AYOUB Posted October 23, 2004 ^^Even the Abuu Bakr quote brother Salafi wanted you to post goes like this: "O people The strong among you is weak in my sight, so that I shall excat from him what is due. And the weak among you is strong in my sight, so I shall excat to him what is due to him. Obey me as long as I obey God! But if I disobey God you no longer owe me obedience." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salafi_Online Posted October 23, 2004 Sister Rahima I wish you would stop speak without knowledge! Follow the salaf and do not innovate,stopped where they stopped! What was sufficient for them is sufficient for you! I will make this brief! Your wrote! I speak of Abu bakr, you negate his point and come with the views of people who came after him (not that I disagree with what they say, but rather your understanding of the point). Maybe one of these days the points of the sahaba shall be enough for you . you sure? I think u need to go read my post again! I asked you to post it so that I can take a look at it! i was not positive of what he said, thats why my post was very vague! cheap shot though! Osama, unlike the royal family was not fighting against fellow Muslims. I find this amusing though, the Saudi scholars (may Allah bless them), denounced the actions of the northern alliance (rightly so) for aiding the kuffaar (USA) against fellow Muslims, yet when there government did the same (aided the kufaar, again the USA against Muslims, the people of Iraq) they did not speak out. I have to say, very confusing, nevertheless it has to be for reasons of avoiding a great fitnah (regardless of what you may believe or think, i will not get into the bashing of scholars even if i disagree with their view point). I can only but imagine if they spoke out against the regime, a revolt at this time would only be beneficial to the enemies of Islam. Moroever, the royal family is only praised by the saudi scholars, you will not find any other salafi scholar outside of SA doing that. We admit that they do many good things for Islam, but they also harm Islam. Few thing! do u know why the Saudi Bash the northern Alliance? Its not because they aided the kufar( I don’t think they care) if so prove it! Prove it!if you cant you remain silent of that which you have no knowledge of! not one single proof the Saudi scholars bash them cause they aid the kufar, instead the Norther Alliance are shiayoon(Walacadubillah)! and Shia are the enemies of the Sunnah, are u suprised they would aid the Kufar! Shaykh Muqbil(rahimullah) is not from Saudiyah, he is Yemeni and resided in Yemen! Perhaps you do not know Shaykh Muqbil and you speak without knowledge!Itaqillah Its interesting how you take from the scholars of Saudi or anyone for that matter as long as they agree with your view! If it is not in accordance with your view they are wrong as far as your concerned! if Bin Baaz defends Salman and Safar you jump on his his banwagen! if he praises His government, This is a no no he is clearily wrong! If Uthaymin praises Hasan Albana, you will quote him at will, because here it suits your needs, but God forbid if he praises his government! you wil never quote him for this! I do not know your personaly, but this is only from what i witness from your post, as long as they agree with you opinions it all good, you will quote them, but if they dont they somehow made a mistake! “If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK.†You highlighted this part,its a significant point!So let me ask you this What is the difference between the above quote and this The Companions asked the Prophet sallaahu alaihi wa salam, “O Messenger of Allaah! When you mentioned that there will be rulers, ‘you will approve of some things from them, and disapprove of others things.†They said: “So what do you command us to do?†He said: ‘‘Give them their right, and invoke Allaah, since He is with you.’’ ’Ubaadah (radiyallaahu ’anhu) said: ‘‘We gave the oath of allegiance to the Messenger of Allaah sallahu alaihi wa sallam that we would not oppose the command, not its people.’’ He said: ‘‘Except if you were to see clear disbelief (kufran bawaahan) about which you have a proof from Allaah.’’ Related by Muslim (6/17) You would agree the "proof from Allah" here is the Quran and Hadith! So what is the difference between bin baaz’s fatwah and this hadith! Didn’t I not say you can fight a person who committs kufr! go and revise my post! Just in case you pull a fast one; Inshalalh I shall cover my tracks! a person who commits open kufr is not necessary a kafir nor do we hold him accountable for his kufr until we inform him of his actions, since he might be doing this out of sheer ingnorance, perhaps he was he was taught this and knows no better, after all he people of ILM!(in generality )! Thus its upon the people of knowledge to advice that person! But after the advice/ (lets say knowledge) reaches him, however he insist on this kufr and remains consistant, then no matter what he is sheer Kafir who has left islam( why; because he is now acting upon knoweldge and not ignorance)! a person who commits kufar without knowlege is not blameworthy, until knowledge reaches him! So your fatwah is general, as general as the hadith is ! So if anyone is speaking without knowledge my sister, it aint me! Is the Shaykh referring to the one who committs open Kufr and left islam after knoweldge reached him! or the one who committs kufr openly due to sheer ignorance and lack of knowledge, and yet is a muslim! This is why you must get more specific! according to you, we would have to kill Abdullahi Yusef and all those people who swore on the Quran! this is clear kufr!