[Vzkdgdqx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TeJWWuCs0g

Soon later, he was forced out of a Masjid by protestors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGrUUqqxbgA&feature=related

Ironically, he once also said that the protestors "dont even pray".. and in this video, it shows Bashar Al Assad and his ministers praying behind him Salat Al Eid. The video explains itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D34oXbfWtTQ

[Vzkdgdqx]

Appearantly, Al-Bouti sees that in protestors, but doesnt see the type of people that support Al Assad.

One of his supporters flat out says "We in Syria worship Bashar before Allah!" .. calling protestors are "Salafee and Ikhwani" gangs, while the other praises Hasan NasrAllah!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lCauHsiLYUI

[flower-buy]

I posted this somewhere else, and i will again pose the question here, that is bashar asaad even a muslim? cuz apparently he is a nusayri(Alawi Shia) who attribute divine qualities to Allah, So can someone clear this out, that is he even within Islam, or is he just from Ahlulbidah?

[Vzkdgdqx]

I posted this somewhere else, and i will again pose the question here, that is bashar asaad even a muslim? cuz apparently he is a nusayri(Alawi Shia) who attribute divine qualities to Allah, So can someone clear this out, that is he even within Islam, or is he just from Ahlulbidah?

Not only is he a Nusairi, but the regime is a Ba'thi regime (claiming to be Arab nationalists but closer to Iran with no good ties with any Arab nation), and when his father and his brother Maher commited the massacre in Hama, killing tens of thousands, writings were there on the walls "No God but Al-Watan (the nation), and no prophet but Al Ba'th).

Also, look at what the guy is saying in the second post. Saying you worship Bashar is certainly kufr. Its not uncommon to see Alawis making sujood to his pictures even. This is why he has no support from sheikhs, except Al Bouti and Hasoun (Syrias mufti), both sufis but the latter is practically shia although a Naqshbandi sufi. It is said that hes a graduate of Arabic (language) studies even.

That said Sheikh al Islam Ibn Taymia clearly stated in the strongest terms that Alawis are qaramita baatinees that are not Muslim. Rather he said they are farther from Islam than Jews and Christians and even the "Brahmees" of India. And he said that they show on the outside love for Ahl Al Bait (Shiasm) but dont even believe in Allah or his prophets or heaven and hell or Quran etc. (No wonder they pull nails off childrens fingers!) He said much more about them and added that they have killed a countless number of sheikhs, and stole the black stone from Makkah once! He also said that they were always with enemies of Islam at the time against the Muslims in times of war, and that they considered the Muslim victory over invading Tatars a catastrophe.

Also, shiekh Ibn Baz rahimahu Allah did say that the Alawees of Syria are kuffar and not Muslim.

Shiekh AL Luhaidan said something similar and mentioned "the president" in the context of takfeer. Adding that they are Fatimees.

So when seeing what the guy in the second video says, and their practices of making sujood to Bashars pictures during demonstrations, it makes sense.

[YTmWSOA5]

^

Not to get into an argument, but when Hafiz al-Asad died, the royal palace in Saudi Arabia extended their condolences on his death, and Qur'an was recited just as if he were a Muslim who had died. In the case of al-Buti perhaps (I am not saying it is the case but maybe) there is some extreme pressure being put forth on him to support the regime. But what about the palaces of other countries, are they under the same excruciating pressure that Shaykhs inside Syria may be in?

Also, most of the Muslim countries nowadays are in the same situation one way or the other, so can we really say anything against the Shuyukh who reside in such countries and criticize them for not trying to overthrow the government? After all, if the main Shuyukh spoke out about the reality of how things should be (a Muslim land knowing no "internationally recognized boundaries" that should rule totally according to the Shariah in every single matter), they would be eliminated and replaced by other Shaykhs who would say different things.

So from what I see, we Muslims now are in a position similar to that of the early Makkan period, where professing Islam as it should be professed could get one killed. We do not know whether those holding objectionable positions are doing it from their heart or whether they are doing it to avert certain death, and the least we can do is to investigate the matter properly.

[Vzkdgdqx]

^

Not to get into an argument, but when Hafiz al-Asad died, the royal palace in Saudi Arabia extended their condolences on his death, and Qur'an was recited just as if he were a Muslim who had died. In the case of al-Buti perhaps (I am not saying it is the case but maybe) there is some extreme pressure being put forth on him to support the regime. But what about the palaces of other countries, are they under the same excruciating pressure that Shaykhs inside Syria may be in?

Also, most of the Muslim countries nowadays are in the same situation one way or the other, so can we really say anything against the Shuyukh who reside in such countries and criticize them for not trying to overthrow the government? After all, if the main Shuyukh spoke out about the reality of how things should be (a Muslim land knowing no "internationally recognized boundaries" that should rule totally according to the Shariah in every single matter), they would be eliminated and replaced by other Shaykhs who would say different things.

