Breaking news: Egypt Coup d'état, Morsy overthrown.

[Haatu]

The people in Misr and those other countries brought this fitnah upon themselves when they went against the commands of Allah and his messenger:

O you who believe! Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allaah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allaah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination. (An-Nisa, ayah 59)

The prophet SCW commanded the following regardless of whether the ruler is pious or a fasiq:

Whosoever obeys the ruler has obeyed me and whoever obeys me had obeyed Allaah; and he who disobeys the ruler has disobeyed me and whoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allaah. (Al-Bukhaaree and Muslim)

And if someone sees something they dislike in their ruler, the Prophet PBUH said:

Whoever sees from his leader something of disobedience to Allaah, then he should dislike [in his heart] what he does of sinning against Allaah,

but he must not remove even a hand-span away from obedience (to him)

. (Muslim, no. 1855)

Subxanallah and then you find Muslims on the street openly calling for the impeachment of the rulers.

 

'Arfajah Ibn Shurayḥ reported that the Messenger of Allah (salallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) said:

Whoever comes to you while you are all in a state of unity and he seeks to cause rebellion and tries to divide you, then (the legitimate ruler could) execute him.

(Muslim 1852.) Note: this is a conditional, legitimate capital punishment verdict to be determined and carried out by legitimate leaderships or governments - not by individuals]

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said: It is obligatory for you to listen to the ruler and obey him in adversity and prosperity, in pleasure and displeasure, and even when another person is given (rather undue) preference over you. Muslim 4524

And if these are the commands of our Prophet SCW, what is the condition of those who go against his commands?

All my followers will enter Paradise except those who refuse. They said, "O Allaah's Messenger! Who will refuse?" He (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said: Whoever obeys me will enter Paradise, and whoever disobeys me is the one who refuses (to enter it). (Bukhaaree, Muslim).

Fear Allah people.

[Haatu]

Allyourbase;970843 wrote:

You are wrong my friend. Your level of ignorance is one not to belittle, let me tell you:

 

There are strict beneficiaries of Zakat as listed above and in accordance to the Quran:

 

إِنَّمَا الصَّدَقَاتُ لِلْفُقَرَاءِ وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَالْعَامِلِينَ عَلَيْهَا وَالْمُؤَلَّفَةِ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَفِي الرِّقَابِ وَالْغَارِمِينَ وَفِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَاِبْنِ السَّبِيلِ فَرِيضَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

 

You pay Zakat for the sake of your own salvation and as such there is no repercussions to evading Zakat (at least in this lifetime) as Mr Mohamed Bins Saleh al Authaimeen says:

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UTqzA_jX7-MC&pg=PA298&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Now what Mr Abubaker did was very much a political decision to keep the Califat together under his rule. Zakat is one of the five pillars of islam and as with the rest of the pillars of islam it can not be enforced on the general population. I would like to see the government force people to Salat or Hajj or to Fast even, its impossible my friend.

What are you on about Sxb? What were the riddah wars about? Were they not Arab tribes who refused to pay the zakah and were fought against? Did not Abu Bakr say that he refused to differentiate between the salah and zakah?

[MoonLight1]

Haatu do not misuse the prophet's (SAW) teachings, he was telling us, if our leaders withhold the fundamentals of Islam but fail on minor issues we should abbey them in the interest of peace and stability, but hey you can not apply that to these monsters such as Mubarak, Qadafi, Abideyn and Assad, these guys are in the league of Abi Jahal and Abi Lahab who were hell bent on keeping this ummah backward for ever, and if muslims just waited them to die and disappear their mini me's were on the wait to enslave us for another 40,50,and 60 years and after that it was their time to pass it to their sons and the legacy would've kept going on and on and on for God knows how long. I say good riddance of these monsters, but all revolutions has setbacks and problems, just read the history of the French revolution and the American civil war, then look at their outcome today.

[Hobbesian_Brute]

Egyptians shouldn't risen up against Mubarak, Syrians against Assad or Libyans against Gaddafi, is that what your implying ??

[MoonLight1]

MoonLight1;970880 wrote:

..I say good riddance of these monster...

 

read my lips.

[Haatu]

MoonLight1;970880 wrote:

Haatu do not misuse the prophet's (SAW) teachings, he was telling us, if our leaders withhold the fundamentals of Islam but fail on minor issues we should abbey them in the interest of peace and stability, but hey you can not apply that to these monsters such as Mubarak, Qadafi, Abideyn and Assad, these guys are in the league of Abi Jahal and Abi Lahab who were hell bent on keeping this ummah backward for ever, and if muslims just waited them to die and disappear their mini me's were on the wait to enslave us for another 40,50,and 60 years and after that it was their time to pass it to their sons and the legacy would've kept going on and on and on for God knows how long. I say good riddance of these monsters, but all revolutions has setbacks and problems, just read the history of the French revolution and the American civil war, then look at their outcome today.

