Dawlah Riddah: Alshabaab’s Takfeeri Undertones.

[AYOUB]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

^^I know you are resolved to defend certain views of yours, but please at least try to ponder on scenario number 4 and see to it if the leaders of TFG fall in there or not?

 

4. The one who says “I rule by these man-made laws” yet believes that it is not permissible to rule by other than what Allaah has revealed and says “Ruling by the Divine Legislation of Islaam is better and it is not permissible to rule by other than it” yet is weak or does this out of what his rulers have originated before him, such a person is a disbeliever who has committed minor kufr which does not expel him from the religion and the action is considered to be from the major sins.

Xiin before moving on, you have to give the reasons why you think the TFG is a "category 4 Kufr" entity - as you seem to imply . What actions or deeds condemn them into this "category" and how does TFG justify them?

[xiinfaniin]

^^That is not what I implied. As I said before the issue of TFG is a capacity and infrustructure one. Thier makeshift parliament has even passed a law declaring Somalia's form of government as Islamic. So calling them as murtadiin is madness.

[AYOUB]

^ Pardon me sir, haddaba. I thought that's what the above quote suggested. Please explain what you meant.

[xiinfaniin]

^What is it that you do not undrestand?

[AYOUB]

^ I don't understand what you meant by the quoted bit at the top of the page. I (wrongly) thought you were implying the TFG falls in the "minor Kufr" category #4. The question remains; why then do you want LX to "ponder on scenario number 4 and see to it if the leaders of TFG fall in there or not"? Please elaborate, because I don't see the relevance of the Fatawa if the TFG is not guilty of anything.

[xiinfaniin]

^^So halkaas bay kaaga dhegtay, eh? I told you where I think TFG fits in all of this. I can defend that position with evidence from authentic sources and furnish historical parallels if need be. Also dont get confused for the scenarios I posted are generic, and does not describe any specific entity.

 

Please also note that this is theological debate, and unless you have something profound to contribute I suggest you be a silent reader because asking me why I am asking LX to ponder on some parts of the fatwa is just silly, yaa Ayyoubi.

 

 

Where is Nur, and LX?

[AYOUB]

Xiin, Akhi, surely I'm allowed to ask questions if I don't understanding... Don't get mad inaar, no offence intended.

[xiinfaniin]

^^Awoowe if you want maneeno there is a section for it.It's called Politics Section.

[AYOUB]

^ Akhii even great theological debaters like yourself do get asked questions by laymen like moi, especially when the titles of threads are not so "generic". Anyways, do carry on as you were and apologies for wasting your valuable time.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by AYOUB:

^ Akhii even great theological debaters like yourself do get asked questions by laymen like moi, especially when the titles of threads are not so "generic".

Anyways, do carry on as you were and apologies for wasting your valuable time.

Watch it there ayoub, or else xin and the other "mad" lot might label you being supporters of the much hated group they often mention.

 

Xin, if you bring a topic to the forum and bring about a debate, then answer people's questions and don't rebuke them, saxib. Shame on you!

[N.O.R.F]

Originally posted by AYOUB:

quote:Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

^^I know you are resolved to defend certain views of yours, but please at least try to ponder on scenario number 4 and see to it if the leaders of TFG fall in there or not?

 

4. The one who says “I rule by these man-made laws” yet believes that it is not permissible to rule by other than what Allaah has revealed and says “Ruling by the Divine Legislation of Islaam is better and it is not permissible to rule by other than it” yet is weak or does this out of what his rulers have originated before him, such a person is a disbeliever who has committed minor kufr which does not expel him from the religion and the action is considered to be from the major sins.

Xiin before moving on, you have to give the reasons why you think the TFG is a "category 4 Kufr" entity - as you seem to imply . What actions or deeds condemn them into this "category" and how does TFG justify them?

I think you’re mistaken there Ayoub. Note the following by Xiin [see the first quote above]:

 

“but please at least try to ponder on scenario number 4 and see to it if the leaders of TFG fall in there or not”?

 

He did not say that the TFG is a ‘category 4 kufr entity’. It was a question directed at LX. Xiin highlighted the methodology that should be adopted if making such an assessment/judgement and then asked, after determining what the TFG might be guilty of if scrutinised in such a manner, if category 4 was the most appropriate for the TFG. This still makes it (the TFG) a Muslim leader/entity contrary to what LX believes.

 

I believe it was a case of ruling out the other categories and being left with one rather than any specific actions on the TFG's part.

 

I doubt he himself believes the TFG to be in any of the categories.

[Laba-X]

Xiin,

 

Sheikh Albani in his recording of fitnat At-Takfir said:

 

“It was from the known rules from the culamaa that they used to say ‘bring evidence and then believe; do not believe and then bring the evidence.”