(irregardless of his past sins) this act alone would get him killed! Sis Dont be so quick on the trigger my sister! Islam allows for the overthrow of a leader (the decision being made by the influential people of authority and power) so long as there is no greater fitnah that will come of it. You disagree with this point which is based on the teachings of our prophet s.c.w. I don’t know if its lack of knowledge on your behalf (in that you’ve never heard this before) or you sincerely believe we have to always put up with any leader even if they wipe out every single believer (because technically killing does not take one out of the fold of Islam). this is another rabbish with all due respect, based on the teaching of the prophet right! then why dont we see a hadith or even a quotation from salaf! Empty words thrown on the scene! This habit of yours is truly a bore! Did you read what the salaf did during the reign of AlHajaja?!? ' here have a read! " And similarly, Banoo al-‘Abbaas, they conquered the lands of the Muslims forcefully, with the sword - and not one of the People of Knowledge and Religion aided them in that - and they killed hordes of people and many of the creation from among the Banoo 'Umayyah, their leaders and their deputies. And they killed Ibn Hubayrah, the ameer of 'Iraaq and they also killed Marwaan, the khaleefah - and it was reported that the murderers killed around eighty people from the Banoo 'Umayyah in a single day - and then they placed their blankets above the corpses, sat upon them and then called for food and drink. So along with all of that the conduct of the leading scholars - such as al-‘Awzaa’ee, Maalik, al-Layth ibn Sa’d, ‘Ataa Ibn Abee Rabaah - with those kings is not hidden from the one who has a share in knowledge and realization. And then next generation of the People of Knowledge such as Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Muhammad Ibn Ismaa’eel, Muhammad Ibn Idrees, Ahmad Ibn Nooh, Ishaaq Ibn Rahawayh and their brothers … their occurred in their time what occurred from the kings of the great innovations and the denial of the Sifaat (Attributes of Allaah) and they were called to [affirm] these things and were put to trial by them] and whoever was killed, was killed such as Ahmad Ibn Nasr. But along with all of this it is not known that a single one of them raised his hand against obedience [to those kings] and that he saw fit to attack them…"" Do u follow these salaf!Alhajaja was worst then any ruler we have seen! he Killed the companions; some of the best people who walked on earth" perhaps you follow them, the knowledge is with Allah,BUt your post do not indicate such! Following the salaf is not mere speech my sister, rather is following and micmicing their way and habits as much as your able! Aight! What is tedious is that you are praising (it would be one thing if you kept silent on the matter), leaders who are tyrants. Praising? All I said was obey the rulers if they are muslim, and one should not rebel not matter how oppressive they are unless they commit clear kufr! And if they do show kufr, fight them when you have the ability to do so! if Is this praising? Then lets see who else is praising them! Lets see Look did the messenger of Allah praise them? He(saw) also said, “Whoever sees something from his leader (ameer) something that he dislikes then let him be patient and let him not raise his hand (away) from the leader’s obedience.†According to you the prophet just praised a tyrant ruler! ‘There will be, after me, leaders that will not seek guidance from my guidance, nor will they follow my Sunnah. There will be among them men with hearts of devils in the bodies of people. ‘ I said, ‘What should I do, oh Messenger of Allaah, if I reach that time?’ He said: ‘Listen to and obey your leader even if he beats your back and your wealth is taken – listen and obey.’†[Reported by Bukhaaree, Muslim, Ibn Majah, al-Bayhaaqee] The prophet(saw) just praised a tyrant ruler! The Prophet said, “Listen and obey, even if the ruler seizes you and beats your back.†Related by Muslim (6/19) Not again! Al Barbahaaree (d. 329H) also said, "It is not permissible to fight the ruler or rebel against him even if he oppresses. This is due to the saying of the Messenger of Allah (salallaahu'alayheewasallam) to Abu Dharr al Ghifaaree, "Have patience, even if he (i.e. the Ameer) is an Abyssinian slave," (Reported by Muslim.) Not again, even a salaf, just praised him! Did u see this? Abud-Dardaa (radhiallaahu anhu) said, “Beware of cursing the Rulers (Wullaat), for verily, cursing them is clipping (i.e., of the religion) and hating them is barrenness.†It was said, ‘0 Aboo Dardaa, then how should we behave when we see in them that which we do not like?’ He said, “Have patience, for verily, when Allaah sees that from you He will take them away from you with death.†[As-Sunnah, 2/488] Poor Abu Darda, just praised the oppressive ruler! About this Hudayfah (Ra)replied: If Allaah has on Earth a caliph who flays your back and takes your property, obey him, otherwise die holding onto the stump of a tree. isnt his not exactly what i have been trying to convey! Subhanallah sister the salaf are sufficient for me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salafi_Online Posted October 23, 2004 ^^Even the Abuu Bakr quote brother Salafi wanted you to post goes like this: "O people The strong among you is weak in my sight, so that I shall excat from him what is due. And the weak among you is strong in my sight, so I shall excat to him what is due to him. Obey me as long as I obey God! But if I disobey God you no longer owe me obedience." brother Ayub how do u understand this hadith! what if i said, This saying means, if he orders you to do something which results in him and the people disobeying Allah then one should not obey him! this is how i understand it! i put forward an example, Abu Bakr would tell the people to take Riba! is he not disbeying Allah here? so