[yespkorg]

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" ?

'Pashtunwali' is not a 'law,' but a series of behavioral codes- like honoring the guests and serving them.

If you can point me to where the Qur'an and Sunnah and Ijmaa' regulate the driving of a car, then be my guest... rather, it would only be necessary to pass laws on the basis of Qiyas from societal benefit, which is something from the Qur'an and Sunnah, so this is a ridiculous example.

And actually, yes, people who intentionally refer cases to Taghut judges when there are Islamic courts to refer cases to are kuffar. Please refer to the below:

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".

I find it interesting that you completely ignored the point about covenants, probably because you do not know what they are, or what their rulings are...

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. The issue is that making things lawful that is what they are doing. Alcohol is lawful in Syria.

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 in short, you are not taking Ibn Katheer's report of ijmaa, because... why? What reasoning do you have? It is simple! You came into this discussion with some kind of vested interest or idea at hand. Upon learning of these matters, you dismissed them because they do not conform with what your ideas are about what the truth should be... was Ibn Katheer a kharijite? How about the scholars whom he reported ijmaa' from- a group of khawarij?

Innocent until proven guilty. You are despicably naive.

These double standards are only showing your arguments are based on blind hatred rather then firm conviction. I'm explaining the issue here and you're just accusing me of double standards; fascinating! The whole point is that there is asli Shari'ah and asli kufr and the two things are different, and a government that is asli kufr (like the Syrian government, go ahead and read the constitution) is different from a government that is asli Shari'ah with problems! But you refuse to recognize the difference... tell me, do you think it is permissible to legislate secular laws for others to follow, Islamically?


Only implies your dodging the question. Yes, clearly it is necessary to pass individual judgment on individuals thousands of years dead before one can point out the issues with today's governments...

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. Except his legislating laws is idol-worship, and his forcing people to say 'there is no god but Bashar al-Asad' (naudhubillah) and prostrate to pictures of him is legislating and requiring idol-worship... I notice you did not directly address that...


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. You have not answered any of my points, nor brought any scholars to speak on the matter, but only made assertions and assertions based on your personal ideas with regards to how this should work... please, bring me at least one scholarly quote, if you like, to back up your assertion that Ibn Katheer was a kharijite (because this is the necessary consequence of your opinion, you realize)... or if you prefer, that there is nothing wrong with legislating secular laws...

Again, it is important to see what the senior scholars of Syria say regarding the matter. The Al Saud ruling dynasty and their fataawa committee has no jurisdiction in Syria and is not credible in matters affecting the situation of muslims in any state other than Saudi. A senior scholar belonging to the Ikhwan revolted against the Taghut Hafez and was martyred by his security forces, does that count?