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

**c6vkuNRg** · 12-27-2011, 08:30 PM

...what?

Following laws such as these is not the same thing as legislating them, and this is the point that you are missing... which is not surprising. I am in this place and under two facets of compulsion to follow (in general) the laws of the land I am in, so long as they do not involve disobedience to Allah;
1) The covenant of security, from which is derived the necessity of acting according to the law of wherever one lives as it is part of the covenant, and-
2) 'ikrah, in the sense that I am under compulsion to obey this law (in such matters) because otherwise there is prison awaiting, and prison is 'ikrah according to the righteous scholars.

Your missing the point. Is the Saudi government a murtad government for deriving the laws of driving a car from a kafir country? Anothe example, are the Afghans murtad for following their tribal law "Pashtunwali" ?

Your differentiating of following and legislation is meaningless. If the following of the law is not disobedience then how does legislating it suddenly cause disobedience? Either the law is Kufr or it is not. Obeying in matters that cause disobedience to Allah is not permitted even in muslim country let alone a kafir country. Nor is anyone preventing you from migrating, that you can claim to be "forced".

In any event, as Muhammad Mukhtar ash-Shanqiti said in his tafsir Adwaa' al-Bayan, there is no difference in attempting to share Allah's right of Hukm and His right of Worship; they are functionally the same... But only problem being that no one claims to be sharing Allah's right nor have you proved it except by putting words into their mouth. This is like the khawarij accusation Ali radiallahu anhu of shirk by saying something true and making it false.

Actually, Ibn Katheer reports ijmaa' on this point in his al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah. So unless you want to say that his report of ijmaa' is unreliable (that would be interesting to see...) then your point 1) is useless Well go ahead and bring scholars beside them who considered the mongols who converted to islam to be still upon kufr and to be considered as kafirs.

So are you saying... that there is no proof he was called to do it? That does not matter, because he has not applied it in the first place... he is not a man without access to ulema, there are ulema by the truckload in Syria and he can call them up anytime, but he doesn't call them up except to have them tortured or imprisoned... Innocent until proven guilty.

If the government's rulings are 'asli Shari'ah, then the aathar of Ibn Abbas

on "Kufr duna kufr," applies clearly- so if they deviate from them once or twice from desires or what-have-you, then this is not absolute kufr- what is absolute kufr is what you see today, here, and now- legislating and making others follow those laws, requiring them to refer to them for judgment, imprisoning and murdering those who call for the Islamic laws to be applied, et cetera...

The former head of al-Azhar, Muhammad Tantawi, is not a person I respect, nor am I saddened at his passing, given his life-long dedication to serving Mubarak, but I have not made takfeer of him just as I have not made takfeer of the Murabitun head for calling niqab an 'evil hinduisation of women,' and an 'Arab deviation from the deen.' These double standards are only showing your arguments are based on blind hatred rather then firm conviction.

And what's more, again, the point is that it is ruling by and legislating those laws that makes one a k

I am not in the practice of passing out opinions on governments that have passed away, because it is not relevant to the discussion at hand... Only implies your dodging the question.

Except there is no proof to this assertion! And what is more, it does not matter if someone SAYS the Shahadah and then refuses to act according to it! Because belief is speech and action according to the Sunnis, so if a person says 'La ilahah illAllah,' and then worships an idol, his statement of shahadah is baatil, false, rejected, et cetera. So the person who says 'La ilahah illAllah,' and then applies secular laws and tortures and murders people and makes his security forces go around forcing people to prostrate on his picture and say 'There is no god but Bashar al-Asad' (naudhubillah), then his Shahadah is equivalent to the tasdeeq of Iblees and Fir'aun... Except that my point was in you bringing proof that he continues to worship a idol and not depending on the centuries old fatwa on alawis because of the fact the alawis have diluted their beliefs. And pronouncing guilt because of association with somoene who inturn committed some act has no shariah validity. Each person bears burden of their own actions.

So none of that is relevant to you? You do not know Tawheed very well... just western ideologies and lots of words.... All I asked is for fatwa of reliable scholars of Syria on the Kufr of Assad if any and not your personal assumptions. So lets get back to topic.

