[c6vkuNRg]

'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.

Thats only a mirror of your own argument. If I was the Jordanian al Qaeda propogandist, I would start a train of rant: OMG you are saying that Allah has a share in his authority in legislating how humans should behave. Your classification of matters is secularism and secularism is Kufr. Your saying the deen is not complete and a behaviour of a muslim can be innovated. This is ahl bida and changing the sharia. Your allowing to live by tribal laws which is jahiliyyah. Thereby war against you is permitted.

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: Except that the person in the narration, supposing its authentic, does NOT go to a taghut. Rather he rejected the Prophets SAWs decision. Neither is it a issue of relevance in responding to the point I made.

So if Pashtunwali was a system of law with courts, and disputes were referred to it, then it would be kufr to do so if there were no Islamic courts- or if it were done so other than as a means of obtaining one's shari'ah rights in the context of no available Islamic courts (ie: not Tahakum except in a forced sense).

The proof for this, is that the scholars of Saudi Arabia over multiple generations, pronounced takfeer on the Bedouins who referred their cases for judgment to their traditional laws (as they had a series of traditional laws and means to settle disputes, which are quite distinct from Pashtunwali, which is not a system of laws).

However, your understanding seems only to swing between that of the khawarij (your other statements concerning law) and murji'ah (your overall tone) when in reality the answer is in the middle, as with all things Islamic. More dodging the issue with "ifs" and "buts" and non-existing non-disputed conditions. Isn't it funny how suddenly you have this "ifs" and "buts" to explain and when its comes to others its straight blind simplistic accusations even worse, putting words into people's mouth.

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... There is no covenant excuse for committing Kufr and shirk.

The issue is that making things lawful that is what they are doing. Alcohol is lawful in Syria. Alcohol is lawful for Christians. Why not bring proof that he explicitly permitted alcohol as lawful for muslims and rejected Islamic ruling against it?

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? Because I have read that this takfir of Mongols was not agreed upon. Ibn Kathirs influence with Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim makes his opinion not enough; just as his following of Ibn Taymiyyas position on triple divorce is not proof enough.


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? And you have double standards in accussing. Ofcourse youll have a lot of classifications and ifs and buts coming out when it comes putting takfir upon those you praise. The only problem is that the ifs and buts are applied based on hawa.



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... Except that you never brought a single shred of evidence that implicates him directly of what you accuse.

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... I never intended too. I just responded to your fallicious assertions upon assertions.