| Reply to Thread New Thread |
02-06-2012, 01:54 PM
|
#21 |
|
|
 It is arguably one of the most critical and pivotal issues facing the Muslim Ummah: the legitimacy of the Muslim governments. And mufti Desai is not alone in his opinion, in the sense that he originated it. Rather, many fuqaha have preceded him on it. I presented the adillah for it, which are all sahih. The issue of contention which fuqaha disagree on is the interpretation of this particular meaning. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The best among your rulers are those whom you love and they love you in turn, those who pray (make supplication) for you and you pray for them. The worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and they hate you in turn, and you curse them and they curse you.” Someone asked: “O Messenger of Allah! Shall we confront them with swords?” The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “No, as long as they hold prayers among you. If you see from your rulers what you hate, hate the action they do but do not rebel against them.” [Sahîh Muslim] Many fuqaha interpret this to mean that as long as salah is established by the ruler and his regime: both meaning regime members pray and maintain masajid with regular salaat, then the regime fulfills the meaning of the text and is legitimate, even if it implements kufr rules in other matters. And they have some more texts to support their interpretation. As a result, many regimes have made rulers praying in Ramadan in particular a showcase of public relations, with TV cameras and so on filming so and so praying behind an imam. Other fuqaha interpret this particular text to mean "establishing prayers", or establishing iqaamatul salaat, to mean establishing the entire Deen of Islam, as salah being an indispensible segment of the greater whole, (called "meronymy" in english such that the saying "don't touch a hair on his head" means don't touch any part of him, NOT just don't touch his hair'). This is supported by the other sahih text which addresses the same issue, such as: Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Junada b. abi Umayyah who said: We went to ‘Ubadah b. as-Samit when he was sick and we said: May Allah (swt) guide you. Inform us of a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah (saw) so Allah may benefit you from it. He said, the Messenger of Allah (saw) called upon us and we gave him the Bai’ah, and he said, of that which he had taken from us, that we should give him the pledge to listen and obey, in what we like and dislike, in our hardship and ease, and that we should not dispute the authority of its people unless we saw open Kufr (kufr buwah) upon which we had a proof (burhan) from Allah. The hadith was reported by At-Tabarani as “kufran Surahan (open kufr)”, and as “unless the disobedience of Allah is bawahan”. It was also reported by Ahmad as “unless they order you of ithmin bawahan (open sin)”. In this instance, " establish prayers" and "open disbelief" have similar meaning, and both texts address the same specific topic. If the Muslim government demostrates "kufr buwah" or "kufr surahan" or "ithmin bawahan", then the regime's authority is illegitimate. In addition, it is known during the era of the sahaba, of the Prophet (saaw) himself, that a land once ruled by Islam can descend into a status of disbelief while the people are still Muslims. In a narration of Al-Tirmithi, it was reported on the authority of Ibnu Isam Al-Muzani, on that of his father, who had accompanied the Messenger of Allah (saw); he said: “Whenever the Messenger of Allah (saw) dispatched a task force or an expedition, he used to say to them: “If you see a mosque, or if you hear a Muath’thin, do not kill anyone.” Thus, the authority of such a land was in question even if the people are actually Muslims. As well, sahaba joined the army of Muawiyah against the khilafah of Ali (  ) to confront the legitimacy of the government over the appearance of open sin- ie. lack of prosecution of the murder of Uthman ( ). This act showed sahaba taking arms against a ruler who they knew prayed and established prayers alone, but from their viewpoint (which was later corrected) failed to oppose munkar/ allowed for open sin. Since then, Qadi Iyad al Yahsubi and shaykh Ibn Taymiyah (rhm) recognized the possibility of a ruler who was a practicing, praying Muslim, leading a government according to "open kufr", for which rebellion is allowed. Their interpretation of these texts are known. And Allah knows best. |
|
|
02-06-2012, 07:24 PM
|
#22 |
|
|
Answer 11034 March 22, 2004
The governments of the Muslim countries are legitimate. If they do not rule by Shari?ah law, they are sinful but that does not take them out of the fold of Islam. and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best Mufti Ebrahim Desai ^What about other scholars do they share this opinion? |
|
|
|
02-06-2012, 08:57 PM
|
#23 |
|
|