How can you put Men that openly claim to be Muslims (Qadafi etc.) on the same level as open enemies of Allah and his religion (Abu Lahab)? Don't let your anger fall you into sin sxb.

 

As for the point you made, have you read up on the rule of Hajjaaj the tyrant? Look it up and see the views of the scholars towards him. Another example in history for you is the story of Ahmed bin Hanbal (the imam of the Hambali madhab and a great scholar). During his time the rulers were persecuting and torturing people for refusing to believe the qur'an was created. The imam himself was tortured along with many Muslims and this continued for many years. At many times people came to him seeking his permission to rebel and you know what he said to them even though Muslims are being persecuted for their beliefs in a Muslim state? He commanded them to hear and obey. Now compare this to the Muslim rulers of today who only want to continue to rule and don't punish the people of their beliefs:

Abul-Hârith Ahmad b. Muhammad Al-Sâ`igh, the close and respected friend of Imâm Ahmad, reports:

 

I asked Abû ‘Abdillâh (Imâm Ahmad) about something that had occurred in Baghdâd, and [because of which] some people were considering revolting [against the ruler]. I said, “O Abû ‘Abdillâh, what do you say about taking part in the revolt with these people?” He decried it and started saying, “Subhânallâh! The blood [of the people], the blood [of the people]! I do not believe in this and I do not tell others to do it. For us to suffer our situation in patience is better than the fitnah (tribulation) in which blood is spilt, property is taken, and the prohibited are violated (e.g. the honor of women). Do you not know what happened to the people (in the days of the previous fitnah)?” I said, “And the people today, Abû ‘Abdillâh, are they not in fitnah [because of the ruler]?” He replied, “If so, it is a limited fitnah, but if the sword is raised, the fitnah will engulf everything and there will be no way to escape. To suffer patiently this [current difficulty], where Allâh keeps your religion safe for you is better for you.” I saw him decry revolting against the leaders, and say, “[Do not spill the people's] blood. I do not believe in this and I do not command it.”

 

Abû Bakr Al-Khallâl, Al-Sunnah article 89.

And what is a Muslim to do when Allah tests him with a bad ruler?

It is reported that Al-Hasan Al-Basrî – Allâh have mercy on him – said:

 

If people called on Allâh when put to trial because of their rulers, Allâh would relieve their suffering; but instead they resorted to the sword, so they were left to it. And not one day of good did they bring.

 

Then he recited (Quran 7: 137):

And the good word of your Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, for the patience and perseverance they had, and We destroyed the works of Pharaoh and his people and what they had erected.

 

Ibn Abî Hâtim, Al-Tafsîr no. 8897.

So you see sxb, I am not misusing the words of our Prophet SCW but rather I only show to you how they were understood and acted upon by the great scholars of Islam and the Rightly Guided Predecessors. As for you the bit about "minor issues", compare what the ruler did in the time of Imam Ahmad to what you accuse of our current leaders.

 

I leave you with the words of our prophet SCW:

Hudaifah (RA) reported, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "There will come leaders who will not follow my guidance nor my Sunnah. There will be amongst them men, who will have hearts of devils and the bodies of humans" Hudaifah asked, "What shall I do O Messenger of Allah, if I reach that?" He replied:

"You should hear and obey the ruler, even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth. Then still hear and obey"

[Muslim 1847]

--------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: I am not asking for the tyrants/bad rulers back. Allah has removed their hardship from the Muslims. I am only clarifying what the position of a Muslim should be towards his [Muslim] ruler.

[Cambuulo iyo bun]

who cares about Egypt? Wallee some of you got too much time!!!!!!!

[MoonLight1]

Haatu;970899 wrote:

How can you put Men that openly claim to be Muslims (Qadafi etc.) on the same level as open enemies of Allah and his religion (Abu Lahab)? Don't let your anger fall you into sin sxb.

 

As for the point you made, have you read up on the rule of Hajjaaj the tyrant? Look it up and see the views of the scholars towards him. Another example in history for you is the story of Ahmed bin Hanbal (the imam of the Hambali madhab and a great scholar).

During his time the rulers were persecuting and torturing people for refusing to believe the qur'an was created

. The imam himself was tortured along with many Muslims and this continued for many years. At many times people came to him seeking his permission to rebel and you know what he said to them even though Muslims are being persecuted for their beliefs in a Muslim state? He commanded them to hear and obey. Now compare this to the Muslim rulers of today who only want to continue to rule and don't punish the people of their beliefs:

 

 

And what is a Muslim to do when Allah tests him with a bad ruler?

 

 

So you see sxb, I am not misusing the words of our Prophet SCW but rather I only show to you how they were understood and acted upon by the great scholars of Islam and the Rightly Guided Predecessors. As for you the bit about "minor issues", compare what the ruler did in the time of Imam Ahmad to what you accuse of our current leaders.

