[c6vkuNRg]

Salam,

If you have the fatwa of reliable unbiased orthodox scholars from Syria on whether Bashar al Asad is a muslim or not, please provide them here.

[Beragagnu]

Salam,

If you have the fatwa of reliable unbiased orthodox scholars from Syria on whether Bashar al Asad is a muslim or not, please provide them here.

I don't think you're going to find fatawa that are so specific for him but since he belongs to the Alawis, he is a de facto non-Muslim since there is no doubt in the kufr of the Alawis - even amongst the Shi'as!

[c6vkuNRg]

Walaikum assalaam

I'm not sure if the general fatwa regarding a sect can be turned upon individuals of the sect who outwardly claim to be muslim, without analysis of their individual views. Either way, if you have access to fatwa of Syrian scholars regarding the Alawi sect of Syria in specific, please post them also.

[Beragagnu]

Walaikum assalaam

I'm not sure if the general fatwa regarding a sect can be turned upon individuals of the sect who outwardly claim to be muslim, without analysis of their individual views. Either way, if you have access to fatwa of Syrian scholars regarding the Alawi sect of Syria in specific, please post them also.

A general fatwa can be used against the individuals because the Alawis are different from the Shi'a in that it is an explicit part of their religion to believe in the divinity of 'Ali . Similarly, Isma'ilis and Qaadiyanis are also considered non-Muslim despite their proclamation to the contrary.

The president of Syria is a known Alawi, therefore he is non-Muslim.

[c6vkuNRg]

If you see the wikipedia eentry, you would notice that there was attempts in recent history to dilute alawis and bring them into fold of twelver shia and sunni.

[Beragagnu]

If you see the wikipedia eentry, you would notice that there was attempts in recent history to dilute alawis and bring them into fold of twelver shia and sunni.

The attempts by those who have no knowledge, especially secularists that don't really care about Islam, hold no merit. Also, Wikipedia is a biased encyclopedia, shaped by whatever demographic of people is able to mobilize and make edits. Also, the Alawis themselves may have tried their hand at editing because they believe themselves to be Muslim, when both the Shi'a and the Sunni have rejected them completely.

[c6vkuNRg]

The problems with your final comment is that it is too subjective an inference and based on presuppositions and not something which can be presented in the court of Allah(t) nor based upon which Muslim community can objectively adhere and agree too. If a open kafir enemy's utterance of shahadah at the very movement he is about to be killed in the middle of war is enough to make his blood non-violable and protected, then it seems your jumping the gun and falling into the same criticism of presupposing what is in the hearts of those people.

The most clearest way then is to get fatwa of reliable scholars of Syria who are well familiar with the rules of takfir. The absence of any fatwa on this despite the chaos and open killings in Syria itself is surprising. Perhaps, they fear for their own security ? Is it possible to obtain fatwa from scholars who are secure like those who moved to Lebanon or Jordon or Turkey? This is not a simple matter. Violating the blood of muslim is worse than adultery.

[BruceCroucshs]

All praises are due to Allah.

The emaan of Bashar al Asad is not the pressing matter when the Syrian regime itself is kufr.

Here are the first three articles of the Syrian constitution:

Article 1 [Arab Nation, Socialist Republic]
(1) The Syrian Arab Republic is a democratic, popular, socialist, and sovereign state. No part of its territory can be ceded. Syria is a member of the Union of the Arab Republics.
(2) The Syrian Arab region is a part of the Arab homeland.
(3) The people in the Syrian Arab region are a part of the Arab nation. They work and struggle to achieve the Arab nation's comprehensive unity.

Article 2 [Republic, Sovereignty]
(1) The governmental system of the Syrian Arab region is a republican system.
(2) Sovereignty is vested in the people, who exercise it in accordance with this Constitution.

Article 3 [Islam]
(1) The religion of the President of the Republic has to be Islam.
(2) Islamic jurisprudence is a main source of legislation.


This is pressing issue: if the ruling system is kufr, than the the emaan of the ruler takes secondary role to the system itself. Why?
Because the ruler does not alter the system and can be replaced with 1001 qualified Muslims, but if they all adhere to the kufr system, the end result is the same. And that's the nature of systematization: the results are the same.


Socialism has been deemed kufr.
Democratic republicanism is kufr as well.