the people are not obliged to obey him here!there is no obedience to the creature when there is disbodience to the creator! another example! Abu Bakr swore, or maybe he neglected salatul Fajr one morning! these are clear Disobedience! after All ABu Bakr is only human, so its natural for him to sin! and we all know sining stems from disobeying Allah! therefore since he swore or missed fajr, therefore one can not conclude that his authority is invalid because he was sinner and he has disobeyed Allah! In that case, no HUman being would be Obeyed since every human is proned to disobeying Allah! Wallahi BRother Ayub And Sister Rahima and any other Person who is reading this if you reject this Hadith! then who im I to convince you when teh Messenger of Allah(saw) can't do it himself! ‘There will be, after me, leaders that will not seek guidance from my guidance, nor will they follow my Sunnah. There will be among them men with hearts of devils in the bodies of people. ‘ I said, ‘What should I do, oh Messenger of Allaah, if I reach that time?’ He said: ‘Listen to and obey your leader even if he beats your back and your wealth is taken – listen and obey.’†[Reported by Bukhaaree, Muslim, Ibn Majah, al-Bayhaaqee] these Rulers do not even follow the Guidance or sunnah< what is more evil then That, if they are not following the guidance and sunnah, then they are acting upon other then it! and what is the oppose if the sunnah! and they have people who's heart is that of the devil as advisors! Yet we are required to obey them! We have free will, Brother Ayub do as you wish, like was rahima, do as you wish! our account is with Allah! All this was not necessary, it was just a matter of hearing and obeying the messenger(sallalahu alayhi wa salam) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sahal Posted October 23, 2004 Its interesting how you take from the scholars of Saudi or anyone for that matter as long as they agree with your view! If it is not in accordance with your view they are wrong as far as your concerned! if Bin Baaz defends Salman and Safar you jump on his his banwagen! if he praises His government, This is a no no he is clearily wrong! If Uthaymin praises Hasan Albana, you will quote him at will, because here it suits your needs, but God forbid if he praises his government! you wil never quote him for this! I do not know your personaly, but this is only from what i witness from your post, as long as they agree with you opinions it all good, you will quote them, but if they dont they somehow made a mistake! You're accusing others what you're practisaing almost in every article. This is exactly what you're doing, any Fatwa they defend other ULUMA you dismissed as OLD or stolen from the Sheikh's office etc. and when they praise the kingdom this is GOOD fatwa. Ayoup wrote: I've heard of Salafi who tell Palestinians to stop the Jihaad and emigrate, are you one of them? Ayoub Bro. he doesn't answer such questions since he doesn't want to show the reality of his group and their contradictions, in addition he has some elder and more experienced advisors and suppliers of Copy & Paste articles. I think they advised him not to answer many questions which I asked him. If he didn't answer I will give you the origin of this Fatwa and how whole UMMAH rejected it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rahima Posted October 24, 2004 you sure? I think u need to go read my post again! I asked you to post it so that I can take a look at it! i was not positive of what he said, thats why my post was very vague! cheap shot though! Well it has been posted, what do you make of it then? Its interesting how you take from the scholars of Saudi or anyone for that matter as long as they agree with your view! If it is not in accordance with your view they are wrong as far as your concerned! if Bin Baaz defends Salman and Safar you jump on his his banwagen! if he praises His government, This is a no no he is clearily wrong! If Uthaymin praises Hasan Albana, you will quote him at will, because here it suits your needs, but God forbid if he praises his government! you wil never quote him for this! That’s rich coming from you. I posted a verdict by ibn jibreen, you dismissed it and tried to belittle it with questions surrounding his authority (when other times you acknowledged that he is one of the major scholars). I also referred to a statement made by abu bakr and although you we’re on the ball about its content, you had to reply with “I understand this as not ruling by the laws of islamâ€. This is Abu bakr- a simple i understand does not hold ground. The issue is not whether or not Safar and Salman are right or wrong (i personally don't agree with revolting against the regime at this point in time because i don't believe it will be of benefit to the Muslims), but rather the manner in which their refutation is done. Simply because of a difference in opinion concerning the Saudi government some have sought to attacking their whole Islam and speaking of them as if they are destined to hell. I’ve read the fataawa of the scholars and the commentary of certain groups- there is a major discrepancy in the manner adopted. You like your buddies at these places you quote from my brother, are very confused about the manners of disagreement. You seem so dead set on tarnishing anyone who disagrees with you on any matter that it’s almost sad. I wonder, how do you all handle disagreements amongst yourselves? Do you all give each other labels? I mean do you ever become Salafi_online al-....? As for ibn Baz (rahimuallah), I respect him, love him and hold him in high regard. All of this is not nullified by the fact that I may not agree with him totally about every issue. For example, on a different note, I do not believe that the niqaab is waajib and prefer the reasoning