 

Unfortunately, what you are doing is the latter – trying to concoct evidence for some deeply held notions. But we shall soon if any of your evidence amounts to anything. The trouble you, my friend, are having is multifaceted. And from my discussions with you, it seems that you have not grasped the concept of Takfir in its entirety.

 

I say on the onset that the declaring of a particular belief, saying or action as Kufrul Akbar is not the same as declaring every single specific individual who committed them to be a Kaafir! When we say that ruling without what Allah has revealed is Kufrul Akbar, this does not automatically declare every individual ruler a Kaafir without exception, as you may think. Takfir, as I keep mentioning to you repeatedly, has conditions and impediments that need to be scrutinized before the application of the actual Xukm.

 

The reason, I believe, why you are protecting these beliefs of yours is in the basis of Aqeedah, not Fiqh as you may want to call it. It is because of your separation of actions from Eeman and your assertion that Kufr comes only as a result of Ictiqaad. And this erroneous principle has been refuted at length by many scholars. And I say this to you again, NO we are not in agreement on the concept of Eeman yet! Either you are deliberately being ambiguous about it or you are basing your ideas on inconcrete opinions.

 

As for your constant labeling of those opposing your ideas as Khawaarij, this shows that, just as you have an ambiguous understanding of the concept of Takfeer, similarly, your understanding of the Khawaarij and their characteristics is somewhat muddled.

 

As regards your fatwa of Sheikh Ibn Baaz, as well as the other scholars you cite, you are using them to imply that ruling besides what Allah has revealed is only a sin and not major Kufr, unless they consider it to be permissible, not because you have grasped the concepts of their fatawa but you have happened to come across them. I say to you again yaa Xiin, Be ware of Taqliid – Do not attach yourself to personalities, follow the scholars for their Xaq and what is in alignment with the Quran and Sunnah. Do not blindly follow a scholar in order to extract evidence to support your argument, but support him on the Xaq. Or would you say that Shaykh Ibn Baaz (and Sh. Albani) changed their views in the later years? And if you are fully aware of the controversy and discussions surrounding the Sheikhs’ fatawa, how come you have not come across the sources of the same Sheikhs that I cited to you that clearly label ruling besides what Allah revealed to be Kufrul Akbar?

 

Shaykh Ibn Baaz also permitted becoming member of parliaments and for this he was refuted strongly. And we know too well the issue of Fitnatul Khaleej.

 

As for the Noble Sheikh, raximahullah, we say concerning him the same thing he himself said concerning a Fatwa of Sheikh Muhammad Ibn ibraahim Ala-Sheikh. He (Sheikh Ibn Baaz) said:

 

“Muhammad ibn Ibrahim is not infallible, he is but a scholar from the scholars. He is sometimes correct and sometimes in error and he is not a Prophet nor a Messenger. Likewise sheikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Katheer and other scholars. All of them are sometimes correct and they sometimes err, but only what conforms to the truth is taken from their statements and as for what opposes the truth, then it is rejected from the one who said it.”

 

So what the Sheikh is saying is that if the scholar’s statements are in alignment with the evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah then they should be followed, if not they are to be rejected. And one of the conditions for the Kufr of the ruler that Sheikh Ibn Baaz cited is the Istixlaal of it in his heart. And the verse he was referring to was Ma’ida 44.

 

But istixlaal is an entirely different concept! Most, if not all, of the rulers who have replaced Allah’s laws with the Dastuur do not make istixlaal of it – for the belief alone makes them Kuffar. Rather, they are aware of what they are doing, but because of varying worldly reason the chose not to apply the Shariah.

 

Xafidh al Xaakami says: the one who commits a Kabira (major sin) disbelieves if he permits it. Rather he disbelieve merely by his belief in the permissibility of that which Allah and his messenger forbade even if he does not commit it, because at that point he is a Mukathib of the Book and a Mukathib of the Messenger of Allah, and this is Kufr according to the Quran and Sunnah and Ijma. So whoever rejects a matter about which there is consensus, which is known in the religion by necessity, then there is no doubt in his Kufr. (Ma’arij al Qubuul vol 2/438)

 

An-Nawawi says: if someone apostates by rejecting an obligation or permitting an forbiddance, then his Islam is invalid until he turns back to his belief and restates the Shahadateyn. (Al-Majmuc vol 19/231)

 

And how many forbiddances these rulers permit today!

 

Sh. Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Ashaykh in Taxkiinul Qawaaniin also outlined that the ruler who challenges the obligation to rule by Shari’ah is a outside Islam.