Answer 11034 March 22, 2004  And also, if ruling by other than Sharia does not make them kuffar, then what about those who fight the Muslims while siding with kuffar? And tbh, a lot of these rulers must be kuffar for other reasons (like Ghadaffi was a kafir for trying to change Al Quran, even if he wasn't a kafir for not ruling by Sharia) 
|
|
|
|
02-06-2012, 09:08 PM
|
#24 |
|
|
br Usama, someone who believes all the rulers today are apostates isnt going to differ with you on your daleel. the difference is the ayah that says not to take yahood and nasaara as friends. theyll say all these ahkaamaat and hadith you mentioned are for a faasiq ruler, hence the use of salah in the tirmizi hadeeth, salah is only for believers therefore a believing ruler who is faasiq. furthermore, ibn Zubair and Hussein RA were martyred because they rebelled against a leader, so theres a limit somewhere. now if your imprisoning muslims on the basis of 'terrorism' because america tells you these are your enemies then has such a person allied with america?? pre 9-11 these dudes were living it large and now because america says these same people are our enemy, shall we accept?? where do we place a borderline of relationship with the west?? just to add iv heard alot of these debates in pakistan amongst ulema and 1 aalim said when 'the students' rebelled against an oppressive regime they are freedom fighters who lead the muslim world, but when a somali or a yemeni or waziristani does it hes a fitnah monger. wallahu alam
|
|
|
|
02-06-2012, 09:09 PM
|
#25 |
|
|
Most on this forum are not scholars. What are those esposuing their views on this issue actually going to practically do about such regimes? Nothing, I guess. So, why waste time discussing it? A lot of threads on this forum are of no benefit, yet they have the most hits. Salafi bashing, Barelwi bashing and even making snide comments about Tabligh Jamat. Now that indirect questioning of Mufti Ebrahim Desai has started (I assume by a non-scholar), I await indirect criticism of Mufti Taqi Uthmani by the lay people on this forum.
|
|
|
|
02-06-2012, 09:51 PM
|
#26 |
|
|
Most on this forum are not scholars. What are those esposuing their views on this issue actually going to practically do about such regimes? Nothing, I guess. So, why waste time discussing it? A lot of threads on this forum are of no benefit, yet they have the most hits. Salafi bashing, Barelwi bashing and even making snide comments about Tabligh Jamat. Now that indirect questioning of Mufti Ebrahim Desai has started (I assume by a non-scholar), I await indirect criticism of Mufti Taqi Uthmani by the lay people on this forum. 
|
|
|
|
02-06-2012, 09:58 PM
|
#27 |
|
|
True. I made a thread as a reminder to make Dua for oppressed people, Only one member replied. This shows how sincere these 'critics' are. the same with the durood thread. each time i see it i send durood to the Prophet  . just because i havent posted in it does not mean that i do not send salutations each time i see it.this is probably the same with other members as well. |
|
|
|
02-06-2012, 10:04 PM
|
#28 |
|
|
when i saw the thread i immediately made dua for the oppressed and the mujahideen. just because i did not make a post in the thread does not mean i did not make dua. for pointing out. But I think there are too much anti-xyz threads in here. Ofcourse the people should be warned, I personally have benefited a lot from warning here. But I m starting to feel like we are crossing the line. |
|
|
|
02-07-2012, 04:39 AM
|
#29 |
|
|
1 the shaikhs fatwa is specifically regarding those rules who arent ruling by shariah. its possible that some rulers are kafir for other reasons. Ghaddafi and assad are examples of this 2 the muslim lands are under extreme pressure to be seen to be doing something to benefit the wests mission so we must take this into account when assessing any country. Some countries behave like they hate islam, while others behave like they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Examples of the first are syria, uzbekistan and other central asian states, azerbaijan etc. Examples of the second type are turkey, saudi+khaleej, malaysia, indonesia, new north african states (from what we've seen so far) etc. I propose we leave those which are in the second category and make husnal dhann that they are trying their best inshallah and make dua for them and focus our efforts on the first category, the clearly pure evil states that wish to remove islam from their countries and ruin the people and rain destruction on them |
|
|
|
02-07-2012, 04:45 AM
|
#30 |
|
|
I propose we leave those which are in the second category and make husnal dhann that they are trying their best inshallah and make dua for them and focus our efforts on the first category, the clearly pure evil states that wish to remove islam from their countries and ruin the people and rain destruction on them so how far are the ones in the second category allowed to go? are they allowed to imprison, torture, kill innocent muslims? where do they draw the line? |
|
|
| Reply to Thread New Thread |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
Linear Mode
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
