DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**yespkorg** · 12-27-2011, 05:58 PM

Your missing the point. Its not twelvers accepting their beliefs but on the contrary the alawis diluting their own belief so they they could come in agreement with Sunnis and twelver shia and fall within the umbrella of Sunni or twelver shia

1) There is no proof beyond the unfounded assertions of some random Western researcher that Alawis are now all of a sudden equivalent to mainstream Sunnis
2) If they were to fall into the umbrella of Twelver Shi'a then that would just be moving from apostasy to apostasy since whatever 'learned religious authority' of the Shi'a would accept their beliefs is a kaafir himself and so his opinion is worthless, like if a Jewish Rabbi were to assert that the Alawis are Muslims...

Like I said, not necessarily. An another example is that to many secularism is mere reference to religious freedom which was absent in catholic Europe. In Islam, the idea of religious freedom for non Muslim where they are even allowed to have their own laws and court is permitted. This would for many fall under what they mean by secularism. Except what you're doing in reality is just discussing academic policies and not facts on the ground. The fact on the ground is that Syria is a secular state- not of the kind you are asserting, but of another kind, wherein it is actively hostile to religion and religious display from the Muslims, the courts are built on a derivation of French positive law, the niqab was banned in universities (and then lifted as a paean to protestors), groups calling for Islamic rule are persecuted and adherents thereof are tortured to death...

And as Hafiz ibn Katheer (rahimullah) said:
The Tatar (Mongols) abided by the law that they inherited from their king Genghis Khan who wrote Al-Yasiq, for them. This book contains some rulings that were derived from various religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Many of these rulings were derived from his own opinion and desires. Later on, these rulings became the followed law among his children, preferring them to the Law of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger . Therefore, whoever does this, he is a disbeliever who deserves to be fought against, until he reverts to Allah's and His Messenger's decisions, so that no law, minor or major, is referred to except by His Law. This proves two points;
1) some argue that complete replacement of all Islamic law is necessary for the people applying it to become kuffar, but Ibn Katheer says that al-Yasiq has some Islamic laws in it, so this is not accurate...
2) The one who refuses to apply Islamic law is a disbeliever, as analogy between this ruling in regards to Mongol law (al-Yasiq) and modern French/British derived laws proves.

12-27-2011, 05:58 PM	#3
yespkorg Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 470 Senior Member	Your missing the point. Its not twelvers accepting their beliefs but on the contrary the alawis diluting their own belief so they they could come in agreement with Sunnis and twelver shia and fall within the umbrella of Sunni or twelver shia 1) There is no proof beyond the unfounded assertions of some random Western researcher that Alawis are now all of a sudden equivalent to mainstream Sunnis 2) If they were to fall into the umbrella of Twelver Shi'a then that would just be moving from apostasy to apostasy since whatever 'learned religious authority' of the Shi'a would accept their beliefs is a kaafir himself and so his opinion is worthless, like if a Jewish Rabbi were to assert that the Alawis are Muslims... Like I said, not necessarily. An another example is that to many secularism is mere reference to religious freedom which was absent in catholic Europe. In Islam, the idea of religious freedom for non Muslim where they are even allowed to have their own laws and court is permitted. This would for many fall under what they mean by secularism. Except what you're doing in reality is just discussing academic policies and not facts on the ground. The fact on the ground is that Syria is a secular state- not of the kind you are asserting, but of another kind, wherein it is actively hostile to religion and religious display from the Muslims, the courts are built on a derivation of French positive law, the niqab was banned in universities (and then lifted as a paean to protestors), groups calling for Islamic rule are persecuted and adherents thereof are tortured to death... And as Hafiz ibn Katheer (rahimullah) said: The Tatar (Mongols) abided by the law that they inherited from their king Genghis Khan who wrote Al-Yasiq, for them. This book contains some rulings that were derived from various religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Many of these rulings were derived from his own opinion and desires. Later on, these rulings became the followed law among his children, preferring them to the Law of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger . Therefore, whoever does this, he is a disbeliever who deserves to be fought against, until he reverts to Allah's and His Messenger's decisions, so that no law, minor or major, is referred to except by His Law. This proves two points; 1) some argue that complete replacement of all Islamic law is necessary for the people applying it to become kuffar, but Ibn Katheer says that al-Yasiq has some Islamic laws in it, so this is not accurate... 2) The one who refuses to apply Islamic law is a disbeliever, as analogy between this ruling in regards to Mongol law (al-Yasiq) and modern French/British derived laws proves.
	Quote