[c6vkuNRg]

Brother, it appears because you do not know what Islam says on the issue, you have allowed for some of the concepts of kufr to shape your viewpoint.

For example, 'because democracy in theory calls for accountability and transparency in governance, and these appear to be good and just, then democracy is permissible and good too'. Yes?

But in reality, the Islamic ruling system contains accountability and transparency without incorporating the political structures of democracy. The Prophet (saw) was profoundly scrupulous in governance. And the khulafa rashidoon exemplified the Prophet's (saaw) model by providing transparency and accountability in governance to a level which contemporary western civil governments simply fail to even approach.

Or 'because socialism supports egalatarian concepts of communal ownership which seems just and good, and Islam supports justice and good, then Islam supports socialism'. Yes?


In reality, Islam has unique and distinct definitions of ownership- such as natural resources are public property- which renders the revenue from natural sources for public use. However, that does NOT mean that socialism's definitions of ownership necessarily apply. Rather, Islam exists separate and distinct from these kufr ideologies.

Similarities do not imply compatibility. A lion and a horse both have four legs. That does not mean they are of the same species.

My position was clear. I do not support your black and white dichotomy. There is no uniform position on what these terms means. Its quite broad and from atheist to a muslim each person has different meaning to it when it comes to details. So you argument : A supports democracy, democracy is kufr, therefore A is kafir; fails because democracy is broad and diverse in meaning and not necessarily Kufr. Why not come to straight clear terms and instead prove that A supports man as supreme over Shari'a or man made law as supreme over sharia, etc ? Rather than putting words into peoples mouth or into the constitution?

Brother, why attack ideologies of Muslims while being silent on kufr ideologies which have plagued the Muslim world for generations? You take no position on socialism? Or secularism?
This telegraphs your inclinations.
This is common flawed argument famous in the salafi camp. You presuppose without any basis that I don't oppose kufr. More importantly, my opposition or non opposition in no way leads to legality of innovating nonsensical ideologies onto Islam leading to takfir and killing and then turning 180 degree around when their own salafi supporter becomes guilty by the same innovated ideology. Its hypocrisy at its finest.

[c6vkuNRg]

We are not speaking of 'oppression' as a result of rebellion; Bashar is not a Muslim! His 'asl is kufr because he is an Alawi and Alawis are Baatini apostates! If their beliefs are acceptable to Twelvers this does not mean anything because Twelvers are kuffar also, learned ones in particularly.

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

This is a ridiculous argument. The issue is secularism in government. Secularism in government by necessity entails ruling by other than what Allah revealed, which is kufr- particularly if its as the basis of an inwardly-held belief... such as... oh... I don't know... secularism? 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.

[yespkorg]

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.

[c6vkuNRg]

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?

[c6vkuNRg]

To give you a taste, let me apply your simplistic argument upon yourself.

You derived the way to drive a car from a kafir. You obey kafir derived laws of driving. If you say there is a classification between matters like this from something else then your claiming that All sovereignty and right of legislation does not belong to God. That classification is secularism and secularism is kufr. You are rejecting the idea that Quran, sunnah, ijma and Qiyas is the only basis for law in Islam. Your drivers manual and license does not start by saying that all laws and sovereignty belongs to God. Hence your a taghut and jihad against you and killing you is permitted.

[uneniaPhenits]

I didn't even read the whole thread, but my head is already spinning.
Come on guys lets not indulge in such matters. Leave such fatwas to the scholars.

[yespkorg]

To give you a taste, let me apply your simplistic argument upon yourself.

You derived the way to drive a car from a kafir. You obey kafir derived laws of driving. If you say there is a classification between matters like this from something else then your claiming that All sovereignty and right of legislation does not belong to God. That classification is secularism and secularism is kufr. You are rejecting the idea that Quran, sunnah, ijma and Qiyas is the only basis for law in Islam. Your drivers manual and license does not start by saying that all laws and sovereignty belongs to God. Hence your a taghut and jihad against you and killing you is permitted.

...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.

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...

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? 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.

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...

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.'

And what's more, again, the point is that it is ruling by and legislating those laws that makes one a kaafir, not living under them! One has two justifications and the other has zero.

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...

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 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...

That's more like a clutching at straws rant than a Shari'a case of takfir and killing. So none of that is relevant to you? You do not know Tawheed very well... just western ideologies and lots of words....