So from what I see, we Muslims now are in a position similar to that of the early Makkan period, where professing Islam as it should be professed could get one killed. We do not know whether those holding objectionable positions are doing it from their heart or whether they are doing it to avert certain death, and the least we can do is to investigate the matter properly.

The two cant be compared. Assads regime is one of the most ruthless is recent history. Ten times worse than Saddam. Before all this happenned, if you went to Syria you'd notice the intense fear in the atmosphere. It is a mafia that doesnt hesitate to torture children, pull their nails off, mutilate them, commit massacres, and insult Muslims (like writing "No God but the nation, and no prophet but Al Ba'th" on the walls of Hama after the massacre of Hafidh al Asad). All this is systematic, not cases here and there.

Theres so many angles but I dont think its worth mentiioning them, since anyone with the desire to know the truth so much info is readily available.

Al Bouti could have just shut up. He didnt. Other shiekhs either joined protestors, or remained silent, or fled to Turkey to join the opposition. None passionatly called protestors scum like al Bouti did.

[lXwVlTgO]

The two cant be compared. Assads regime is one of the most ruthless is recent history. Ten times worse than Saddam. Before all this happenned, if you went to Syria you'd notice the intense fear in the atmosphere. It is a mafia that doesnt hesitate to torture children, pull their nails off, mutilate them, commit massacres, and insult Muslims (like writing "No God but the nation, and no prophet but Al Ba'th" on the walls of Hama after the massacre of Hafidh al Asad). All this is systematic, not cases here and there.

Theres so many angles but I dont think its worth mentiioning them, since anyone with the desire to know the truth so much info is readily available.

Al Bouti could have just shut up. He didnt. Other shiekhs either joined protestors, or remained silent, or fled to Turkey to join the opposition. None passionatly called protestors scum like al Bouti did.

So if the regime is ruthless, does that a reason for the Sheikh to do what he did? I mean he might not be afraid of the regime, but what if the regime blackmailed his family, or other people that related to him? It's easy for us to say... what if his intention is for that the awwam to be safe is better than die?

If all ulama fled the country and no good Ulama in the country, it is easier for the regime to control the masses. That's how the British and Dutch did to us. They sent all of our Ulama away from our country so that they can control us with little opposition.

Wallahu a'lam

[esconsise]

The two cant be compared. Assads regime is one of the most ruthless is recent history. Ten times worse than Saddam. Before all this happenned, if you went to Syria you'd notice the intense fear in the atmosphere. It is a mafia that doesnt hesitate to torture children, pull their nails off, mutilate them, commit massacres, and insult Muslims (like writing "No God but the nation, and no prophet but Al Ba'th" on the walls of Hama after the massacre of Hafidh al Asad). All this is systematic, not cases here and there.

Theres so many angles but I dont think its worth mentiioning them, since anyone with the desire to know the truth so much info is readily available.

Al Bouti could have just shut up. He didnt. Other shiekhs either joined protestors, or remained silent, or fled to Turkey to join the opposition. None passionatly called protestors scum like al Bouti did.

erm...,this mal3oon is no different to the saudi mala3een.sadly,these thalimeen are being supported by those we regard as ulema.the only civilised regimes in the middle-east are the jordanian monarchy and the harriris(if i'm not mistaken).I would rether pledge my support to liberals who treat ppl better.

was salam

[wp6Eg2Fm]

So if the regime is ruthless, does that a reason for the Sheikh to do what he did? I mean he might not be afraid of the regime, but what if the regime blackmailed his family, or other people that related to him? It's easy for us to say... what if his intention is for that the awwam to be safe is better than die?

If all ulama fled the country and no good Ulama in the country, it is easier for the regime to control the masses. That's how the British and Dutch did to us. They sent all of our Ulama away from our country so that they can control us with little opposition.

Wallahu a'lam

Masha alah, this is how i also feel. Nothing is as clear as black and white in this situations. It just does not make sense that a man authors books on the most technical and intrinsic topics of Islam and is admired and respected for that by great Ulama, then he goes and do something so stupid that even a normal layman can see the kufr in it.

[Vzkdgdqx]

erm...,this mal3oon is no different to the saudi mala3een.sadly,these thalimeen are being supported by those we regard as ulema.the only civilised regimes in the middle-east are the jordanian monarchy and the harriris(if i'm not mistaken).I would rether pledge my support to liberals who treat ppl better.

was salam

No difference between Alawis who mass murder Muslims, insult their religion, force people to make sujood to their president, kill and torture children and kill tens of thousands of people, and others governments? some which actually support Islam even if you may disagree with some of their policies? Interesting. I have no comment on that.

With regard to "liberals", Bin Ali of Tunis was also a "liberal" and very secular but he was a tyrant who harassed anyone who prayed. Syrias regime is very secular too, so was Saddams. Its ironic that the most ruthless were the most secular and "liberal".

