[stoneeZef]

They were put into power by your same british masters. Your wahabism wouldn't have existed without your dajjal master. Really silly to potray every leader as a representative of traditionalists just because I dont follow your khawarij takfiri brigade standing at the doors of hell. The difference is that the "Wahabis" confronted the British stooge, King Abdul-Aziz while the anti-Salafi Sufis are totally silent on the treacheries of Sharif Hussein or the criminal Zionist Jordanian rulers or the "Maliki" rulers of Dubai. Why do the anti-Salafi Sufis hypocritically condemn the Saudi gov't for its treachery when they are totally silent on the treachery of the their own rulers? Why the brazen hypocrisy?

Bring the agreed upon fatwa of respected Sunni ulema representating the maliki madhab that puts takfir on ruler of Mali and validating armed jihad to replace him. If you can't then go vanish. I'm not talking about the leader of Mali, but the anti-Islamic Arab leaders, whom you made pathetic excuses for,

And there are plenty of respected Sunni scholars who put takfir on Ibn Taymiyya. Get a better example next time. And there are plenty of Sunni ulama who made takfeer of Ibn Arabi, yet many of your kind reject it and hundreds of ulama shared Ibn Taymiyyah's anti-Ash'arism and it is no wonder that your Habashi brothers were and still are stooges for the mujassimah Nusayris. Ibn Taymiyyah is a big kaafir and Hafez and Bashar al-Assad are great "Muslims".

[zlopikanikanzax]

The difference is that the "Wahabis" confronted the British stooge, King Abdul-Aziz while the anti-Salafi Sufis are totally silent on the treacheries of Sharif Hussein or the criminal Zionist Jordanian rulers or the "Maliki" rulers of Dubai. Why do the anti-Salafi Sufis hypocritically condemn the Saudi gov't for its treachery when they are totally silent on the treachery of the their own rulers? Why the brazen hypocrisy?

khawarij thrive on such takfiri confrontations with Muslims. Ahlus sunnah have their own methodology for dealing with issues.

I'm not talking about the leader of Mali, but the anti-Islamic Arab leaders, whom you made pathetic excuses for, Yea shift the goal posts. I made a general comment and no every single person. Anyone who thinks the king of UAE is a kafir is a jahil better off living in the depths of hell.

And there are plenty of Sunni ulama who made takfeer of Ibn Arabi, yet many of your kind reject it and hundreds of ulama shared Ibn Taymiyyah's anti-Ash'arism and it is no wonder that your Habashi brothers were and still are stooges for the mujassimah Nusayris. Ibn Taymiyyah is a big kaafir and Hafez and Bashar al-Assad are great "Muslims". Self projection much. Your takfir of Ibn Arabi is equivalent to habashis takfir of Ibn Taymiyya today. Your the tools of dajjal. Neither do you have a proper defense of the khawarij rebellion in Mali even your off topic comments are useless. So no more response from me.

[Anamehuskeene]

Anyone who thinks the king of UAE is a kafir is a jahil better off living in the depths of hell.

You pretty much exposed yourself with this behaviour of yours.

[Teeppoodiug]

khawarij thrive on such takfiri confrontations with Muslims. Ahlus sunnah have their own methodology for dealing with issues. Yes, the anti-Salafi Sufis love to flee when exposed for their brazen hypocrisy. Why do you the anti-Salafis Sufis hypocritically make takhween of the "Wahabis" when they are totally silent on their own treacherous leaders who also collaborated with the West. The "Wahabis" confronted the treachery of their rulers from the beginning and to this day there are dozens of Salafi shuyookh and thousands of Salafis in Saudi dungeons because they oppose the treachery and anti-Islamic actions of the Saudi gov't and hundreds of Salafi shuyookh who condemned the treachery of the Saudi gov't. How many of the same anti-Salafi Sufis who love to rant hypocritically about the "British" Wahabis spoke a single word about Sharif Hussein or the criminal Jordanian gov't which was established by the British or the "Maliki" rulers of Dubai? Why the brazen hypocrisy? They attack and use Albani's fatwa on Palestine in their anti-Salafi propaganda, yet they are silent on the actions of the Sufi Jordanian gov't which led to the loss of Palestine and whose king was boasting about being the only friend of the Zionists after the fall of Mubarak.

Yea shift the goal posts. I made a general comment and no every single person. Anyone who thinks the king of UAE is a kafir is a jahil better off living in the depths of hell. Don't tell me I shift the goal posts when you slithered away from the hypocrisy of making takhween of the Salafis when you and your anti-Salafi shuyookh are totally hypocritically on this position and you ridiculed in a different thread those who make takfeer of the Arab leaders. Look how fast your ilk make takfeer of Ibn Taymiyyah, yet you were making pathetic excuses for the anti-Islamic Arab leaders and the rulers of Dubai are also stooges for the West and the British, yet you don't attack them. How many contradictions can you fit into one post?! Maliki when praying but collaboating with the kuffar in Afghanistan like the rulers of Dubai and awarding the war criminal Tommy Franks a medal is "Maliki"?! And I didn't say that they were kuffar but traitors. Why aren't you attacking the treachery of the rulers of Dubai?

