung machines has been blocked for six months. British ministers rigidly enforce a ban on vaccines for children (Hansard, 21 December 1999). Professor Karol Sikora, the former head of the World Health Organisation cancer programme, reported: "Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by the US and Britain."

Cook: "There is no limit on Iraqi oil sales to pay for [the humanitarian programme]."

Fact: There is an effective limit imposed by the US, which has blocked contracts for vital oil industry parts already approved by the Security Council.

Cook: "Under [UN Resolution] 1284, most humanitarian contracts will be handled by the UN Secretariat without reference to the Sanctions Committee."

Fact: On 27 January, the US State Department warned that, if the UN Secretariat tried to speed up humanitarian supplies, "95 per cent of all cases [will be placed] on hold".

Cook: The bombing of civilians by American and British aircraft is an "Iraqi line" that "fabricates claims of death and destruction".

Fact: The UN Security Section regularly reports on the bombing of civilians, using UN sources. In one five-month period, 41 per cent of all strikes resulted in civilian casualties. The targets included fishermen's wharves, villages and livestock. On 30 April last year, the UN reported: "Allied war planes carried out several sorties over Ninewa Governate. The jets fired four missiles at Bashiqa area . . . seven civilians were killed. A shepherd and six members of his family [and] 101 livestock. UN team visited on 2 May." This was personally verified by the chief UN humanitarian co- ordinator in Iraq.

Cook's reply was drafted by his officials, notably Jon Davies, who heads the Iraq desk and gives candid "off-the-record" briefings. Compare Cook's lauding of Resolution 1284, "a British initiative", with Davies's private assessment to a colleague of mine that it "changes nothing whatsoever". One truth for them, another for the public.

An especially shameful example of Foreign Office deceit and panic is a letter currently being sent to MPs and members of the public, signed by Peter Hain, the junior FO minister. It sets out to devalue the scale of suffering in Iraq by implying there are "serious doubts" about the Unicef report - when there are none. It also suggests that malnourished children are merely a showcase for foreigners: a smear that further diminishes Hain. The rest of his letter is largely falsehoods. It says the "no-fly zones" in which the bombings take place are "entirely lawful". In fact, they are a Washington invention, were never ratified by the UN and have no basis in international law.

Cook wrote that: "[Pilger] denied me the opportunity to reply in his recent television programme Paying the Price." Cook was offered a major interview with most of the questions supplied beforehand. For six weeks, his officials squirmed with embarrassment as he refused even to reply. They told us of his fear of "being in a film with dying babies" and of being "skewered" in a "taxing" interview. After two months of this, they came up with a "format" whereby Cook would have an exclusive screening of the film, then give an interview "as live", restricted to ten minutes, all of which we would have to use. It was an offer designed to be rejected by any self-respecting journalist. To MPs, he misrepresented his outrageous demand as a "right of reply" required by the broadcasting regulations - yet another falsehood. His behaviour is no more than a reflection of a cowardly policy that punishes tens of thousands of small children for the misconduct of a dictator.

[Sayf]

Asalamu Alaikum,

What a lovely post, but I don't see Hizb ut Tahrir going any where in the world, I mean 50+ years but where and what have they achived? They couldn't even defend the image of the Prophet (SAW) never mind their own members. What kind of Islamic Group is that?

Your favourite quote is "The Ummah is a shield" (something along those lines), but where was this shield when The Prophet (SAW) was being attacked? oh yeah if I remember correctly from MPACUK article you were "too busy", but before I get involved in your level of discussions (which will indeed waste my time), fight for Islam not for your own desires.

[UmmZakariya]

Also, my name is Qasim and not Khilafah for your information.

you and your ilk of HT supporters are all the same you want to weaken Islam and Muslims through non-action and are obsessed with debating not solving the problems of the Ummah I posted part of an article by Amir Ali. i am convinced by his arguments and the arguments of other scholars that agree political participation is acceptable and even necessary i can see the results orgs like MPACUK, CAIR and SPT have achieved alhamdulilah. In comparison obstructionist and exclusionist people like your self have achiieved nothing. I care to much about the Ummah to do nothing.

[Qasim]

Assalam,

Sister, I really think that hatred as made you completely blind. You are making comments that was not said by anyone or making assumption without any evidences. If you have a problem with someone who might be a member of HT you should resolve it outside this forum, as I think this would be a personnal issue. However, you cannot come and have hatred upon group (and actually all groups as you mentionned above) without proper research of what they stand for they method of implementation, etc. and even after that you should challenge their ideas with better arguments and advices base on evidences.

Reminder, My name is Qasim and neither Khilafah nor HT.

Hatred should not be the behavior of a Muslim. Even if someone disagree with you it should never be personnel but it should be a challenge to the thoughts and ideas that one put forward with evidences and not emotions.

It is narrated from al-Zubayr ibn al-'Awamm that Allah's Messenger said: "The disease of previous nations has crawled its way to you: envy and hatred. Hatred is the shearer (al-haliqa). It does not shear hair but it shears religion. By the One in Whose hand is Muhammad's soul! You shall never enter Paradise until you believe, and you shall never believe until you love one another. Shall I inform you of something which, if you do it, you shall love one another?" They said: "Yes, O Messenger of Allah!" He said: "Spread salaams among yourselves."

