SomaliNet Forums

Enlightened~Sista wrote:I dont like this business of takfir by scholars

what is their motive? im suspicious. Im extremely wary of many Saudi Scholars.

Saddam was a bad ruler..hence a bad Muslim leader...it doesnt take him out of Islam..if that were the case it can be argued many of the Muslim leaders can be called 'kaafir'.

Enlightened,

The reason why the scholars made takfir on Saddam was before the Gulf War and the reason was this Man made it clear that He beleived in a 'Ba'thi' idealogy which was a popular Arab movement started by a half/Christan/Jewish Arab which centered on Arab nationalism. He made many statements/actions that were clear kuffr/riddah and thats why the scholars made takfir on Him. Similar with qadafi and His "Green Book" which was like His Quran wal yacaadu bilah. The righteous scholars are the leaders of the Islamic Ummah and We must follow them and stick to them. Also We shouldn't take into effect whether the scholar is Saudi or not. Sh Albani RX was Albanian, Sh Muqbil Rx was Yemeni and so forth. The scholars of the xaq don't have a nationality or identity. Saudis are just like any other race, they have good and they have bad.

hmmmm Libya and Iraq...interesting wax la yaab leh waaye..oo isheeg bal.. kuwa kalena miyeey takfiiriyeen? like the central asian dictators..who brutalise their populations..forbid them to practise Islam freely etc??


and what about this ba'athi ideology? does it include praying to others? or does it preach atheism?? Im really interested to know how they came to the conclusion he was kaafir...a bad Muslim leader yeah..but a kaafir? ..something aint right there..tell me when did they declare him a kaafir..i want to know the exact date and the fatwaa too...something's telling me it was just in time for some great event.

Enlightened~Sista wrote:hmmmm Libya and Iraq...interesting wax la yaab leh waaye..oo isheeg bal.. kuwa kalena miyeey takfiiriyeen?.

Kuwi kaletona yee ahayeen? The Saudi Government?

About the Saddam issue/fatwa I'm sure Alchemist has more information on it.

Also walaal be careful not to insult the scholars. Its very dangerous. There doing a service for the ummah trying the best they could.

Murax,

If the Muslim leader is not ruling by sharicah or living a good Muslim life, then you should rebel.

But rebellion does not necessary have to mean armed force but peacefully

AbdiWahab252 wrote:But rebellion does not necessary have to mean armed force but peacefully

I'm talking about armed force inparticular. Speaking out against the injustice of tyrants is not what I'm talking about if thats what You meant.

Murax,

Armed rebellion should be avoided as long as the leader does not use force against his people.

Violence only begets more violence.

Abdi..it seems these guys are against nonviolent resistance..waxay ku hadlayaan..even if the ruler steals your money and beats the hell out of you..say 'samicna wa athacna'

waxaas wa nonsense and those hadeeths one must analyse where they came from..especially since there are Qur'anic ayaat as well as countless other ahadeeth that contradict it.



and Murax i meant central asian dictators..who rule those istan countries near afghanistan and pakistan etc.

Enlightened,

There is a limit to nonviolence.

Again, one must ask how this "Muslim" leader became leader. Was he chosen by the people ? Is he a pious man who practices the religion well ?

Any ruler who steals from his people, and is violent with them deserves to be overthrown

agree totally


kuwan ka ganci hada.

Prophet Muhammad pbuh was talking about caliphate ,not democracy. Who claims such thing ascribes lie to the prophet PBUH. The rules of obeying muslim ruler does not apply to your kinship heroes MSB and A/Y,and it does not apply to Aideed.All of them were not in favor of islamic state and all of them hated shariahlaw. The blood of A/Y is halaal.

Inshallah when the alshabaab establishes islamic state in somalia,it will be necessary for every somali to obey your ruler even if he beats your back and takes your place by force. Obey Allah,obey the messenger and those(muslimrulers) who are giving authority amongst you.

Abdul Wahaab declared the Ottoman Caliphate mushrik long before Ataturk abolished it.

So far, any attempt to codify shariica has resulted in the incorporation of cultural elements such as in the hudood laws in Pakistan, the Taliban version in Afghanistan, or the suppression of Sufi practices such as siyaro by the ICU. The inequality of enforcement of the Saudi version hardly requires comment.

It is possible to see Islamic history as a succession of dynastic empires in the usual tradition of human events; followed by nationalism, also in a conventional sequence. Rebellion follows empire as the night the day.....

The opinion of Ahlul Sunnah wal jammac is that a kafir cannot be your head of state, and what you said about the fact that you cannot rebel if the leader is praying.
This is correct however if the leader appostates from ISLAM then you must rebel.

And the Uluma have stated 10 major crimes which takes you out of ISLAM.
Here are a few

Witch Craft
Helping kuffar to kill muslims or invade muslims
Rejecting to rule or be judged by shariah


and somemore


If any of these things are commited by a muslim he becomes a kafir and he is no longer protected by Shariah.

This is our deen even if the Kuffar hate it.

And if anyone disagree he is either ignorant of his religion or has a problem with his heart.

And AY is a murtad and MURAX it is not me who made takir it is ALLAH, the quran, the sunna and the Uluma which have made takfir on him. And his disbelieve is clear for everyone to see.

Alchemist wrote: P.S.. I agree with you in principle that the muslim rulers no matter how corrupt or evil they might be should not be rebelled against as long as their muslim..This is the way of the salafi...

We all know that Ali ibn abi Talib was neither corrupt or evil yet Aisha ra and Talha and Al Zubayr all three fought Ali ibn abit Talib in the battle of the Camel in 656. So if the mother of the faithful and the companions of the prophet asw challenged Ali and put his leadership into question, do you think anyone who wrote in this thread is any better than the three mentioned above and think turning a blind eye against any injustice is an Islamic act!

Think again and use the mind that Allah has given you...and ofcourse it wouldnt hurt reading instead of lending your ears to people who have other hidden agenda!!!

Navy9 wrote:

Alchemist wrote: We all know that Ali ibn abi Talib was neither corrupt or evil yet Aisha ra and Talha and Al Zubayr all three fought Ali ibn abit Talib in the battle of the Camel in 656. So if the mother of the faithful and the companions of the prophet asw challenged Ali and put his leadership into question, do you think anyone who wrote in this thread is any better than the three mentioned above and think turning a blind eye against any injustice is an Islamic act!

Think again and use the mind that Allah has given you...and ofcourse it wouldnt hurt reading instead of lending your ears to people who have other hidden agenda!!!

And Aisha Radhiyallahu canha, Zubair RAW were both WRONG. The Prophet SAW saw Zubair and Ali together one time and told Zubiar that You will have a dispute with Ali and You will be wrong. He also one time told Ammar Bin Yasser "You will be killed by the transgressing side". When Ali saw Zubair prepare to fight against Him He reminded Him of the Hadith and Zubair remembered and immidietely apologized and stopped contesting Ali. Akhi don't speak about the Sahabah When You don't know the story.

was the Madinan Muslims rebellion against Yazid wrong?They called him a Dhaalim (Unjust) and Fasiq (Corrupt)

was Hadhrat Hussein RA wrong too?


Lets bear in mind..Yazid ordered the head of Hadhrat Hussein RA to be sent to him in Damascus as proof of his death.