Self projection much. Your takfir of Ibn Arabi is equivalent to habashis takfir of Ibn Taymiyya today. Your the tools of dajjal. Neither do you have a proper defense of the khawarij rebellion in Mali even your off topic comments are useless. So no more response from me I'm not the one who made takfeer of Ibn Arabi and yes you are obligated by the Ahbash and their favouring of the mujassimah Nusayris over Ibn Taymiyyah and I'm not here to defend the "khawarij rebellion" in Mali

[tsamprasxx]

You pretty much exposed yourself with this behaviour of yours.

It would do you a great favour if you expose yourself to the hadiths on khawarij.

[myspacecoo]

It would do you a great favour if you expose yourself to the hadiths on khawarij. Your ilk are even worse than the Khawarij like your Habashi brothers who were stooges for the mujassimah Nusayris for more than 20 years in Lebanon and are still backing them with nary a single word uttered against their kufr. Ibn Taymiyyah is a big kaafir and Hafez and Bashar al-Assad are great "Muslims".

[Ornamiviant]

Warea is Habashi?

[nushentelve]

f

Warea is Habashi?

Ofcourse not. His ridiculous projection of habashis is his weapon to defend his khawarij friends. Yet his al qaeda friends were ones friends with the kaffir dajjal America and the only reason why they had the power they had. So by his own formula his attacks falls upon himself. Not to forget there are no wahabis in Syria. His attempt to associate his khawarij brigade with them is futile too. We have seen how salafis reacted in Egypt. Two faced farce.

[infarrelisam]

Why do you hate these people so much? All they are doing is implementing the Sharia (which is fard) and jihad (which is also fard)? And you call them khwaarij, but you do realise that khwaarij considered Muslims to have left the faith for committing sin, whereas these people do not believe so?

[CicyHannyCeli]

Why do you hate these people so much? All they are doing is implementing the Sharia (which is fard) and jihad (which is also fard)? And you call them khwaarij, but you do realise that khwaarij considered Muslims to have left the faith for committing sin, whereas these people do not believe so?

Because they have no authority. They are fools. They make takfir of Muslims. And their calls for jihad is batil. They'll do everything to eliminate Sunnis and replace it with the salafi cult creed of theirs just like we see them do whereever wahabis gained power. The early khawarij were more strict in their call for jihad and shariah and religious actions compared to their wahabi children. It didn't stop the sahabah from waging war against them.

[unishisse]

Because they have no authority. They are fools. They make takfir of Muslims. And their calls for jihad is batil. They'll do everything to eliminate Sunnis and replace it with the salafi cult creed of theirs just like we see them do whereever wahabis gained power. The early khawarij were more strict in their call for jihad and shariah and religious actions compared to their wahabi children. It didn't stop the sahabah from waging war against them.

1. Why is their jihad baatil when all they are doing is fulfilling a fard?
2. Which Muslims do they make takfeer of?

[denSmumbSes]

Ofcourse not. His ridiculous projection of habashis is his weapon to defend his khawarij friends. I didn't say that the jihadi groups were infallible or that they didn't have serious errors, but you hate all Salafis and are using this issue as a red herring and yes you are obligated by the brazen hypocrisies of the Ahbash and others of your ilk like your shuyookh who congratulated the Nasara with "Merry Christmas" addressing the Christians leaders with their honorifics. So congratulating the Nasara on their day of kufr addressing them with honorifics like your "holiness" and rushing to make tafseeq and takfeer of Ibn Taymiyyah is acceptable for the anti-Salafi Ash'aris and Sufis? What kind of principles are these?!

"Yet his al qaeda friends were ones friends with the kaffir dajjal America and the only reason why they had the power they had. They didn't exist back then and taking support from a kaafir(America) to fight another kaafir(the Soviets and their Afghan stooges) is permissible and you cowardly refused to answer why you make takhween of all Salafis when you and your anti-Salafi shuyookh are totally silent on your own treacherous Sufi leaders.

So by his own formula his attacks falls upon himself. Only in your delusional mind. The Salafis confronted their traitors, how many anti-Salafi Sufis who love to rant hypocritically about the treachery of the Saudis confronted their Sufi leaders' treachery.