Shariah is not a mere 'source of legislation', Allah;'s Sovereignty supercedes the people's.

[c6vkuNRg]

The problem is that "democracy" "socialism" "secularism" aren't monolithic terms. Your notion of it can be quite different from what they take from it. The word secularism can be understood with the meaning of extreme atheism and materialism to the other side which is a mere classification of matters into that which is worldly and that which is spiritual or religious. The governance in wordly matters are given authority to the government while spiritual and religious matters are given to the religious leaders and so forth.

I don't see anything that suggests in what you quoted that so and so can supercede shariah.

[yespkorg]

This is ridiculous.

Warea, read 'Just Five Minutes,' and then tell me Syria is an Islamic government. It's not, it's an evil government that had murdered hundreds of thousands of Muslims for no crime at all. It's a kufr government and everyone involved in it without 'ikrah is a kaafir.

And YES, they fear for their own security! Are you daft? Read Just Five Minutes and realize that they did ALL THAT- they beat her half to death and starved her and did all sorts of horrible things, to a woman whose 'crime' was that she had a RELATIVE IN THE IKHWAN. What do you think they would do to a scholar making PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE TAKFEER of the head of state?! Invite him over for coffee and pie and ask him to reconsider!?

[Beragagnu]

The problems with your final comment is that it is too subjective an inference and based on presuppositions and not something which can be presented in the court of Allah(t) nor based upon which Muslim community can objectively adhere and agree too. If a open kafir enemy's utterance of shahadah at the very movement he is about to be killed in the middle of war is enough to make his blood non-violable and protected, then it seems your jumping the gun and falling into the same criticism of presupposing what is in the hearts of those people.

The most clearest way then is to get fatwa of reliable scholars of Syria who are well familiar with the rules of takfir. The absence of any fatwa on this despite the chaos and open killings in Syria itself is surprising. Perhaps, they fear for their own security ? Is it possible to obtain fatwa from scholars who are secure like those who moved to Lebanon or Jordon or Turkey? This is not a simple matter. Violating the blood of muslim is worse than adultery.

Sorry, but it doesn't work as clear cut as that. The shahadah does not involve associating partners with Allah . Even our kalimah, لا اله إلا الله , is incompatible with Alawi belief because they believe 'Ali to be equal to Allah. سبحان الله عما يشركون

If a person dissociates themselves from being an 'Alawi, then yes, he is my brother in faith. But, if one claims to be an 'Alawi, then he is not. If a Christian says the shahadah but still maintains that he's a Christian and believes in all that entails (trinity, original sin, etc.), how can this person be a Muslim?

[c6vkuNRg]

@abdulwahhab

Walaikum assalaam,

And thats why I related that Alawis of Syria were diluting their belief to fall within the fold of Sunni and twelver shia; and that obviously requires that they have completely rejected incarnationist beliefs.


@quandary

Its news to me that reading someones "memoirs" is shariah way to put takfir upon a person. And incase someone didn't inform you, oppression of a ruler is not a basis to rebel, as per Sunni Islam. As the famous saying goes, change is done with tongue and hands, not with swords.


Like I said, what is required is the fatwa of someone who has authority to give fatwa and is reliable. Not some speculation or allegations by laymen, who have no authority to be followed by the muslim community.

[BruceCroucshs]

The problem is that "democracy" "socialism" "secularism" aren't monolithic terms. Your notion of it can be quite different from what they take from it. The word secularism can be understood with the meaning of extreme atheism and materialism to the other side which is a mere classification of matters into that which is worldly and that which is spiritual or religious. The governance in wordly matters are given authority to the government while spiritual and religious matters are given to the religious leaders and so forth.

I don't see anything that suggests in what you quoted that so and so can supercede shariah.

"Monolithic" terms?

I don't understand what you mean here.

Socialism is kufr. Secularism is kufr. Democracy is kufr. All of these can be explicitly defined from their conceptualization and their implementation by those who propagate these ideas.

It is the weak thought, weak understanding of the Muslims, including the ulama, who have acquiesced to kufr thought. That is how it is now common for so called ulama to champion nationalism, secularization, and democracy, for so called ulama to even permit celebration of Christmas.