[myhackingtosh_ws]

I don't see what constructive purpose ascertaining the faith of the Syrian President gains us. We know from Hadith, that rule upon Haqq, as in the times of the Prophet (saw) would end 30 years after him, followed by a period of Hereditary rule (Kingdom?) and then the rule of Tyrants. This does not alter the situation that we are still muslims who need to follow the Qur'an and Sunnah, however difficult the circumstances maybe. That is, following the senior Scholars and fatawa committees for guidance in areas that we merely have a slight understanding, in our jurisdictions/localities. Let me explain that. For instance, Iraq was ruled by Hajjaj Ibn Al Yusuf in the times of Abdul Malik Ibn Marwan Ibn Al Hakam. So Hajjaj was the Hakim, who had final say in all matters under his seat of power - all official rulings and Qadaa would be issued by Scholars/authorities charged under him.

Now, as much as we may not like some of the aspects of Hajajj Ibn Yusuf's history, we have to obey the rule of Ameer/Qadi etc charged under him - even though he did some absolutely treacherous acts in his time. The circumstances of how he got to power and how he rules is out of our control - we have to focus on dealing with it and trying to live our lives according to the Qur'an and Sunnah (as much as is possible). that does not mean to say we accept un-islamic practices, we avoid them and do what we can (lobby, protest, petition etc) for them to change. But avoid violence at all costs - this does not serve muslims at all. It only weakens them. In a similar fashion, we follow the rule of law in the countries we live in, which for muslims in the west is generally a secular society that allows muslims to practice their Deen in many respects. It will be scholars in the west who deal with problems of muslims living in the west. Muslims live in different parts fo the world and are ruled by different jurisdictions - differing from place to place. I do not believe fataawa committee of Saudi Arabia, who are not independent from the ruling Al Saud family, should even bother issuing Fataawa on Syria - because it is blatantly driven by regional politics and not Islam. Syria is a very different society than Saudi, with different denominations and various religious groups there - it would be best to see what the Sunni scholars like Shk Bouti have decided.



Allahu A'lam

[yespkorg]

Bouti prayed janazah for Hafez al-Asad; sure, why not ask him for opinions on this...

What is more, some prominent tabi'in revolted against al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf and pronounced takfeer on him- among them, eminent mufassirin Said bin Jubayr and Mujahid .

[c6vkuNRg]

...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.

[myhackingtosh_ws]

Bouti prayed janazah for Hafez al-Asad; sure, why not ask him for opinions on this...

What is more, some prominent tabi'in revolted against al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf and pronounced takfeer on him- among them, eminent mufassirin Said bin Jubayr and Mujahid .

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.

Yes, some Ashab (Ra) and Tabi'een did rebel against the Umayyad leaders after Muawiyya and armies were sent by Marwan and then his Abdul Malik to neutralise them - this was a trajedy in which many Muslims were killed. But remember, others like Ibn Abbas (Ra) excepted rule from Umayyad leaders, like Abdul Malik, over that of Abdullah Ibn Zubair (Ra) in Makkah. While Abdullah Ibn Umar (Ra) would not involve himself in any power struggle, holding a neutral position. Anas Ibn Malik (Ra) did not rebel against Hajjaj and accepted him Hakim over the east of the empire - dealing with reality and doing the best you can within your limits according to Quran and Sunnah. Fighting only weakens muslims.


Allahu A'lam

[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?

[dianakroshXX]

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.

Yes, some Ashab (Ra) and Tabi'een did rebel against the Umayyad leaders after Muawiyya and armies were sent by Marwan and then his Abdul Malik to neutralise them - this was a trajedy in which many Muslims were killed. But remember, others like Ibn Abbas (Ra) excepted rule from Umayyad leaders, like Abdul Malik, over that of Abdullah Ibn Zubair (Ra) in Makkah. While Abdullah Ibn Umar (Ra) would not involve himself in any power struggle, holding a neutral position. Anas Ibn Malik (Ra) did not rebel against Hajjaj and accepted him Hakim over the east of the empire - dealing with reality and doing the best you can within your limits according to Quran and Sunnah. Fighting only weakens muslims.


Allahu A'lam

The ironic thing about Iranian supporters like you is that you'll support the Ahl al-Bayt uprisings against tyrants, but not sunni uprisings against the tyrant syrian government. You yourself brought up 'Abdu Llah b. Zubair (and Imam al-Husayn, for that matter). If they saw it fit to rebel, why can't the Syrians?

Even more ironic is that you'll support the revolutions in Bahrain, but when it comes to Syria, you say we have to "deal with reality" and "fighting only weakens Muslims". Why don't you tell the Bahraini protestors the same thing? Whatever Saudi Arabia is guilty of towards Syria, Iran is guilty of the same towards Bahrain, if not more.

Shaykh al-Buti is basically alone in his fatawa. What about all the other sufi scholars who have spoken up?