I remind you that every organisation are undertaking they action because of wanting to change the situation of the Ummah. Thus, you should consider that.

Regarding inaction, I think now that you are not reading any of my post or maybe you are just skipping through very quickly.

I have mentioned in my posts that we :

to be self-reliant and build up your community yourself

to speak and debate?


The better of our familly, the community, etc is on our shoulder.
The representation of Islam as a challenge against the current values of society is on our shoulder.

lobby MPs by calling, talking, debating with him

etc...read again my post and carefully.

NOWHERE, AT ANY TIME, HAVE I ASK TO BE exclusionist people

ob·struc·tion·ist Audio pronunciation of "obstructionist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-strksh-nst, b-)
n.

One who systematically blocks or interrupts a process, especially one who attempts to impede passage of legislation by the use of delaying tactics, such as a filibuster.

Actually regarding being obstructionist I think that this also an attribute of MPACUK and the rest. Thus, it does not make sense to say that a particular group is obstructionist as if any laws endanger a community or a person he will try everything to stop it or delay it.

One who systematically blocks or interrupts a process, especially one who attempts to impede passage of legislation by the use of delaying tactics,
Also, assuming that someone has not achieved anything is really a statement without any evidences. As you do not know what I am doing, how I am doing it, and where I am doing it. Thus, making such a statement is very strange and really belittle your credibility towards others.

I think that I could have never be able to make such statement about yourself as I do not know at all what actions you are undertaking. Thus, it is very strange and disapointing to hear such comments come from someone who does not have any clue of any of my actions...Remind you that subject of discussion is on voting for MPs...

So again, I advise you to be open minded in your argument and and not leaving hatred blur you judgement. As we are one ummah who advice each other and not hate each other.

Also, I advice you to read the book "WHO RUNS THIS PLACE?" by Anthony Sampson, ISBN:0-7195-6566-9 and to read the following part, and that is all. The main thing is to discuss as brothers and sisters and not has one who hate its Muslim fellow.

Wassalam
Qasim

Sister you definetly need to listen more objectively. This is not a competition of argument. You want to follow a set of opinion after the clear example from the sirah of the Prophet (SAW) and the well accepted fiqh principles of "Whatever leads to an Haram is itself Haram" (Knowing that most scholar as acknowledge that the action of voting for a non-islamic party is Haram - but their argument is that we do not have a choice and must choose the Best of the two Evil, as if Allah (SWT) establish only two possibilities and both are Haram). Moreover, where goes the well establish principles of "Whatever leads to an Haram is itself Haram"?

Or are we mocking Allah (SWT) by throwing behind our backs a principle that is well establish for another one which cannot be defined with certainty like Allah (SWT) said:

"Fighting is enjoined on you, and his an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know."

As an example of this the principile of the less of the two evil, Bush was elected over Clinton and what was the result? Afganistan, Iraq, etc...

It seems that the less of the two evil might have turned to be the worst of the two evil. And Allah (SWT) knows best...

[UmmZakariya]

Remind you that subject of discussion is on voting for MPs...

i believe that voting for MPs is acceptable and those that argue against it are marginalising and excluding the Ummah and inadvertantly helping anti-ISlamic forces i stand by my post about HT and their ilk. I advised you to read Paul Findlay.

[Sayf]

Asalamu Alaikum Qasim,

JazakAllah Khair for the Hadith, I would strongly advise you to teach this to your members and ex member's. You talk about talk and debate, well I say you sit on your arse and let me lobby my MP so yourfamily has a better education, a better place to live and a better Muslim Community :D.

Have a nice day dude :)

[abdulmojid]

astagfirrulah! m sarwar voted for same sex couples amd gambling! i'll have words with him when i see him next :angry:

[abdulmojid]

s.islam, you saying 'arse' a lot today aint ya?

[Qasim]

Assalam,

I would advise you to read more attentively. Moreover take this issue more seriously as there is nothing here amusing. It is a serious matter if you understand the international politics.

Lastely, I am not neither a member of HT nor an ex-member of HT, I thought that was clear from the past posts but I think for that ones needs to be able to read attentively.

Finally, a "Wassalam", in my opinion, is much better than "Have a nice day dude"

Wassalam,
Qasim

[Sayf]

s.islam, you saying 'arse' a lot today aint ya?
yeah sorry about that, but there are a few people who get their heads in there!!

[Sayf]

Assalam,

I would advise you to read more attentively. Moreover take this issue more seriously as there is nothing here amusing. It is a serious matter if you understand the international politics.

Lastely, I am not neither a member of HT nor an ex-member of HT, I thought that was clear from the past posts but I think for that ones needs to be able to read attentively.

Finally, a "Wassalam", in my opinion, is much better than "Have a nice day dude"

Wassalam,
Qasim

yes and I can say, in my opinion it is much better to say "Assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh" than just "Assalam" or even sometimes to practice what you preach http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?p=13721#post13721, but anyway, I ain't here to look at your faults and yes I agree we should give salaam but as its a forum I thought you would be replying to the post. :D have a nice night dude and wasalaam