'Secularism' is not mere classification- classification of affairs into 'worldly' and 'spiritual or religious' done with the purpose and reasonable intent of separating these two groups for objectives which are contrary to Islam, is prohibited. And advocating it is haram. Any laymen with some knowledge knows that Islam addresses every facet of life from the time of awaking to the time of sleep. Business transactions, social customs, how you greet, what you say when entering and exitting the toilet, and so on. Islam cannot be separated from 'worldly' affairs except by oppressive measures of an oppressive government.

Governance for 'worldly' matters is another way of saying allowing for men to dictate and legislate actions and affairs according to interests and objectives which they have separated from any relation to spiritual value.

Rephrasing meanings to suit your objective doesn't change the concept or how its implemented.

Again, weak thinking has been one of the downfalls of the Muslim Ummah.

I may not be able to SEE Shaytan, but I know him by what he advocates and his actions.


As for not seeing anything wrong with the Syrian constitution, it would be better to be silent if you do not know.


Article 1 [Arab Nation, Socialist Republic]
(1) The Syrian Arab Republic is a democratic, popular, socialist, and sovereign state. No part of its territory can be ceded. Syria is a member of the Union of the Arab Republics.
(2) The Syrian Arab region is a part of the Arab homeland.
(3) The people in the Syrian Arab region are a part of the Arab nation. They work and struggle to achieve the Arab nation's comprehensive unity.

Article 2 [Republic, Sovereignty]
(1) The governmental system of the Syrian Arab region is a republican system.
(2) Sovereignty is vested in the people, who exercise it in accordance with this Constitution.

Article 3 [Islam]
(1) The religion of the President of the Republic has to be Islam.
(2) Islamic jurisprudence is a main source of legislation.





In the first article, there is no mention of Islam, Allah (SWT), the Prophet (saaw), only of an Arab republic. Now one may argue that is not necessary, but the issue of the origin of the authority and sovereignty of a Muslim country is critical to its legitimacy.

The first article expresses the nature of the state: "democratic, popular, socialist, sovereign state." There is no mention of Islam at all in its nature. Rather, it claims socialism BEFORE even the mention of Allah. This expresses the meaning of 'religion' as conceptualized by the Syrian regime: Islam does NOT guide it, Islam is merely 'a main source of legislation'- relegating it as "a source" along with Napoleonic jurisprudence, British common law, or Baathist jurisprudence, even socialism as defined in the centers of political thought of Europe.


In reality, Sovereignty belongs to Allah.

{The decision (al hukm) is only for Allah...}
(The Noble Qur'an: Surah 6 Ayah 57)

Ulama know that this is a specific principle which no reasonable person can deny as part of Islam.
This means that the legislative sources of Islam: Quran, Sunnah, Ijma, Qiyas - are the sole sources of legislation of Muslims, in order for Muslims to acquire Allah's Pleasure and to be obedient to Him.

And as the sovereignty resides solely with Allah, it is not possible for Muslims to accept the sovereignty of 'worldly' powers to dictate and define the nature of Syria, whether that means that Syria must stay within its national borders as determined by the Sykes Picot Agreement and the UN which article 1 implies.

[BruceCroucshs]

How some ulama have made a "gentleman's agreement- compromise- with secularism, such as has happened in Syria.

Dr Israr Ahmed mentions this here.

[c6vkuNRg]

"Monolithic" terms?

I don't understand what you mean here.

Socialism is kufr. Secularism is kufr. Democracy is kufr. All of these can be explicitly defined from their conceptualization and their implementation by those who propagate these ideas.

And there is no monolithic "conceptualization" and "implementation" of it. Your narrow rhetoric speaks of poor academic integrity.

It is the weak thought, weak understanding of the Muslims, including the ulama, who have acquiesced to kufr thought. That is how it is now common for so called ulama to champion nationalism, secularization, and democracy, for so called ulama to even permit celebration of Christmas. On the contrary, it is half learnt pseudo intellectual rhetoric that is weakening Islam. There are no ulema who champion them. The question is whether they are ccompatible with Islam which obviously means whether they have a basis in Quran, sunnah, ijma and qiyas or whether they oppose it. Just because you utter the word "Kufr" and "kafir" frequently, it doesn't strengthen your argument. What is required is to get to the details and prove kufr is necessary by every possibe angle.

