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

**c6vkuNRg** · 12-27-2011, 06:25 PM

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...

Its not just shia umbrella but even Sunni umbrella. And your missing the crux, the basis upon which you charge alawis of Kufr has failed as they shifted their beliefs. Your basis of takfir is then no more than than ignorance and bigotry. Like I said, if a kafir uttering shahadah at the very moment he is to be killed in war is enough to make his blood non-violable then your reasoning is quite far away from having any connection to Islam.

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... That's more like a clutching at straws rant than a Shari'a case of takfir and killing.

And as Hafiz ibn Katheer (rahimullah) said:

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. It has several fallacys:
1) Ibn Kathirs and ibn taymiyyas opinion on the Mongol govt. does not become equated to ijma.
2) the idea that he openly refused to apply Islamic law is just a assertion. By your standard the former head of al Azhar is a kafir for his position on niqab.
3) the idea that laws from so called non-muslims sources, leads to being a kafir even though the law does not oppose Islam, is a unproved assertion leading to Muslims in Britain and America being a kafir for agreeing to live under Kafir derived laws. Infact, 99% of Muslims would be kafir as they all are subjected to such laws existing in their government.

Moreover, in 1400 years of Islamic history, could you list out the names of all the governments you consider Islamic ? From which can you provide which governer of these Islamic government derived all laws by derivation of Quran and hadith only?

12-27-2011, 06:25 PM	#4
c6vkuNRg Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 361 Senior Member	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... Its not just shia umbrella but even Sunni umbrella. And your missing the crux, the basis upon which you charge alawis of Kufr has failed as they shifted their beliefs. Your basis of takfir is then no more than than ignorance and bigotry. Like I said, if a kafir uttering shahadah at the very moment he is to be killed in war is enough to make his blood non-violable then your reasoning is quite far away from having any connection to Islam. 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... That's more like a clutching at straws rant than a Shari'a case of takfir and killing. And as Hafiz ibn Katheer (rahimullah) said: 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. It has several fallacys: 1) Ibn Kathirs and ibn taymiyyas opinion on the Mongol govt. does not become equated to ijma. 2) the idea that he openly refused to apply Islamic law is just a assertion. By your standard the former head of al Azhar is a kafir for his position on niqab. 3) the idea that laws from so called non-muslims sources, leads to being a kafir even though the law does not oppose Islam, is a unproved assertion leading to Muslims in Britain and America being a kafir for agreeing to live under Kafir derived laws. Infact, 99% of Muslims would be kafir as they all are subjected to such laws existing in their government. Moreover, in 1400 years of Islamic history, could you list out the names of all the governments you consider Islamic ? From which can you provide which governer of these Islamic government derived all laws by derivation of Quran and hadith only?
	Quote