Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti: ISIS is the #1 enemy of Islam

[Allyourbase]

As can be seen above, I have quoted a Fatwa from a trusted Islamic source (islamweb) citing the dear Prophet on record favouring his Arab tribe of Qureish above any other. The fatwa indicates an Islamic scholarly consensus that the Caliph can only be from Qureish. I even translated the Arabic to our dear Wahabi residents Khayr and DoctorKenny.

 

Watch them do their dances and evade discussing the very issue at hand. Khayr will disappear as he always does, leaving DoctorKenny out to dry. DoctorKenny will always come back with the same line "you are beneath my contempt" and promises to never get into discussions again (he always does). We are so lucky that CiidanSuldan did not restart his spamming operations and youtube video ariel bombardment yet

 

They are so predictable

[Allyourbase]

<cite>

@Khayr

said:</cite>

I just wanted to make a point of clarification and contrast here:

Just as there are different forms of governments in the Secular world (President and Senate (U.S.), Prime Minister and Parliment (England and most of Common Wealth); Monarchy (King or Queen by heriditary line); Communism and Dictatorship (see Sisi and most IMF run countries), so to does Islam have a comprehnsive system of governance. One that has its roots on the multipile schools of Jurisprudence/Fiqh.

 

So you can have an Islamically governed region that applies Maliki Fiqh and another that applies Shafi fiqh.

 

There maybe some extremes but extremes are not the norm because after all they are extremes and because they are extremes they are exceptions to the rule. Exceptions that people use (see Mainstream media) to put fear in peoples hearts.

It is an appeal to emotion that wins most fickle hearts and the majority are indeed fickle.

Why else would they announce the new Pope making a call to some no name ammericaan journalist's family. He never called one Palestinine when Palestinine blood has been flowing like a river (see Gaza August 2014).

 

If you dispute the Fatwa quoted above then please state why otherwise inakadaa meermeereysiga sxb.

[DoctorKenney]

Lol

 

Why should we answer your questions if you refuse to answer ours?

[DoctorKenney]

BTW even if it was true that the Office of the Caliphate should be restricted only to select members of the Quraysh tribe (and its not true. There have been Kurdish, Turkish and Persian Caliphs)....but even if it was true. So what? Is the Caliph not the servant of his people? Is the Office of the Caliphate something to be sought after, especially since the early Caliphs all refused to be appointed Caliph but were finally forced to accept the position of Caliph by their peers. Only one man is able to be Caliph at any given time, but for this Atheist to argue that this somehow means that so-and-so is superior is a desperate argument and he knows it. This guy looks at leadership as if its something to seek, as if its something to brag about. Leadership is a burden and not an accolade you're going for. And the Prophet's successors were Abu Bakr and Umar because they were his closest companions and the ones who had the most right to lead the community after his death. Al Mamun was Caliph during the 9th century, but Imam Shafii lived during the same time and he wasnt Caliph. So is Al Mamun (who was actually Persian/Arab) suddenly superior to Shafii or ibn Hanbal or any other righteous person simply by virtue of the Office he holds?

 

In Islam leadership is a test and the burden of leadership often leads to the leaders committing the worst acts, earning them a place in Hell.

 

What is wrong with him? Like I really don't understand

[xabad]

<cite>

@Khayr

said:</cite>

There is no forced conversion to Islam.

There is compliance with the Shariah much like what

Secular societies ask of you - abiding by the law.

 

 

i agree there is no forced conversion in sharia. but you have to pay jizya if you don't accept islam and but if you refuse these two choices then you will be slaughtered.

 

 

 

[Khayr]

I just want to clarify that my previous post was in response to Xabad or Offbase's comment on if you

don't support ISI then you are not supporting shariah nor its implementation. The premise being that ISIS islam is an accurate reflection of the Islamic Paradigm and the only one. A corrupted premise that draws the conclusion that Secularism

is better and more "peaceful" than Islam.

[SomaliPhilosopher]

*Sigh* this is like a debate club with each debate being the same topic with the same players. this gets boring guys you know?

 

Allyourbase and Xabad you guys need a new hobby. its difficult being a minority and alone in your beliefs, understood, but consistently seeking out unproductive debates that you know the outcome of is not going to make you feel less alone. its a futile effort. perhaps you should try joining a book club or a band or something

 

Doctoree-- you lack self-control--saying you are out and coming back to get the last word. IF you are out be out. and be less pretentious you are not a doctor in real life are you?

 

CidanSultan- you are a hypocrite. You cannot be taken seriously.

 

Khayr- these days your posts have become more lucid. Have you sobered up?

[CidanSultan]

Again your going around in circles allyourbase you claim that only the quraish can lead the Muslims. Again athiest you are spreading misinformation and not looking at te context.

 

Muslims elect leadership through a system known as the shura. The shura. The shura are the heads of the community and they elect the head.

 

In early periods of Meccan muslim society the quraish were the community. So in the context of the shura the leaders were from the quraish. As islam expanded it the ottoman Turks became the leaders and they were not even Arabs and had te blessing of the entire Arabs in being the leaders.