 

I leave you with the words of our prophet SCW:

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: I am not asking for the tyrants/bad rulers back. Allah has removed their hardship from the Muslims. I am only clarifying what the position of a Muslim should be towards his [Muslim] ruler.

I hope your not putting Hajaj bin yousif and Qadafi in the same league, if you read Hajja's history he was certainly an oppressor and a killer, but at the same time he was doing good things including diffending the state from enemies and he run sharia on the land, but Qadafi was on his own league when it comes to ridiculing Islam and blasphemy, just go to youtube and dig some of his sermons you'll be gob smacked. And what is your solution to these dictators? just wait and see? that is not how you change things, you have to work for it and sometimes pay a heavy price for it and that is what the people of Egypt, Libya and Syria did, bury in mind their protests started peacefully asking for political reform, but these dictators sent their ruthless dogs of army and police and did what they did.

 

and by the way, are you on Salafia jadiida?

[Haatu]

Salafia who? Anyways, I made my position clear and most certainly, fahuwa madhabee

[Nin-Yaaban]

I just read it on the news today that the military government was thinking about putting Morsi in Prison. If that's to happen, the lil riots/clashes they had so far would be nothing compared to the civil war that would engulf the country. I have this feeling that their Daris to the north is somehow involved in this whole thing.

[DoctorKenney]

Hobbesian_Brute;970857 wrote:

I don't know about artificially high rates but reconciling option 1 and 2 was a dilemma for the Muslims, their desire for steady revenue from the dhimmis clashed with their duty to convert non believers. that is why i touched on conversions being discouraged in some places lest the jizya revenue dry up.

 

 

You know the Qura'an takes precedence over all the other sources right ? Here is what the ayah regarding Jizya says unambiguously;

 

"Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing

submission

, and feel themselves

subdued

".

. the bolded parts mean what they say, the rest is unimportant.

 

 

 

 

We knew it was a revenue/extortion scheme, but don't lie, it has nothing to do with keeping the rights of dhimmis as they are accorded very little rights to begin with and treated as second class citizens in their own country. lastly why do you always end your writing with rants that have nothing to do with discussion at hand. stick to the topic.

Again, if you want to educate yourself more about this topic, you should read the Hadiths supporting these Quranic verses, as well as the commentaries regarding it. You might also do yourself a favor and read the actual link that I posted.

 

Regarding whether Non-Muslims should feel themselves subdued while paying Jizyah. This is just a term to emphasize the fact that the Non-Muslims who might have been hostile to the Muslim State previously, are now themselves subdued and willing to pay the tax. This is the same for all wars. I'm pretty sure the United States "subdued" Germany after 1945, but these terms are vague terms and you have no right to insert whatever meaning you like into them. In fact, Islamic scholars say regarding this verse:

 

"This is groundless and the verse doesn't imply that. It is not related that the Prophet or the companions acted like that. The correct opinion regarding this verse is that the word "saghâr" means "acceptance" by non-Muslims of the structure of the Muslim right and their payment of Jizya. (Ahkam Ahlul Dhimma, Volume 1 p. 23-24).

 

Once when Umar was on his way to Syria, he came across some Christian lepers at Jabia. He ordered the financial authorities to give them help from the Zakah funds and to provide for them. (Al-Baladhuri, Futuh Al-Buldan, p. 177)

 

Either way, the Prophet and the 4 Righteous Caliphs all strove to protect the rights of their Non-Muslim subjects and set up a great structure in dealing with them and helping them prosper in the Islamic State, and I gave numerous examples of this.

 

Muslims are even forbidden to backbite against Kafirs, and this further shows the exemplary nature of Islam.

 

The rest of your post was pointless drivel with no substance and no facts. You pathetically attempted to reconcile 2 contradictory positions and now you're attempting to save face, instead of actual discussion.

 

From the point of any rational person, this discussion is over. Take your Missionary points to another forum, because I've addressed everything I should have addressed.

[Oiler]

The situation in Egypt deepens, may the good win their struggle over the cowards.

[kickz]

What a massacre 200 killed 1500 injured..

 

This Sisi ******* is aptly named.

[Hobbesian_Brute]

DoctorKenney;970933 wrote:

Again, if you want to educate yourself more about this topic, you should read the Hadiths supporting these Quranic verses, as well as the commentaries regarding it. You might also do yourself a favor and read the actual link that I posted.

Here is what the ibn kathir commentary on the Ayah says;

 

 

" This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the Pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah’s religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims’ control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination….

 

Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr (Unbeliever) and Disgrace.

 

Allah said, until they pay the Jizyah, if they do not choose to embrace Islam, with willing submission, in defeat and subservience, and feel themselves subdued, disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated."

 

why would a normal tax come with instructions to humiliate, belittle and degrade unbelievers who pay it.