'Secularism' is not mere classification- classification of affairs into 'worldly' and 'spiritual or religious' done with the purpose and reasonable intent of separating these two groups for objectives which are contrary to Islam, is prohibited. And advocating it is haram. Any laymen with some knowledge knows that Islam addresses every facet of life from the time of awaking to the time of sleep. Business transactions, social customs, how you greet, what you say when entering and exitting the toilet, and so on. Islam cannot be separated from 'worldly' affairs except by oppressive measures of an oppressive government. I said that meaning of secularism varies and to some, which is actually the original meanong of secularism, it refers to splitting affairs into "wordly" and "spiritual". The splitting does not mean that one of it has more or less importance or superceding of one over the other. It is classification of knowledge into two types. Like the division of metaphysics and physics.

The question then is, does this split have a basis in Islam or is it opposed to Islam. I'm sure you yourself has claimed that bidah is categorised in two ways, bidah in wordly matters and bidah in religious matters/worship. In wordly matters you say everything is permitted by default until proven haram. So why not first attempt to defend this classification of bidah before applying your logic upon secularism ? After which bring proof from quran, sunnah, ijma and qiyas that this classification is shirk and Kufr.

Governance for 'worldly' matters is another way of saying allowing for men to dictate and legislate actions and affairs according to interests and objectives which they have separated from any relation to spiritual value. That's your own version of it and not necessarily what every one intended by secularism.


Rephrasing meanings to suit your objective doesn't change the concept or how its implemented. Neither is imposition of a narrow rhetoric upon it somehow going to devoid secularism of it broad meaning.

Again, weak thinking has been one of the downfalls of the Muslim Ummah.

I may not be able to SEE Shaytan, but I know him by what he advocates and his actions. Being deluded as a "know it all", is itself a shaytanic attack.


As for not seeing anything wrong with the Syrian constitution, it would be better to be silent if you do not know.


Article 1 [Arab Nation, Socialist Republic]
(1) The Syrian Arab Republic is a democratic, popular, socialist, and sovereign state. No part of its territory can be ceded. Syria is a member of the Union of the Arab Republics.
(2) The Syrian Arab region is a part of the Arab homeland.
(3) The people in the Syrian Arab region are a part of the Arab nation. They work and struggle to achieve the Arab nation's comprehensive unity.

Article 2 [Republic, Sovereignty]
(1) The governmental system of the Syrian Arab region is a republican system.
(2) Sovereignty is vested in the people, who exercise it in accordance with this Constitution.

Article 3 [Islam]
(1) The religion of the President of the Republic has to be Islam.
(2) Islamic jurisprudence is a main source of legislation.





In the first article, there is no mention of Islam, Allah (SWT), the Prophet (saaw), only of an Arab republic. Now one may argue that is not necessary, but the issue of the origin of the authority and sovereignty of a Muslim country is critical to its legitimacy.

The first article expresses the nature of the state: "democratic, popular, socialist, sovereign state." There is no mention of Islam at all in its nature. Rather, it claims socialism BEFORE even the mention of Allah. This expresses the meaning of 'religion' as conceptualized by the Syrian regime: Islam does NOT guide it, Islam is merely 'a main source of legislation'- relegating it as "a source" along with Napoleonic jurisprudence, British common law, or Baathist jurisprudence, even socialism as defined in the centers of political thought of Europe.


In reality, Sovereignty belongs to Allah.

{The decision (al hukm) is only for Allah...}
(The Noble Qur'an: Surah 6 Ayah 57)

Ulama know that this is a specific principle which no reasonable person can deny as part of Islam.
This means that the legislative sources of Islam: Quran, Sunnah, Ijma, Qiyas - are the sole sources of legislation of Muslims, in order for Muslims to acquire Allah's Pleasure and to be obedient to Him.

And as the sovereignty resides solely with Allah, it is not possible for Muslims to accept the sovereignty of 'worldly' powers to dictate and define the nature of Syria, whether that means that Syria must stay within its national borders as determined by the Sykes Picot Agreement and the UN which article 1 implies. All you did is mere superficial personal presupposed conclusion being inferred from the constitution without any proof for your inference.

Sovereignty obviously belongs to Allah SWT. And it is through it that we receive permission to obey the Prophet(pbuh), obey the leader, ulema or the jurist obtain right to derive rulings, through which the idea of splitting affairs into wordly and religious emerges.