 

There is no dispute that to lay off the Shariah aside, claiming that it is lacking or deficient, or because it is not suitable at a given period of time, or for fear that the disbelievers might have reason to attack us, or to mellow it down to suit the fashion of the times, is blatant Kufr as Qahtani noted.

 

And these, above, are the prime reasons adopted by the rulers who do not apply the Shari’ah today!

 

To ally oneself with a ruler whose rules are contradictory to what Allah has revealed or to approve of his implementation of his legislation, or to be submissive to his authority, when submission belongs to Allah alone, is a contradiction to the declaration of faith. And the general consensus among the scholars is that legislation is the sole domain of Allah and no democracy or Dastuur can stand in comparison to what the Most Supreme has ordained. To override the Shari’ah takes one out of the fold of Islam. So whoever claims the right to set laws other than Allah’s laws to govern the country has fallen into Shirk of Amr (Alaa lahul khalqu wal amru) and has attributed to himself the Divine Attributes of Allah, thereby himself a contender against Allah, walciyaadu Billah. This, in today’s world is quite prevalent!

 

Ibn Taymiyyah says the one who rejects the forbiddance of any clear, frequently narrated forbiddances such as Fawaaxish, Dhulm, alcohol, etc after proof has reached him, then he is a Kaafir. (majmuc al fataawa vol 7 609-610)

 

How many fawaaxish and Haraam are permitted today?

 

Ibn Hajar also narrated the same in his Fatxul Baari

 

The Shaykh of the Mufassiriin, Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, that it does not mean that the rejection must come from a belief inside the heart in order to be Kufrul Akbar, as the leaders of the Irjaa have alleged.

 

A person can reject something on the outside whilst fully believing it in his heart. This is called Juxuud and is explained in the Quran when Allah said regarding the people of Fircown (‘wa jaxaduu bihaa wastayqanathaa anfusuhum dhulman wa culuwaa..). what is evident in this Ayah is that Juxuud or rejection is Kufrul Akbar and clearly takes one out of the fold of Islam. This is because Pharoah and his disciples, as Allah has mentioned in the verse, clearly knew the truth with which Musa (A.S) was sent, but chose to ignore it out of willful arrogance. So the rejection here came from their actions and not from the belief in their hearts. And this is in agreement with Ibn Jarir’s interpretation that the rejection comes does not necessarily come from the heart.

 

What is of great interest to me here is that you’ve used Ibn Abbas’s Kufr Duna Kufr, just as I predicted in my earlier posts that you would. We are going to look at what Ibn Abbas was referring to by Kufr Duna Kufr in great detail - but before we do that lets look at a few examples as they may further elucidate what we are talking about. So I want you to shed some light, in the context of your argument of course, on the following:

 

Who did Abu Bakar fight after the demise of the prophet?

Why did he fight them?

They apostates! how did they become Murtadeen?

Who were the Cubaydiyeen and why were they fought?

Why were they declared Murtadeen?

Specify the ruling of Ibn Taymiyyah of the Tatars?

Why did he call them Murtadeen to be killed and fought?

 

Once you answer these questions, we can proceed of course to Kufr Duna Kufr…

 

 

p.s. the concept of Takfir is an entirely different topic on its own, so don’t amalgamate it here. It is related yes, but this is much broader. It is because of the understandings of Takfir, its conditions and impediments that necessitate taking a ruling of Kufr. I will make a separate topic for that. We are not done with talking about Ruling besides What Allah has revealed yet to be jumping.

 

As for the reason why Shabaab made Takfeer on the TFG regime (not the entire polical community as you want to assert) would be made clear once you grasp the notion of Takfir as well as the concepts of Eeman and Kufr clearly.

[Laba-X]

Thier makeshift parliament has even passed a law declaring Somalia's form of government as Islamic. So calling them as murtadiin is madness.

Xiin, lets hope that you are not defending Baatil here. Are you not aware of the PM's interview with VOA where he openly declared his Kufr and said we do not rule by the Shari'ah where cutting hands is permissible! But then, of course, you would ask me about his intentions!

[xiinfaniin]

LX, I am not sure what you are discussing here. I gave you what scholars say about the tafseer of the verse you often cite to invalidate the faith of current somali leaders. you are writing more grammer than truth awoowe, and even managed to confuse me about your stance.

 

Do you beleive TFG is dawladah riddah? Its ministers? Soldeirs? Those who support them and side with them ?

 

Make your stance first. Then bring your reasoning in the form of evidence.

[xiinfaniin]

Nur et all,

 

Please address following questions:

 

Do you beleive TFG is dawladah riddah? Its ministers? Soldeirs? Those who support them and side with them ? and why