[Vzkdgdqx]

Masha alah, this is how i also feel. Nothing is as clear as black and white in this situations. It just does not make sense that a man authors books on the most technical and intrinsic topics of Islam and is admired and respected for that by great Ulama, then he goes and do something so stupid that even a normal layman can see the kufr in it.

Id love to say that and say hey maybe a family member of his was kidnapped or something. However

1-Protestors did get killed and gave their lives. 50 or so are randomly killed daily as if they were insects, by snipers on roofs. Many did get jailed and tortured. But they didnt stop. A scholar shouldnt be less than them in sacrafice. This is assuming that a family member etc was kidnapped etc and he feared for them which I seriously doubt.

2-Lets say he couldnt stay silent for similar reasons and had to say something out of fear. From the beginning, he spoke with passion against the people in the most aweful condecending ways. It wasnt the way a "forced" person would talk at all. His standing was very strong. Hed say "protestors dont even pray", calling them scum, saying the fall of the Syrian government means asking for the fall of Islam and absurd things like that.

3- He isnt the Mufti of Syria (who is practically a clown with a degree in Arabic language studies, promoting shia beliefs and anything the government says.), or a major official, but only an individual if im not mistaken.

4- He probably could have stayed silent at least. Or fled to help the opposition organize political pressure against Assad, since thats what is needed now.

Id like to "find a way out" for him (although I disagree with him on many issues, but hes still Muslim), but unfortunatly, I cant think of any. Sheikh Yousef Al Qaradawi, Shiekh Adnan Arour, and many figured spoke about it and saddenned by his position. Sheikh Adnan Arour on TV would ask callers "not to mention names" in reference to Al Bouti, hoping hed find an excuse for him. In the end, he didnt.

Its sad. He knows hes defending Alawi batinees who promote literal worship of Bashar. They make sujood to his pictures on the streets (as in the video below) and openly say on TV that "worshipping Bashar comes before Allah"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f8M3rxK8Xw

[wp6Eg2Fm]

Id love to say that and say hey maybe a family member of his was kidnapped or something. However

1-Protestors did get killed and gave their lives. 50 or so are randomly killed daily as if they were insects, by snipers on roofs. Many did get jailed and tortured. But they didnt stop. A scholar shouldnt be less than them in sacrafice. This is assuming that a family member etc was kidnapped etc and he feared for them which I seriously doubt.

2-Lets say he couldnt stay silent for similar reasons and had to say something out of fear. From the beginning, he spoke with passion against the people in the most aweful condecending ways. It wasnt the way a "forced" person would talk at all. His standing was very strong. Hed say "protestors dont even pray", calling them scum, saying the fall of the Syrian government means asking for the fall of Islam and absurd things like that.

3- He isnt the Mufti of Syria (who is practically a clown with a degree in Arabic language studies, promoting shia beliefs and anything the government says.), or a major official, but only an individual if im not mistaken.

4- He probably could have stayed silent at least. Or fled to help the opposition organize political pressure against Assad, since thats what is needed now.

Id like to "find a way out" for him (although I disagree with him on many issues, but hes still Muslim), but unfortunatly, I cant think of any. Sheikh Yousef Al Qaradawi, Shiekh Adnan Arour, and many figured spoke about it and saddenned by his position. Sheikh Adnan Arour on TV would ask callers "not to mention names" in reference to Al Bouti, hoping hed find an excuse for him. In the end, he didnt.

Its sad. He knows hes defending Alawi batinees who promote literal worship of Bashar. They make sujood to his pictures on the streets (as in the video below) and openly say on TV that "worshipping Bashar comes before Allah"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f8M3rxK8Xw

I dont think u are being completely honest (i hope im wrong). U say he is muslim but u are trying to tell us that there is no other interpetation for him making all those kufr statements. If u are correct in your accusations how can he than be muslim.

[esconsise]

;salam:

No difference between Alawis who mass murder Muslims, insult their religion, force people to make sujood to their president, kill and torture children and kill tens of thousands of people, and others governments? some which actually support Islam even if you may disagree with some of their policies? Interesting. I have no comment on that.

With regard to "liberals", Bin Ali of Tunis was also a "liberal" and very secular but he was a tyrant who harassed anyone who prayed. Syrias regime is very secular too, so was Saddams. Its ironic that the most ruthless were the most secular and "liberal".

i could care less about what u say.i don't worship aali saud.they are on the exact level as this sub-animal if not a few levels lower.if u promote aali sauds religion than i wonder what is the difference between u n those that promote aali assads religion.

did i say i love liberals e.tc.? u just posted some random hogwash and i don't want to waste my time responding to what you said,suffice to say that I said I would rather pledge support to liberals who treat ppl better i.e. as humans with dignity in specific reference to the hariris and saad hariri than ppl who outwardly adopt a holy image but r sub-animal tyrants.

was salaam