12-27-2011, 08:30 PM	#10
c6vkuNRg Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 361 Senior Member	...what? Following laws such as these is not the same thing as legislating them, and this is the point that you are missing... which is not surprising. I am in this place and under two facets of compulsion to follow (in general) the laws of the land I am in, so long as they do not involve disobedience to Allah; 1) The covenant of security, from which is derived the necessity of acting according to the law of wherever one lives as it is part of the covenant, and- 2) 'ikrah, in the sense that I am under compulsion to obey this law (in such matters) because otherwise there is prison awaiting, and prison is 'ikrah according to the righteous scholars. Your missing the point. Is the Saudi government a murtad government for deriving the laws of driving a car from a kafir country? Anothe example, are the Afghans murtad for following their tribal law "Pashtunwali" ? Your differentiating of following and legislation is meaningless. If the following of the law is not disobedience then how does legislating it suddenly cause disobedience? Either the law is Kufr or it is not. Obeying in matters that cause disobedience to Allah is not permitted even in muslim country let alone a kafir country. Nor is anyone preventing you from migrating, that you can claim to be "forced". In any event, as Muhammad Mukhtar ash-Shanqiti said in his tafsir Adwaa' al-Bayan, there is no difference in attempting to share Allah's right of Hukm and His right of Worship; they are functionally the same... But only problem being that no one claims to be sharing Allah's right nor have you proved it except by putting words into their mouth. This is like the khawarij accusation Ali radiallahu anhu of shirk by saying something true and making it false. Actually, Ibn Katheer reports ijmaa' on this point in his al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah. So unless you want to say that his report of ijmaa' is unreliable (that would be interesting to see...) then your point 1) is useless Well go ahead and bring scholars beside them who considered the mongols who converted to islam to be still upon kufr and to be considered as kafirs. So are you saying... that there is no proof he was called to do it? That does not matter, because he has not applied it in the first place... he is not a man without access to ulema, there are ulema by the truckload in Syria and he can call them up anytime, but he doesn't call them up except to have them tortured or imprisoned... Innocent until proven guilty. If the government's rulings are 'asli Shari'ah, then the aathar of Ibn Abbas on "Kufr duna kufr," applies clearly- so if they deviate from them once or twice from desires or what-have-you, then this is not absolute kufr- what is absolute kufr is what you see today, here, and now- legislating and making others follow those laws, requiring them to refer to them for judgment, imprisoning and murdering those who call for the Islamic laws to be applied, et cetera... The former head of al-Azhar, Muhammad Tantawi, is not a person I respect, nor am I saddened at his passing, given his life-long dedication to serving Mubarak, but I have not made takfeer of him just as I have not made takfeer of the Murabitun head for calling niqab an 'evil hinduisation of women,' and an 'Arab deviation from the deen.' These double standards are only showing your arguments are based on blind hatred rather then firm conviction. And what's more, again, the point is that it is ruling by and legislating those laws that makes one a k I am not in the practice of passing out opinions on governments that have passed away, because it is not relevant to the discussion at hand... Only implies your dodging the question. Except there is no proof to this assertion! And what is more, it does not matter if someone SAYS the Shahadah and then refuses to act according to it! Because belief is speech and action according to the Sunnis, so if a person says 'La ilahah illAllah,' and then worships an idol, his statement of shahadah is baatil, false, rejected, et cetera. So the person who says 'La ilahah illAllah,' and then applies secular laws and tortures and murders people and makes his security forces go around forcing people to prostrate on his picture and say 'There is no god but Bashar al-Asad' (naudhubillah), then his Shahadah is equivalent to the tasdeeq of Iblees and Fir'aun... Except that my point was in you bringing proof that he continues to worship a idol and not depending on the centuries old fatwa on alawis because of the fact the alawis have diluted their beliefs. And pronouncing guilt because of association with somoene who inturn committed some act has no shariah validity. Each person bears burden of their own actions. So none of that is relevant to you? You do not know Tawheed very well... just western ideologies and lots of words.... All I asked is for fatwa of reliable scholars of Syria on the Kufr of Assad if any and not your personal assumptions. So lets get back to topic.
	Quote