Note that I am not supporting secularism but only exposing your narrow half baked rhetoric which is used to make takfir and commit haram actions like killing Muslims. And killing a Muslim is wplorse than adultery. Such rhetoric removes any discussion of the real details that has to be discussed. When the Turkish president spoke about ssecularism, it is based on such half knowledge that elements in Egypt started accussing him of supporting atheism.

[BruceCroucshs]

Qadi Iyad al Yahsubi (rh) addressing rebellion against kufr regimes:

The Hadith of Ubaadah ibn Saamit.

“We swore allegiance to Allah’s Messenger (SAW) to hear and obey… and not to dispute about rule with those in power, except if you see kufr bawaah (clear kufr).” (Al-Bukhaari and Muslim)


Qadi Iyad (rh) said:
"If he is adamant on Kufr, (and) in changing the shariah, or on innovation, then his obedience is invalid and it becomes a duty upon the Muslims to revolt against him, removing him and placing a just Imam (ruler) in his place if possible”. Speech of shaykh al Yaqoubi (hf) supporting uprising against taghut and oppression of Syrian regime: here

Ibn Abideen said in his Raddul Mukhtar quoting imam Kamaludeen ibn al Humam:

"If a group revolts against a ruler because of indisputable injustice inflicted upon them, it will be incumbent upon people to support the group." As the shaykh mentioned several times, Abu Bakr (rah) said An Nabi (saaw) said:
"when people see an oppressor and do not stop him, Allah inflicts His punishment upon them." These and shaykh al Yaqoubi's position provide ample support for action against tyranny and oppressive regimes- not acquiescing and compromising with tyrants.

and Allah knows best.

[BruceCroucshs]

Subhanna Allah.

I have not issued a fatwa, Allah forbid.
Nor have I explicitly stated in this thread or implied killing anyone to be permissible, Allah forbid.

And any such subsequent action based on what I have written so far must absolutely occur according to what Allah has revealed and righteous ulama present concisely. That is how believers understand this. And here on Sunniforum, believers discuss for the purposes of seeking knowledge, and solving confusion and misunderstandings, and Allah knows best this.


Again, I draw the similarity between the 'undefined' meanings of secularism et al and the inability to see Shaytan.
Ambiguity from Shaytan does not mean inability to pin him down when it matters.
Secularism has been and is definitely pinned down by ulama to address it- its concept and its implementation.
If politicans, intellectuals, or philosophers want to ponder the different meanings of 'secularism' on their free time or over a cup of tea, so be it. But the matter IS addressed for Allah's sake.


I don't approve of personal attacks on me and such personal attacks are against Sunniforum policies, but I would rather I be attacked than secularism and democracy and socialism and republicanism be defended as legitimate in Islam before Muslim audience.

In terms of weak thought among ulama, it pertains to the inability of some ulama to address Islam as a specific guidance in political affairs, rather than allowing for kufr concepts- concepts which are distinctly from nonMuslims without consideration of Allah's revelations- to serve as guidance for Muslims.

Islam contains its OWN ruling system, its own political system- do you agree, Warea?

Or are you of the view that Islam does NOT contain any ruling or political system?

Are you of the view that the political concepts of nationalism, socialism, democracy, capitalism, secularism, republicanism, are permissible and legitimate in Islam? If so, what is the evidence to support these concepts and which ulama are you following in doing so? can you explain their fiqh positions as to why they are legitimate?

[c6vkuNRg]

Subhanna Allah.

I have not issued a fatwa, Allah forbid.
Nor have I explicitly stated in this thread or implied killing anyone to be permissible, Allah forbid.

And any such subsequent action based on what I have written so far must absolutely occur according to what Allah has revealed and righteous ulama present concisely. That is how believers understand this. And here on Sunniforum, believers discuss for the purposes of seeking knowledge, and solving confusion and misunderstandings, and Allah knows best this.


Again, I draw the similarity between the 'undefined' meanings of secularism et al and the inability to see Shaytan.
Ambiguity from Shaytan does not mean inability to pin him down when it matters.
Secularism has been and is definitely pinned down by ulama to address it- its concept and its implementation.
If politicans, intellectuals, or philosophers want to ponder the different meanings of 'secularism' on their free time or over a cup of tea, so be it. But the matter IS addressed for Allah's sake.