 

In India the maughals were the chaliphate and they ruled and they were the heads of islam in India. In Egypt the mamluks who ruled Egypt were from Chechnya and were not even Arabs and they turned back the tide against the mongauls. Salahudin Ayubi the liberator of Jerusalem was not Arab he was a Kurd and he led the muslim army most of it Arab at that time. Shieck islam tammiyah the revivor of puritant islam was also a Kurd.

 

Your argument is bull and islam historically has proven that it has nothing to do with race. But that's your last cry...

[CidanSultan]

Somali philo...

 

Easy to call someone a hypocrite usually it's the hypocrites that find it easy to call others what they are. No one knows you, no one cares what you have to say your a Non grata... You don't have the intellectual capability to talk sense instead you babel like a kid...."your a Hypocrite waaaa"...

 

If this debate bores you... It's because your to stu£Id to understand anything therefore I recommend you YouTube and watch Sesame Street which is more on your level

[DoctorKenney]

<cite>

@SomaliPhilosopher

said:</cite>

 

Doctoree-- you lack self-control--saying you are out and coming back to get the last word. IF you are out be out. and be less pretentious you are not a doctor in real life are you?

 

No, I'm not a Doctor in real life

 

And you wanna talk about me being pretentious, why don't you look at the posts of Xabad and Co.?

 

But yes you're correct, and I'll try and restrain myself in the future inshaAllah

[Allyourbase]

<cite>

@DoctorKenney

said:</cite>

BTW even if it was true that the Office of the Caliphate should be restricted only to select members of the Quraysh tribe (and its not true. There have been Kurdish, Turkish and Persian Caliphs)....but even if it was true. So what? Is the Caliph not the servant of his people? Is the Office of the Caliphate something to be sought after, especially since the early Caliphs all refused to be appointed Caliph but were finally forced to accept the position of Caliph by their peers. Only one man is able to be Caliph at any given time, but for this Atheist to argue that this somehow means that so-and-so is superior is a desperate argument and he knows it. This guy looks at leadership as if its something to seek, as if its something to brag about. Leadership is a burden and not an accolade you're going for. And the Prophet's successors were Abu Bakr and Umar because they were his closest companions and the ones who had the most right to lead the community after his death. Al Mamun was Caliph during the 9th century, but Imam Shafii lived during the same time and he wasnt Caliph. So is Al Mamun (who was actually Persian/Arab) suddenly superior to Shafii or ibn Hanbal or any other righteous person simply by virtue of the Office he holds?

 

In Islam leadership is a test and the burden of leadership often leads to the leaders committing the worst acts, earning them a place in Hell.

 

What is wrong with him? Like I really don't understand

 

 

Oh spare me the 'burden' chat.

 

If it was a burden indeed they would not have fought over the seat of Caliph amongst themselves.

 

Imagine, the best generation of muslims went into two camps and killed one another over what you call a 'test' and a 'burden'. It is thought that the majority of Quranist of that period died over the seat of Caliph

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Siffin

[DoctorKenney]

That is a blatant lie. That "Battle of Siffin" conflict was sparked by the assassination of Uthman (Muawiyah's cousin) and then further political tensions exacerbated the conflict between Ali and Muawiyah. It was a great Fitnah that the early Muslims had undergone.

[Allyourbase]

Dude wtf are you on about, two companions of your beloved prophet, living in what you consider to be the best times of Islam opposed one another, and fought against each other. Seventy THOUSAND muslims that were companions of the beloved prophet died that day.

 

That is your best generation, slaughtering each other and fighting like barbarians over control.

 

Seeing ISIS today, they were not that different at all

[DoctorKenney]

<cite>

@Allyourbase

said:</cite>

Dude wtf are you on about, two companions of your beloved prophet, living in what you consider to be the best times of Islam opposed one another, and fought against each other. Seventy THOUSAND muslims that were companions of the beloved prophet died that day.

 

That is your best generation, slaughtering each other and fighting like barbarians over control.

 

Seeing ISIS today, they were not that different at all

 

Okay

[CidanSultan]

Again nothing substantial from our athiest friend after everything has been disproven he now argues Muslims killed each other because of succession etc.

 

From the outset the chilphate had easy succession after the prophet. As all Muslims know. However in later stages there were instances were a few people disagreed and there were wars to gain control of certain sections of territory primarily due to some not paying zakat and other issues. However the death toll was miniscule if you compare that to the atheist and Christien during the inseption of these creeds.

 

In Christianity their were two opposing forces namely those who didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus known as the followers of arious. Who argued against the trinity and divinity of Jesus and the Pauline's who wanted to make Christianity a roman religion and introduce the trinity and the son of god mantra. The Pauline's won and under Constantine they wiped out the monotheist Christiens, killed hundreds of thousands, burnt churches and burnt manuscripts and gave the arious followers an ultimatatum of convert or die. Christianity that we have today was built on that concept: look at North America and the native Indians, colonialism, the conquistadors, the inquisition, the crusades.

 

Christianity is soaked in the blood of humanity from creation to the modern century why do you think people rebeled and became secularist in Western Europe.

 

The communists the primary athiests of world history murdered 30 million Russians, millions across Eastern Europe, starved 15 million Ukrainians, killed 35 million Chinese under the cultural revelution and led to the deaths of the millions across Asia, Africa and Latin America.

 

Athiesim is bathed in the blood of humanity

 

Islam is and I repeat historically and at present te most humane, practical and progressive in human history