DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - The moment a missile hits the minaret of a Masjid.

**GalasaKoll** · 07-04-2012, 07:43 PM

1) Sorry not sure what that brought to the discussion

2) We dont know the situation on the ground and the western media will always portray islamic groups in a poor light, giving totally made up interviews to show how much they are hated. Sometimes groups who are much loved by the people who rule by the shariah are vilified by the west because of an anti islam agenda to prevent teh establishment of shariah. So Allahu a'lam. I agree that they shoudl be aductaed and I hope inshAllah that this will happen, its from the salafi methodology to educate people in tawheed, in fact thats the core aspect of salafi dawah

3) baab mughalqun inshAllah

4) Respect the opinion of those in authority inshAllah. They hod the opinion that they must level graves because of the hadeeth and athaar I have proivded which do seem to strongly indiciate taht we must level graves. If they are following a valid opinion why shoudl we oppose it simply because we dont like "wahhabis"?

5) The state must implement shariah law. They must use force when teh shariah dictates and not use force when teh shriah doenst dictate. If you folow this, tehre is no conceivable way that you are oppressive because you are following Allahs law. Oppression is to do what Allah hasnt commanded, and he did order us to smash graves. So this is not "militant" or "oppressive". They are now the legitimate rulers of northern mali and as such must be obeyed by the citzens. As for using hikmah, may Allah help them in that inshAllah. But if they slip up, may Allah forgive them. At least they are trying to rule by Islam. Why is it that we have more to say about those who rule by Islam than we do about secularists and apostates?

1) What it means is that: if the Salafi is not willing to negotiate with the Sufi, then he is also misguided. Because guidance requires ilm, and ilm is achieved through education, and education can only be done when both parties are face-to-face. When only one party think he knows everything, then he is ignorant because he doesn't know what the other party has to say. And this applies to both sides.

2) I like to weigh both sides, and accordingly i like to scrutinize both sides. I wont "suck up" to Ansar Dine's portrait just as i wont suck up to the Western media's portrait of the situation. Most salafists however, are eager to eat up everything their favourite J!hadi group says, or whatever's the official line of Al-Fajr or GIMF.

4) Sure, people will always continue to "Respect the opinion of those in authority". They do it in pakistan, saudi, iran, and everywhere we have so-called "islamic states". We however, do J!had against them and their stooges, and this is because of their transgressions.

5) See all of the above.... And, we're not trying to scrutinize Islamic groups because we consider ourselves perfectionists, rather it is the perfectionists who scrutinize everyone else. We condemn the kuffar, but we also condemn the extremists; because from my experience, the extremists only force people to join the kuffar.

Timbuktu is not Ansar Dine's playground. It is an ancient location which attracts scholars from all around the Muslim world. If they did not break these tombs, then why should Ansar? And if it is necessary to do so, then it cannot be done without consulting the scholars first. If you know that the Western media (even though AlJazreera isnt western) is defamatory, then why would they refrain from blaming the scholars who apparently supported this as well?

07-04-2012, 07:43 PM	#19
GalasaKoll Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 441 Senior Member	1) Sorry not sure what that brought to the discussion 2) We dont know the situation on the ground and the western media will always portray islamic groups in a poor light, giving totally made up interviews to show how much they are hated. Sometimes groups who are much loved by the people who rule by the shariah are vilified by the west because of an anti islam agenda to prevent teh establishment of shariah. So Allahu a'lam. I agree that they shoudl be aductaed and I hope inshAllah that this will happen, its from the salafi methodology to educate people in tawheed, in fact thats the core aspect of salafi dawah 3) baab mughalqun inshAllah 4) Respect the opinion of those in authority inshAllah. They hod the opinion that they must level graves because of the hadeeth and athaar I have proivded which do seem to strongly indiciate taht we must level graves. If they are following a valid opinion why shoudl we oppose it simply because we dont like "wahhabis"? 5) The state must implement shariah law. They must use force when teh shariah dictates and not use force when teh shriah doenst dictate. If you folow this, tehre is no conceivable way that you are oppressive because you are following Allahs law. Oppression is to do what Allah hasnt commanded, and he did order us to smash graves. So this is not "militant" or "oppressive". They are now the legitimate rulers of northern mali and as such must be obeyed by the citzens. As for using hikmah, may Allah help them in that inshAllah. But if they slip up, may Allah forgive them. At least they are trying to rule by Islam. Why is it that we have more to say about those who rule by Islam than we do about secularists and apostates? 1) What it means is that: if the Salafi is not willing to negotiate with the Sufi, then he is also misguided. Because guidance requires ilm, and ilm is achieved through education, and education can only be done when both parties are face-to-face. When only one party think he knows everything, then he is ignorant because he doesn't know what the other party has to say. And this applies to both sides. 2) I like to weigh both sides, and accordingly i like to scrutinize both sides. I wont "suck up" to Ansar Dine's portrait just as i wont suck up to the Western media's portrait of the situation. Most salafists however, are eager to eat up everything their favourite J!hadi group says, or whatever's the official line of Al-Fajr or GIMF. 4) Sure, people will always continue to "Respect the opinion of those in authority". They do it in pakistan, saudi, iran, and everywhere we have so-called "islamic states". We however, do J!had against them and their stooges, and this is because of their transgressions. 5) See all of the above.... And, we're not trying to scrutinize Islamic groups because we consider ourselves perfectionists, rather it is the perfectionists who scrutinize everyone else. We condemn the kuffar, but we also condemn the extremists; because from my experience, the extremists only force people to join the kuffar. Timbuktu is not Ansar Dine's playground. It is an ancient location which attracts scholars from all around the Muslim world. If they did not break these tombs, then why should Ansar? And if it is necessary to do so, then it cannot be done without consulting the scholars first. If you know that the Western media (even though AlJazreera isnt western) is defamatory, then why would they refrain from blaming the scholars who apparently supported this as well?
	Quote