 

Here is what al-Mughira bin Sa’d told the persian commander Rustam: " I call you to Islam or else you must pay the jizya while you are in a state of abasement."

 

"Rustam replied, “I know what jizya means, but what does ‘a state of abasement’ mean?”

 

"Al-Mughira explained: “You pay it while you are standing and I am sitting and the whip hanging is over your head.”

 

 

DoctorKenney;970933 wrote:

Regarding whether Non-Muslims should feel themselves subdued while paying Jizyah. This is just a term to emphasize the fact that the Non-Muslims who might have been hostile to the Muslim State previously, are now themselves subdued and willing to pay the tax. This is the same for all wars. I'm pretty sure the United States "subdued" Germany after 1945, but these terms are vague terms and you have no right to insert whatever meaning you like into them. In fact, Islamic scholars say regarding this verse:

 

"This is groundless and the verse doesn't imply that. It is not related that the Prophet or the companions acted like that. The correct opinion regarding this verse is that the word "saghâr" means "acceptance" by non-Muslims of the structure of the Muslim right and their payment of Jizya. (Ahkam Ahlul Dhimma, Volume 1 p. 23-24).

 

Once when Umar was on his way to Syria, he came across some Christian lepers at Jabia. He ordered the financial authorities to give them help from the Zakah funds and to provide for them. (Al-Baladhuri, Futuh Al-Buldan, p. 177)

Its not just a vague term but rather a command to the Muslims to act upon it, once again your dishonesty shows through in your attempt to sugarcoat the unsavory parts of the religion. Islam attacked states and peoples who have not been hostile to it and far from it geographically forcing them to pay the jizya extortion. There is no justification for attacking plundering and extorting innocent peoples in their homelands whatsoever.

 

DoctorKenney;970933 wrote:

Either way, the Prophet and the 4 Righteous Caliphs all strove to protect the rights of their Non-Muslim subjects and set up a great structure in dealing with them and helping them prosper in the Islamic State, and I gave numerous examples of this. Muslims are even forbidden to backbite against Kafirs, and this further shows the exemplary nature of Islam.

Protection of the rights of non Muslims ?:confused: this is a mafia system then you admit, otherwise why do they have to be protected ? and from whom ? what have they done to deserve protection ?. i also pointed to you earlier that dhimmis have few rights anyway so this assertion is doubly absurd.

 

"Do not initiate the Salaam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley." ibn kathir , so much for your exemplary nature of islam.

 

Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab stated: " I prefer that the people of the dhimma become tired by paying the jizya, He says, ‘until they pay the jizya with their own hands in a state of complete abasement."

 

Records show dhimmis who came to the point of offering their children in exchange for the enormous sums that they had to pay each month and even 10 year old children were extorted in syria despite what the islamic texts say.

 

 

 

 

 

DoctorKenney;970933 wrote:

The rest of your post was pointless drivel with no substance and no facts. You pathetically attempted to reconcile 2 contradictory positions and now you're attempting to save face, instead of actual discussion.

Your really thick, the onus is not on me vis-a-vis this contradiction but on islam, i just stated the facts; Islam desire to convert everyone to the true religion as they see it and the lure of easy tribute money they have to fore go when their victims convert are problems well known. the same with slaves when they convert when is obligated to free them in islam.

 

DoctorKenney;970933 wrote:

From the point of any rational person, this discussion is over. Take your Missionary points to another forum, because I've addressed everything I should have addressed.

another pointless rant once again.

[DoctorKenney]

Did I not already give you evidence directly from the Hadiths that the Jizyah tax be light, that it be taken with gentleness and respect, and that the Non-Muslim Dhimmis be treated with courtesy? And did I not provide you with the link which explores the issue in even greater detail? What is the point of repeating the same points over and over? You can't some Muslim writers and then expect their words to hold more credibility than the words of the Prophet himself and the 4 Righteous Caliphs. It accomplishes nothing at all.

 

Here is the link again:

 

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_status_of_non_muslims_in_the_islamic_state

 

And then you ask the question "Who are the Non-Muslims being protected from?"....a ****** question since the obvious purpose of any State and Military is to protect its citizens. Otherwise it wouldn't exist. Its like the Police Motto "To Serve and Protect", and the protection is from people who wish to do people harm. Not understanding such basic points is really shocking to me at the moment.

 

And if you actually did state the facts then you wouldn't contradict yourself so thoroughly and then expect me to explain your point! You clearly contradicted yourself as you don't even know what the purpose of Jizyah is, how much should be charged, who should be charged Jizyah and how it should be taken.

 

Back your assertions up, do not speculate and then expect us to understand your point. There are a huge number of Islamic resources going into the issue in detail and it is very clear that the Jizyah Tax is very reasonable and very humane. Any other points after this and I'm repeating myself so spare me the repetition