of Al-bani rahimuallah. Does this mean that I am degrading him, no of course not? That defies logic. I can say the same about Sh. Albani’s fatwa on women wearing gold, I may not agree, but nonetheless respect, love and hold him in high regard. do u know why the Saudi Bash the northern Alliance? Its not because they aided the kufar( I don’t think they care) if so prove it! First of all know that not all of the northern alliance were shiica. Secondly, aside from that, where were you when the invasion of Afghanistan happened? I'm sure that we all agree and acknowledge that to aid the kuffaar in fighting against your brother Muslim (as did the norther alliance) is major kufr, therefore, do not the northern alliance come under this banner of the scholars refutations? As for the points of the scholars, check out: http://www.fatwa-online.com/news/0011126.htm Note that Sh. Rabee’ states that to fight the northern alliance (&Americans) is jihad and this fatwa was at the time when Afghanistan was been invaded by the Americans (pay attention to the date, it was at the exact time when the occupation was taking place). If this is not a denunciation of the actions of the northern Alliance, then I do not know what is. As for this topic, I can only highlight that which has already been posted: You stated: to make a long story short ,†yes†they have to be disbelievers for one to depose them! Everything you mentioned would be classed as sins which do not lead to disbelieve (kufr)! I suppose you’d agree, Or else you would not have asked the question I posted the following fatwa (pay attention to the question, it is speaking of Muslim leaders who commit acts of kufr and sin- not who are kuffar) Question : There are people who think that because some of the rulers commit acts of kufr and sin , we are obliged to rebel against them and attempt to change things even if that results in harming the Muslims in that country, at a time when there are many problems in the Muslim world. What is your opinion? Answer : Praise be to Allaah. The basic comprehensive principle of sharee’ah is that it is not permitted to remove an evil by means of a greater evil; evil must be warded off by that which will remove it or reduce it. Warding off evil by means of a greater evil is not permitted according to the scholarly consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK. But if rebellion would result in greater trouble and lead to chaos, oppression and the assassination of people who do not deserve to be assassinated, and other forms of major evil, then that is not permitted. Rather it is essential to be patient and to hear and obey in matters of good, and to offer sincere advice to the authorities, and to pray that they may be guided to good, and to strive to reduce evil and increase good. This is the correct way which should be followed, because that is in the general interests of the Muslims, and because it will reduce evil and increase good, and because this will keep the peace and protect the Muslims from a greater evil. Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah li Samaahat al-Shaykh al-‘Allaamah ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him), vol. 8, p. 202 ( www.islam-qa.com ) Then I paraphrased the fatwa with: Islam allows for the overthrow of a leader (the decision being made by the influential people of authority and power) so long as there is no greater fitnah that will come of it. Which you replied with: this is another rabbish with all due respect, based on the teaching of the prophet right! then why dont we see a hadith or even a quotation from salaf! Now you tell me, what on earth are you on about :confused: . This is as clear as day. The question of the fatwa is about a Muslim leader who commits acts of kufr and sin. Ibn baz replied that so long as a greater fitnah is not feared then he can be overthrown. Did you read what the salaf did during the reign of AlHajaja?!? ' here have a read! Yes and have you ever thought that the clause for this whole debate we are having is the condition that a greater fitnah will not come of overthrowing the leader. Lastly, I believe I’ve told you both in private and public, no need to resort to insults when you debate. Here you are lecturing to sahal about the etiquettes of debates, yet you do that which you accuse him of. Remember that a hypocrite resorts to insults when arguing. I'm sure this point is far more important than if we see eye to eye on this. N.B the fatwa of ibn baz I was speaking of can be found in his book Majmuucu Fataawaa’ Wa maqaamaalaat mutanawica (published 2000, p.380) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AbdAllah313 Posted October 24, 2004 Salaam, It is best to respect a scholar, even if he has an eccentric or weak fiqh position--point out his error, but keep it civil and friendly. There is a group of madhab-following scholars who are for Jihad--a groups which represents the path of the Prophet (saw). Unfortunately, many of the otherwise better scholars are either apologetic to the West about Jihad, or avoid discussion Jihad. We should try to seek out sound scholars who follow a madhab and support Jihad--a fairly small group currently, though. The great scholars of early Islam supported Jihad without reservation, and we should seek the guidance of those scholars who still uphold this example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AYOUB Posted October 24, 2004 ^^The problem is the scholars are being selectively quoted by supporters of the gulf royal families who publish what they like and keep under wraps what does not suit their political decisions. Where are the Fatawas by scholars who rejected the presence of American troops in the gulf and why aren't they to be seen in full? Only when this happens will it possible for Muslims to decide the rights