Not to forget there are no wahabis in Syria. There are lots of Salafis in Syria and even Ash'ari and Sufi shuyookh like Sabuni and Yacoubi are collaborating with the Salafis in the fight against Bashar.

His attempt to associate his khawarij brigade with them is futile too. We have seen how salafis reacted in Egypt. Two faced farce.

[xsVfF9Em]

1. Why is their jihad baatil when all they are doing is fulfilling a fard?
2. Which Muslims do they make takfeer of?

Cause it is batil. Get a fatwa from respected Sunni scholars validating their actions. It would be a "fard" based on how they project it as part of their propoganda. The khawarij called Muslims as kaffirs for ruling by other than what Allah revealed and called Muslims as oppressors for not forbidding evil. By using Quranic verses ofcourse. So by the standards of the khawarij, the jihad was valid as they were merely fighting against kaffirs and oppressors. But obviously tthe whole allegation itself was wrong in the first place based on ignorance of the shariah. "A word of truth intending evil" is how they campaign throughout history . They make Takfir of everyone with the 100 or more splinter groups choosing their own personal takfir target aas bogey. But they are opportunists and they would make open their takfir when they find good opportunity. The khawarij of the past too stepped away from declaring takfir when they were not in a good position to declare it. But soon they get some power you'll see the true face.

[Pheboasmabs]

As expected. Dajjal succeeds once again in using his tools to turn Muslims against Islam:
http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi...7/reportage-01

[RlUbQU3R]

Please read this recent news:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84407Z20120505

[Dyslermergerb]

Brother Zahed,

You are citing Reuters- do you have any authentic Muslim sources?
Reuters IS like the Associated Press- in fact, one can say the entire english language journalism/media industry is prejudiced against Islam. They select reporters, journalists, editors, columnists, who will perpetuate their prejudices. Hence, one can find sensationalized stories often from questionable sources regarding Muslim lands, but little to NO reporting of actual important developments of any kind.
"Who cares if the Saudis are going to build a bridge connecting Arabia with Egypt, connecting millions of people, opening trade and commerce, easing travel problems- let's hear about false necrophilia rumors and report them like fact".

And it doesn't matter if the name of the Reuters' reporter is Arab or Muslim- they might even prefer it. Rather, they want sensationalized stories. And quite frankly, there are many indications that 'reporters' make up stories and fabricate sources, especially if they are in the far reaches, like Timbuktu. One of the biggest left wing, liberal commentators from Britain who commented on Muslim affairs and the Gulf who cried about massive slavery here, who had an international following (perhaps millions read his columns) was caught fabricating quotes and twisting the words of sources to suit his agenda.
Here are some famous names: Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Johan Hari- all prominent reporters with millions of readers- all liars and frauds.

There have been prominent American 'reporters' as well caught totally fabricating stories, especially those from far away sources.

Quite frankly, Reuters, AP, AFP (French media source), UPI, etc. are all uncredible regarding Muslim affairs. And of course CNN, BBC, et al are with them. Articles on Muslim affairs need to be authenticated by devout Muslim sources. Especially when the issue comes to highly controversial highly volatile political events like implementing Shariah.

And take in mind, America has openly and brazenly stated that they use 'reporters' for government intel/ops cover- hence, it is quite reasonable to assume that an AP reporter in the Sahel could also be a CIA operative and he instills psych ops bullet points into his articles on 'Shariah in Mali'.

It's not even a conspiracy- its an occupational reality- journalists who some sense of fairness and professional integrity realize that they could be targetted as a spy because America and others (Israelis, Chinese? Russians) use the media for their psy ch ops.


As for what ulama say about whichever groups in Mali: why don't some prominent ulama go visit these groups and the Taureg like they visit the White House and Western elites? They can offer advice on how to implement Shariah. I recall some ulama approached the Taliban when they destroyed those buddhist statues. If a prominent alim can travel to Dubai and enjoy a 5 star hotel conference, can he also travel to Timbuktu in the desert and advice these brothers how to implement Shariah?

[bs44MhUW]

Shaykh, I'm completely innocent regarding Reuters' news. I took it as a good work done by Mali's "Islamists". So, I posted to glorify their effort of destroying Shirk.

[boffincash]

Shaykh Usama, what do you say about Robert Fisk? His articles seem to be free from corruption (to me).

[Chubrehege]

Shaykh, I'm completely innocent regarding Reuters' news. I took it as a good work done by Mali's "Islamists". So, I posted to glorify their effort of destroying Shirk.

So you too believe Mali Muslims were mushriks ? The so called jihad is to destroy shirk being committed by the Mali muslims ?

[AlexBrith]

So you too believe Mali Muslims were mushriks ? The so called jihad is to destroy shirk being committed by the Mali muslims ?

Nope. I'm not takfiri. Please read the news that I've posted.