I don't approve of personal attacks on me and such personal attacks are against Sunniforum policies, but I would rather I be attacked than secularism and democracy and socialism and republicanism be defended as legitimate in Islam before Muslim audience.

In terms of weak thought among ulama, it pertains to the inability of some ulama to address Islam as a specific guidance in political affairs, rather than allowing for kufr concepts- concepts which are distinctly from nonMuslims without consideration of Allah's revelations- to serve as guidance for Muslims.

Islam contains its OWN ruling system, its own political system- do you agree, Warea?

Or are you of the view that Islam does NOT contain any ruling or political system?

Are you of the view that the political concepts of nationalism, socialism, democracy, capitalism, secularism, republicanism, are permissible and legitimate in Islam? If so, what is the evidence to support these concepts and which ulama are you following in doing so? can you explain their fiqh positions as to why they are legitimate?

I neither oppose nor support them simply because they are too vast and diverse in meaning containing elements that are Islamic and elements that are not Islamic. What I opposed is your black and white notion. With such notions what happens is that matters which are permitted in Islam are rejected based on popular association of it with those terms and moreover, the opposites of it are held as Islamic and thereby Saudi Arabia and al shabab or Ayotallah's Iran are conflated as true Islamic government.

I wonder why the Jordanian al qaeda propogandist does not put takfir on the salafi al nour party for taking part in democracy ? Why do they not allow jihad against al nour party for supporting Kufr ? Why are Indonesians, Malaysians, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Turks, etc not considered Kafirs for practicising kufr? Such balatant contridictions are results of their innovated and completely flawed ideologys. The more these half mullahs are associated with Islam the more we will end up with dragging these contridictions onto Islam itself.

As for what you quoted from Shaikh Yaqoubi, that argument is more sound as it questions the fundamental idea that oppressive governmnet cannot be revolted against. But I hope there is a more broad discussion of it taking into account the diverse opinions and explaining the crux of the reason why there is diverse opinions. But I would like to know if revolting according to that opinion equals armed rebellion that involves legitimacy to kill Muslims associated with government.

[BruceCroucshs]

I neither oppose nor support them simply because they are too vast and diverse in meaning containing elements that are Islamic and elements that are not Islamic. What I opposed is your black and white notion. With such notions what happens is that matters which are permitted in Islam are rejected based on popular association of it with those terms and moreover, the opposites of it are held as Islamic and thereby Saudi Arabia and al shabab or Ayotallah's Iran are conflated as true Islamic government.

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.



I wonder why the Jordanian al qaeda propogandist does not put takfir on the salafi al nour party for taking part in democracy ? Why do they not allow jihad against al nour party for supporting Kufr ? Why are Indonesians, Malaysians, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Turks, etc not considered Kafirs for practicising kufr? Such balatant contridictions are results of their innovated and completely flawed ideologys. The more these half mullahs are associated with Islam the more we will end up with dragging these contridictions onto Islam itself. 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.


It is better to study what ulama say about these kufr concepts and ideologies- meaning read what ulama say who declare them as kufr. Then you can actually see if you have a legitimate position to stand on. But don't simply look for ulama who comply with your present position, because your position is not tenable.

[yespkorg]

@quandary

Its news to me that reading someones "memoirs" is shariah way to put takfir upon a person. And incase someone didn't inform you, oppression of a ruler is not a basis to rebel, as per Sunni Islam. As the famous saying goes, change is done with tongue and hands, not with swords.


Like I said, what is required is the fatwa of someone who has authority to give fatwa and is reliable. Not some speculation or allegations by laymen, who have no authority to be followed by the muslim community.

And of course, you did not address the other part of my post- namely, that they tortured nearly to death and starved someone whose 'crime' was that they had a relative in the ikhwan. What on earth do you think they would do to someone who made public takfeer of Bashar al-Asad?

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.

I said that meaning of secularism varies and to some, which is actually the original meanong of secularism, it refers to splitting affairs into "wordly" and "spiritual". The splitting does not mean that one of it has more or less importance or superceding of one over the other. It is classification of knowledge into two types. Like the division of metaphysics and physics. 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?