and wrongs of people who have have seen it fit for them to take up arms to remove them from their lands especially the holy lands. Originally posted by Rahima: Warding off evil by means of a greater evil is not permitted according to the scholarly consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK. Good point indeed both this and the issues regarding conditions of Jihaad are addressed by IBN Taymiyyah's PUBLIC DUTIES IN ISLAM (Institutions of the Hisba, page 80, Conflict of Interest; Principal of Preference). I highly recommend this book from a scholar who was not scared to tell it as it is. What Salafi Online is trying to convince us is you can use the 'lesser/greater evil' rule to invite Kufar troops to the holy land but the same rule cannot used to remove the Kufr leaders. How comes this rules applies to every aspect of our faith except when it comes to removing the tyranical rulers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StarGazer Posted October 24, 2004 Most of us here (according to my observation) are not well versed in Islamic educatation ie.Quran and Sunnah, let alone in some of the books authored by the sheikhs mentioned here. My question to you all is: how is this discussion benefiting us? I'm not naive, I know we have some serious differences within the Ahlu Sunnah crowd..........however, most of us can't participate in this heated topic and quite frankly it's a turn off to many. It may even decline the interest in some to pursue the study of our deen because they are tainted with doubts created by ordinary muslims like yourselves. Pls reflect on the impact of your words on others, don't take this forum for granted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salafi_Online Posted October 24, 2004 Sister i tried to answer your questions please to me the courtesy and answer mine at the bottom of the page! Also I accepted much more from you, Subhanallah, at least you could have answered some of my questions but you went on a tangent! for example i explain to you that the hadith of the messenger of Allah and the fatwa of Bin Baaz when in the general sense which needs to be look in a deeper depth! because if we to take the Hadiht of the Messenger of Allah it mentions we fight in when we see clear Kufr, however its does not say if there is greater evil refrain from this! we do not get this from the hadith Likewise the fatwah of Bin Baaz does not mention wheter the Ruler is ignorant of his actions or acting upon Knowledge or wheter his sin is lying or killing! also i agree when he committs kufr with conditions ofcourse, so no need to keep going over this! i have been saying this from the get go, overthrowing him due to sins do u know how general this( what kind of sins, if he swore do we overthrow him) he is lies do we overthrow him)! let me give you and example to clear up your mind for example the foremore Mufi of Saudi Arabia Shaikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim ussies a fatwah on ruling by other then Allah where he said whoever does that is a Sheer Kafir!Then Everyone stated used this fatwah as a source of prove; Shyakh Bin Baaz, and Shaykh Fawzan said, this is corrupt for people to say and use this fatah which is based on the general meaning! one's needs to get more specific! and they both go on explaining the conditions and rulers from many angles! Therefore i will ask you a question based on that fatwa, can we overthrow a ruler who is commint kufr out of ignorant when he simple needs to be advice? second its funny Wallah how you utilize Difference of Opinion in your reply! Do you know what difference of opinion mean! it means scholars differ on a issue where they both have prove from quran and Hadith, like Th niqab example you gave,this is called Difference of opinion!because prove from the text for both argument exist! however Overthrowing a Ruler is not a matter of different of opinion rather is an issue of Aqeeda and manhaj these are issues no scholar differs on! As for your fatwah of ibn JIbreen i have already example what the scholars said about his, as he is not inffalable! He is still a salafi and i affirm his salafiyah, however i firmly believe he has errored in his fatwa!It is not I who says he has errored, But over 10 Shaykh, Formost Rabee' and Ubayd Jabiree, Zaid Madhakhali, Yahyah AnJaaree! it was not I who spoke out against him! As forthe speech of ABu bakr i have already addresssed that, did you not read it! scroll up and refute me, if im wrong i will admit my mistakes and repent! ABout Shaykh Raabee'As Sunnah The Imam of Ja'h wa Ta'deel, sister nice try though, the shaykh says this; I got this from the fatwah: (1)That the Northern Alliance are greater disbelievers than the Yahood and Nasaaraa, and it is vile alliance, a gathering of Baatiniyyah, Rawaafid, Communists, Atheists, Secularists and Socialists(later down the page...)the Taliban are better than Ikhwan ul-Muslimeen, those who are linked with the Northern Alliance, such as the likes of as-Sayyaaf, and ar-Rabbaani. Notice how he didnt make takfir of the Ikhwan Muslimeen!not only that he says "Why did the Islaamic Jama'aat not announce that fighting this alliance is from Jihaad, despite the fact that this alliance has been in existence for over five years??" here you affirm this here! that Sh. Rabee’ states that to fight the northern alliance (&Americans) is jihad and this fatwa was at the time when Afghanistan was been invaded by the Americans (pay attention to the date, it was at the exact time when the occupation was taking place). thanx for point out the date of the fatwah, so Where they allies with the kufar five years prior to this fatwah?? Notice here (2) That the Taliban are the best of those present in the Afghani plains, and that they are a thousand million times better than the Northern Alliance - and