If it's obvious why the Saudis are issuing fatawa in aid of the syrian revolution, it's just as obvious why Iran and its supporters - like you - are doing the opposite.

[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.

[c6vkuNRg]

Shaykh al-Buti is basically alone in his fatawa. What about all the other sufi scholars who have spoken up?

It would do justice to this thread if you could provide links to reliable scholars of Syria or its neighbours who support the rebellion against oppression or consider the president to be a kafir and thereby illegitimate.

[ChrisGoldstein]

It would do justice to this thread if you could provide links to reliable scholars of Syria or its neighbours who support the rebellion against oppression or consider the president to be a kafir and thereby illegitimate.

'Allamah Muhammad 'Ali al-Sabuni (Syrian expatriate), 'Allamah Yusuf al-Qaradhawi (Egyptian/Qatari), Sh. Usama al-Rifa'i (Syrian), Sh. Muhammad al-Ya'qubi (Syrian), Sh. 'Adnan 'Ar'ur (Syrian expatriate), and plenty of other scholars around the Arab world support the protesters.

Site of رابطة العلماء السوريين:
http://www.islamsyria.com/

Also, جبهة علماء الأزهر:
http://www.jabhaonline.org/

[yespkorg]

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.

...so you do not recognize that there is a distinction here? Criminy! Your conception of these matters is worse than the khawarij. Pashtunwali does not contradict the Shari'ah and so it is not kufr to abide by it. Your understanding is simply deficient... it is not law, so stop utilizing that word.

Alcohol consumption is permitted.

Legalizing alcohol is rejecting the Islamic ruling against alcohol. If he were to legalize drugs, then it would be just the same- it would be rejecting the Islamic ruling against it.

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.

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

I never intended too. I just responded to your fallicious assertions upon assertions. In short, you have brought forth a series of grand, ridiculous misunderstandings based on your refusal to refer to the scholars on this matter- ANY scholars, instead referring constantly to a foaming-at-the-mouth strawman: the 'Jordanian Al Qaeda Propagandist,' while rejecting the plain texts of the Qur'an based on your 'aql...

Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in what was revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you? They wish to refer legislation to Taghut, while they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray.

You worship not besides Him except [mere] names you have named them, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. Legislation is not but for Allah . He has commanded that you worship not except Him. That is the correct religion, but most of the people do not know.

Have they not seen that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders? And Allah decides; there is no adjuster of His decision. And He is swift in account. There are multitudes more. Do you reject all of these? Do you reject what the mufassirin have derived from them? Or do you simply twiddle your thumbs?

EDIT-

"Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that which Allah instructs you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing."(4:58) This ayah is in reference to rulers, proving that there is a distinction between rulers who judge and individuals (thus breaking your incessant references as to how 'living under' and 'legislating' are the same). When you look at the context, this becomes even more damaging to your view:

Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that which Allah instructs you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing.

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in what was revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you? They wish to refer legislation to Taghut, while they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray.

And when it is said to them, "Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger," you see the hypocrites turning away from you in aversion. And it is known that Hafez al-Asad was called to rule by the Shari'ah more than on one occasion. He responded by killing around 30,000 people in the destruction of Hama. The calls did not stop when Bashar ascended the throne.

But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission. The one who does not make the Prophet judge has no faith, again, as per the obvious, simple meaning of the ayah.

So this necessitates that the one who sets up law courts of Tawagheet and does other such things, he himself is a Taghut as per the obvious meaning of Taghut quoted by Imam Ibn Jarir at-Tabari of Imam Malik , wherein he said "Taghut is everything that is worshipped besides Allah." Refer to: Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, tafsir of 2:256, for the quotes from Imam Malik and Said bin Jubayr which is below.

The second half of 2:256 being:
[...]So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. So this connects, intimately, the disbelief in Taghut (all that is worshipped besides Allah) with belief in Allah.
The most trustworthy hand-hold is held by Said bin Jubayr , the eminent tabi'in, to be: La ilahah illAllah. So the one who disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, he is the one who grasps: la ilaha illAllah, and the one who does not, conversely, has done exactly the opposite; La ilahah illAllah has slipped from his grasp.

Or have they partners (of Allah) who have made lawful for them in religion that which Allah allowed not? And but for a decisive word (gone forth already), it would have been judged between them. Lo! for wrong-doers is a painful doom. ie; Allah makes things lawful, not people.

And eat not of that whereon Allah's name hath not been mentioned, for lo! it is abomination. Lo! the devils do inspire their minions to dispute with you. But if ye obey them, ye will be in truth idolaters. It is well known that this is in reference to the Arab idolaters trying to tell the Muslims that meat upon which Allah's name has not been mentioned (carrion) is lawful for them to eat. So if they were to obey them, by making it lawful, they would be mushrikeen- as per what Allah has said.