that Shaykh Rabee' himself advised the adherents to the way of the Pious Predecessors in Kunar and elsewhere to co-operate with the Taliban, and that this is better than showing enmity to them, alongside what they have of errors. note: [NOTE: The advice of Shaykh Rabee' to co-operate with the Taliban was said to be in the early stages of the Talibans' takeover, to the nephew of Shaykh Jameel ur-Rahmaan, and not recently, as the impression might be given from the above. This matter was made clear to us by one of the brothers Jazaa-Hullaahu Khayr.] first i never called you names, I dont understand why you take things out of context, you say you follow the salaf, i posted lots of quote from the salaf, you sidestepped, and come out with some strange view which, i quoted Hadith you also sidestepped!If this is not from the manners and characterist of the hypocrites i do not know what is! and this is erhaps from what you have of knowelge its due to ignorant! can you overthrow a ruler who sins? cause ever ruler sins? can you overthrow a ruler who committs kufr out of ignorance, for example a ruler comes into power, and he swear on the quran, can we over throw him? based on that kufr? or show we simply advice him? Second what do u make of this hadith There will be, after me, leaders that will not seek guidance from my guidance, nor will they follow my Sunnah. There will be among them men with hearts of devils in the bodies of people. ‘ I said, ‘What should I do, oh Messenger of Allaah, if I reach that time?’ He said: ‘Listen to and obey your leader even if he beats your back and your wealth is taken – listen and obey.’†[Reported by Bukhaaree, Muslim, Ibn Majah, al-Bayhaaqee] Also sister what do you mean the salaf did not have the power to overthrow Alhajaj, are you serious, do u know Zubayr was the ruler of Mecca, and he had his army! not only that back then fighting was very primitive, so must people had access to weapons! and these are the companions, truly Allah with them! BUt they did not fight because they were commanded by their messenger not to fighter their rulers! question, the Companions asked permission from the Messenger of Allaah (swallallahu alaihi wasallam) for killing the leaders (Umaraa’) who delay the prayer from its proper time, saying, ‘Shall we not kill them.’ So he said, “No, so long as they establish the prayer,†and he also said, “Whoever sees something from his leader (ameer) something that he dislikes then let him be patient and let him not raise his hand (away) from the leader’s obedience" explain this to me, the messenger of Allah already mentioned we can fight them if they commit kufr(the salaf and the scholars illustrated the conditions to this hadith, they did not take it for face value), and in the above is this not in relation to sins? Allah said Woe to those who delay Salah, from their fixed time! Subhnallah this is a enormous sin! So according to you we should overthrow him, and according to our messenger we should be patient! what do u say about this? Further as much as you like me to be, i do not belong to a group, I follow the Salaf i do not turn left or right! i do not belong to a Hizbiyah! if Salafipublication.com and troid.org contradicts the scholars due to whims and the prove is establish upon them, i will not do taqlid!, my post are all from the scholars! if i took their fatwa out of context or misunderstood them, and the knowledge is with you, then by All means shed some light on the quotation and clearify any misconceptions! most of your are taken out of context, i always took the time to explain them and put them in their correct context! You on the other have not! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salafi_Online Posted October 24, 2004 What Salafi Online is trying to convince us is you can use the 'lesser/greater evil' rule to invite Kufar troops to the holy land but the same rule cannot used to remove the Kufr leaders. How comes this rules applies to every aspect of our faith except when it comes to removing the tyranical rulers? perhaps there is a communication breakdown, I do not accept the kufars being stationed in any of the muslim lands! I dont like that, and i have never justified it! however if the rulers decided to do it, and we have the ability we advice them then we do so, if they accept we say Alhamdulillah, if they refuse we say Alhamdulillah! Yet we do not remove our hand of bedience from them! posted by rahima:You seem so dead set on tarnishing anyone who disagrees with you on any matter that it’s almost sad. I wonder, how do you all handle disagreements amongst yourselves? Do you all give each other labels? I mean do you ever become Salafi_online al-....? Hahah; Yea in issues of Aqeeda,im dead set on tarnishing anyone who disgrees with us on Aqeeda, not any matter( by Allah thats a lie, for the sake of Allah you should take that back) you do believe that some muslims are deviant, you even stated in one of your other threads, "the islamic state" that the author at times quotes deviant groups!(care to tell us what makes them deviant?) sister, and i mentioned this over over and over again,i have nothing against you, i love your for the sake of Allah, for your manhaj, for your Aqeeda, though its sometimes questionable where you stand on innovation and their people! Albani says niqab is not wajib, Uthaymin differs with him, yet they do not refute each other claim one is wrong and we should not listen to him, rather they accept his point of view since it is based on the text(quran and sunnah!) but For Ibn JIbreen the scholars got mad and were upset someone like him would do something like that! They dont agree with his fatwah, and they told him to retract his words! You though are bend on following him, since his fatwah on merely ijtihad, not even from Quran and sunnah! but thats up to you, i never opposed you on that! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salafi_Online Posted October 24, 2004 Sister Rahima when you where in IslamQ&A why didnt you post this Shaykh Abdul-Azeez ibn Baaz, was asked, "Is it from the manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf to criticise the Rulers from the mimbar (the pulpit)? And what is the manhaj of the Salaf with respect to advising the Rulers?" He responded: "It is not from the manhaj of the Salaf to publicise the faults of the Rulers and to mention such things from the pulpit because that leads to confusion, disorder and the absence of hearing and obeying the ruler in what is good. It also results in (the people) becoming engrossed (with these matters, arguing and debating) which causes harm and produces no benefit. The followed path with the Salaf, however is to give naseehah (advice) with respect to the matters which are between themselves and the leader, writing to him or by reaching him through the scholars who keep in touch with him (to advise him) until the ruler is directed towards the good. Repelling the evil occurs without mentioning the doer of the evil. So fornication, drinking of intoxicants and the taking of usury are curbed without mentioning the one who does such things. Warding off the evil and warning and the people against it is sufficient without it being mentioned that such and such a person does it, whether he is a ruler or other than the ruler. And when the fitnah occurred in the time of 'Uthmaan, some of the people said to Usaamah ibn Zaid , "Will you not speak to 'Uthmaan?" So he replied, "You think that I will not talk to him without letting you know about it (also). Indeed, I will certainly talk to him regarding that which concerns me and him without initiating a matter which I do not love to be the first to initiate." And when they (the Khawaarij) opened up the evil in the time of 'Uthmaan and rejected 'Uthmaan openly, the fitnah, the killing and the mischief, which has not ceased to affect the people to this day, was brought about And this caused the fitnah to occur between 'Alee and Mu'aawiyyah and 'Uthmaan was killed for these reasons. (Furthermore) a large number of Companions and other besides them were killed due to this open rebellion and the open proclamation of the faults (of the ruler), until the people began to hate the one charged with authority over them and killed him. We ask Allaah for success." End of the words of the Shaykh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salafi_Online Posted October 24, 2004 Rahima you said in one of your post that you followed the Quran and sunnah according to the salaf us Salih! interestingly enough your kaalam opposes everything they said! if you feel you did not oppose them, then by all means shed some ligh on them! here is where they oppose you and you oppose them! Ibn Abee Shaibah (Rahimahullaah) said, “Ibn ‘Uyainah narrated to us from Ibraaheem ibn Maisarah from Taawoos who said, ‘The Rulers were mentioned in the presence of Ibn ‘Abbaas and a man amongst them began to censure them. He continued to arrogate himself, standing and stretching out his neck in doing this until I did not see in the House (i.e., the Haram) a man taller than him. Then I heard Ibn ‘Abbaas say, ‘Do not make yourself a trial for a wrongdoing people.’ Then the man constricted himself and I did not see in the House a man shorter than him.†[Musannaf, 15/75] Imaam Ahmed (Rahimahullaah) said, “Ninety men from among the Taabi’een, the scholars of the Muslims and of the Salaf and the Jurists of the various cities are (unanimously) agreed that the Sunnah upon which the Messenger of Allaah sallaahu alaihi wa sallam died is: Having patience under the banner of the one in authority, in whatever condition he may be in, just or unjust and that That we do not set out (in revolt) against the Rulers with the sword, even if they are unjust and oppressive.†[usool us-Sunnah] and this,i mean i got thousands of quotes from teh salaf! Imaam Aboo Bark al-Aajurree (d.360H Rahimahullaah) said: ‘‘It is not permissible for the one who sees the uprising of a khaarijee who has revolted against the leader, whether he is (a) just or oppressive (leader) - so this person has revolted and gathered a group behind him, has pulled out his sword and has made lawful the killing of Muslims - it is not fitting for the one who sees this, that he becomes deceived by this person’s recitation of the Qur‘aan, the length of his standing in Prayer, nor his constant fasting, nor his good and excellent words in knowledge when it is clear to him that this person’s way and methodology is that of the Khawaarij.’’ [Refer to ash- Sharee’ah (p. 28)] and then From Uthaymin talking about the fitnah in Algeria&Bin Baaz "Are view is that its wajib(obligatory)upon them to put down their weapons and to meet in peace. and If not then they must endure the continuance of those who fight and take their wealth by force and rape women. Since they are responsible for it in front of Allah and the obligatory them to come back! Shaykh Albani speak about the algarian fitnah We support everyone who calls for the refutation of those who come out against the rulers and those who encourage the muslims in going out against them! Shaykh Bin Baaz"If anyone from among the callers of algeria said about me, that i said" Assassinate the police or use weapons in the call of Allah', then this is wrong, its not true, rather its a lie" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rahima Posted October 24, 2004 ^ It's not like they are relevant brother- they speak of one thing and we are discussing another. The point was if we can EVER overthrow a leader (with the clause I’ve mentioned so many times and you seem to be missing everytime). The point of disagreement here is whether or not the Muslims can ever depose a leader (on the condition that a greater fitnah is not to be foreseen). You said never unless he is a kaafir, Islam says yes- hence your opinion becomes null and void. I don't believe anyone is disagreeing with the let's be patient and advice the leader part- we all know, we all acknowledge so need to keep regurgitating it- address the point above with the clause. Are the influential Muslims allowed to depose a leader if there is no fear of a greater fitnah? Must they put up with him always unless he is a clear kaafir? It isn't very hard to understand. I did not speak of my own whims, i paraphrased what sh.ibn baz said, which remains as such. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salafi_Online Posted October 24, 2004 Salamu alaykum First im sorry if I have offend you in a way, I seek your forgives and that of Allah! I ask that Allah overlooks my infinite shortcomings and keeps me on the path of the salaf! The answer to you question is simple, It is not from the manhaj of the salaf Us Salih to rebel, backbite or fight a Muslim ruler until one condition is met,which is; until that muslim becomes a kafir! The proof for that is the hadith of the messenger of Allah(saw) “do not fight him except when he shows clear kufr which your have prove from Allah†And the Salaf placed a condition on this hadith, which we do not rebel against the rulers until we have the means and that it doenst not result in a great evil! We both agree here! And you can not fight a ruler or rebel against him, on any sin lesser then kufr, based on the Hadith of the messenger of Allah,†who ordered the companions not to kill a ruler who establish prayer outside of its fixed time†and he also orderedd the ummah to obey and hear their rulersâ€even if they stole their wealth and beat their back†These are all sound hadith I accept and affirm! You on the other hadith resort to the very unclear and general fatwah by Bin Baaz! Its fine, however sister Rahima please and I plea to you, answer following question pertaining to bin Baaz’s fatwah! The fatwah says this, “If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK†It clearily says a ruler who is opently commiting kufr!so... What is the difference between a kafir and someone who commits kufr but is not a kafir? Since in reality they are both committing kufr(disbelieve)? Again it is not from the manhaj of the Salaf us salih to rebel or overthrow an oppressive ruler( key word is oppressive) until he shows clear kufr(kufr alAkbar) and we have the means to do so, which does not result in greater evil!This is what islam says, not what you claim! This is what i have been saying for the past 10 pages! I thought i shed some light on this greater and lesser evil thing! there are two scenerios when the ruler oppresses, but does not have the ability to cause haram to the subject physically! his oppression could be via Ruling with man laws! and second oppressin is harming the muslims physically and harm their interest! In the first case, the rulers is not dumb, is most likely to listen to his subject because he knows they might rebel, prove for this is, the messenger of Allah(saw) when he conquered Mecca, he wanted to change the House of Allah, and make more doors, but he was afraid of the people he refrain from doing it, but when ibn Zubayr because governor he said"I am not afraid of the people so i will build it" he is not likely he would oppress them physically if they have the power to defend themselves! its like a buddy he only picks on those who are weaker then him! and befriends those who are equal or stronger then him! in the second scenerio, the ruler has more power then the subject, and he can crush them with a single blow, so no matter what they do, it will result in a greater evil! When it comes to a ruler, these are the only opinions! either the ruler will fear the people and his position, so he will comply with their demands! or the ruler is too powerful and the people must comply with his demands!So this nagates your option of" can we overthrow a ruler if we have the ability and it will not result in a greater evil" the ruler will not leave his post willingly, so he has to be removed by force! thus either he has the power to crush you, if not he will comply with your demands, because he knows staying in power is better then not having any power at all! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salafi_Online Posted October 25, 2004 Salamu Alaykum Rahima i shall end with this, I am not a scholar but someone who is in consistant search of Ilm, i asked Dr Saleh Saleh( by the way student of the Late shaykh 'Uthaymin) concerning our little argument! Salafi_Online: salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa baarakatu, Oh Shaykh it is from the manhaj of the salaf to overthrow a rule who commits kufr al asghar? fairness-1: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Salafi_Online: please shaykh explain to me why Salafi_Online: there are so many who advocate this Salafi_Online: * ruler not rule inshallah fairness-1: These are Takfeeris and Haakimiyyah devients fairness-1: lesser Kufr are acts of disobedience brother Salafi_Online: so if he oppresses we should be patient, even if we have the ability to ovethrow him, even though i believe a ruler would never oppress if we have the ability to defend ourselves Salafi_Online: akhee so if he oppress the believers, we should be patient, due to the hadith of the messenger of Allah(saw)" be patient until you meet me at the pond" right shaykh? fairness-1: yes Salafi_Online: tayyib baarakallahu feek fairness-1: even if "he beats you and take your wealth" fairness-1: as the Prophet , sallaah Allaahu 'aleihi was-sallam Salafi_Online: khair inshallah Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