Very simple. Please rebut this, or do not bother responding.

EDIT2- Supplementary.

Abu Al-Qasim Al-Baghawi recorded that `Umar said, "Jibt means magic, and Taghut means Shaytan. Verily, courage and cowardice are two instincts that appear in men, the courageous fights for those whom he does not know and the coward runs away from defending his own mother. Man's honor resides with his religion and his status is based upon his character, even if he was Persian or Nabatian.'' `Umar's statement that Taghut is Shaytan is very sound, for this meaning includes every type of evil that the ignorant people of Jahiliyyah (pre Islamic era of ignorance) fell into, such as worshipping idols, referring to them for judgement, and invoking them for victory. (then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break.)

Mujahid said, "The most trustworthy handhold is Iman (faith).'' As-Suddi said that it refers to Islam.

[myhackingtosh_ws]

The ironic thing about Iranian supporters like you is that you'll support the Ahl al-Bayt uprisings against tyrants, but not sunni uprisings against the tyrant syrian government. You yourself brought up 'Abdu Llah b. Zubair (and Imam al-Husayn, for that matter). If they saw it fit to rebel, why can't the Syrians?

Even more ironic is that you'll support the revolutions in Bahrain, but when it comes to Syria, you say we have to "deal with reality" and "fighting only weakens Muslims". Why don't you tell the Bahraini protestors the same thing? Whatever Saudi Arabia is guilty of towards Syria, Iran is guilty of the same towards Bahrain, if not more.

Shaykh al-Buti is basically alone in his fatawa. What about all the other sufi scholars who have spoken up?

If it's obvious why the Saudis are issuing fatawa in aid of the syrian revolution, it's just as obvious why Iran and its supporters - like you - are doing the opposite.

Where did I question the Syrians rebelling? What I have been encouraging is non-voilent rebellions to these conflicts - try to negotiate (yes, negotiate, not make demands as we always do). Why do you always have to resort to violence and killing? Do you think its better to kill ones way to power? How does that make you any different from the dictator you are trying to remove - don't you think many ordinary people (mostly muslims) are going to end-up dead as a result of crossfire etc?

Do you know anything about the revolution in Bahrain? They were actually supported by many Sunni's who protested for greater freedom for all people of Bahrain. They suffered just like others in Bahrain and Bahraini's are not even taking to violent conflict, they are almost entirely street protesters against the ruling dictator. In Syria it became armed and violent very quickly - hardly a secret that arms are coming over the border from Turkey. Bahrain has no borders, the only arms in Bahrain are those of the Bahraini, Saudi and US forces based there. Bahrain is literally cut-off from the rest of the world because its a group of small Islands with the US navy (fifth fleet) controlling the waters around it.

But again, like myself a few years ago, we are unable to look at a situation without being biased. I have no interest in Iran or Shia's for that matter - I hope one day, we can be at peace with them. There are many different groups and not all of them are hardline ithnaa ashariya. Yes, there are sane heads in there too.

We need to look at the situation and try not cloud our judement based on Sunni/Shia bias because most people in that region need alot more freedom, regardless of whether they are Sunni or Shia. The foreign intereference of other nations is unwarranted and will not help muslims at all. Actually. all they do is stir-up trouble - forment violence and encourage warfare - the people in the region are left in a simmering tension.

The worst wars are civil wars, the blood being spilled now by all sides is setting-up the tension for future conflicts.

Maybe the Saudi fatwa committee would do good in issuing fataawa against Kuffar troops and mercenrey forces from the soil of Saudi Arabia. Of course, they never will because they are politicised when it comes to these matters - do you know how that makes me feel as a Sunni? .........!!!

And we wonder why they are absolutely non-existant in trying to help the Palestinians...


Allahu A'lam

[yespkorg]

MSN, you've seen what happens when Shi'a get into power, right? Look at Iran and Iraq. It's not good for anyone. The ruling family is terrible but it's marginally better than Shi'a getting into power and enacting their ethnic cleansing and murder against Sunnis like what happened in Iraq.

[fkisjjdhh]

السلام عليكم

You asked for two Syrian scholars who made Takfeer on that Kafir al-Asad.

(1) Muhammad abu al-Huda al-Ya'aqoubi (Syrian/Sufi):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw7sRd709fs

(2) 'Adnan al-'Ar'our (Syrian/Salafi):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbayTIpwOQo


NOTE: For your information, the Syrian regime was the one to invade my city (Tripoli/Lebanon) and destroy the Islamic emirate we had in the 80s while bombing the entire city to the stone age.