Islamically You Must Avoid Overthrowing The Government At All Costs
- Thread starter Keep it a boqol
- Start date
techsamatar
I put Books to the Test of Life
With this mindset, it's no surprise that the prophet predicted that the majority of the people would be young. You've destroyed united Somalia, Syria, Iraq, and Libya, and now you want to convert the prophet's homeland into Somalia 2.0.
just to say it again:
"look, @techsamatar- you should not even try to debate me. your ideology is nonsense.
-if you say "criticizing the Saudi gov makes you a khariji"- ok, then this makes Sheikh Albani a khariji.
-if you say "holding the view that dismantling the shariah is major kufr makes you a khariji"- ok, then this makes Ibn Hazm, Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir khawarij.
-if you say "holding the view that it's permissible to rebel against a ruler who commits kufr akbar makes you a khariji"- you've made all the scholars ever khawarij because this is a point of ijma that isn't disputed.
-even if you say "holding the view that it's permissible to fight a ruler who dismantles the shariah makes you a khariji"- you've made Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah a khariji as he made takfir of the tatar on this basis and clearly considered it acceptable to fight them on this basis- and you've also made Sheikh Ibn Baz a khariji as Sheikh Ibn Baz called for fighting rulers who dismantle the shariah. btw I'm not calling for fighting rulers who dismantle the shariah, I just make the point that they are not legitimate and don't have the rights of legitimate Muslim rulers."
^Everything I said there is accurate.
you replied with this:
-"non of them Takfired the Modern rulers"
Where did I takfir the modern rulers?
-"and called for their removal"'
where did I do that?
-"non of them slandered people as madkhali"
There is a hizb, this is a real hizb that exists and that group of people is commonly known as "Madkhalis". The existence of this group is prior to whatever term we call them. I prefer the term ahlul starbucks and I use "Madkhalis" in quotes. I'm just using that term either quoting someone else (the "madkhali" thread's title is just quoting the title of the video in OP) or just using it so people know what group of people I'm referring to. Regardless... criticizing "Madkhalis" doesn't make somebody a khariji.
-"You and your bandits consider the Muslim rulers as Kafirs and non believers on Sins alone"
so we consider Muslim rulers not only as kafirs but "as Kafirs and non believers"?! how is someone a kaffir AND a non believer??? are there kaffirs who are believers? kaffirs who are disbelievers and kaffirs who are pious Muslims???
ok, joking aside... you are just making stuff up.... so because I say demolishing the shariah is kufr akbar (which scholars from classical to modern times have said)- you say therefore I am making takfir of the modern rulers. but not only this... because I say dismantling the shariah is kufr akbar (which it is), you say therefore I am making takfir of the rulers and I am making takfir on the basis of sins alone.
this is just.... you are just making stuff up. so now someone who says "dismantling the shariah is kufr akbar" is a khariji who makes takfir on the basis of sins alone? so all the classical scholars who held this view- you would be making them khawarij.
As. I. Said. :
"if you say "holding the view that dismantling the shariah is major kufr makes you a khariji"- ok, then this makes Ibn Hazm, Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir khawarij."
"look, @techsamatar- you should not even try to debate me. your ideology is nonsense.
-if you say "criticizing the Saudi gov makes you a khariji"- ok, then this makes Sheikh Albani a khariji.
-if you say "holding the view that dismantling the shariah is major kufr makes you a khariji"- ok, then this makes Ibn Hazm, Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir khawarij.
-if you say "holding the view that it's permissible to rebel against a ruler who commits kufr akbar makes you a khariji"- you've made all the scholars ever khawarij because this is a point of ijma that isn't disputed.
-even if you say "holding the view that it's permissible to fight a ruler who dismantles the shariah makes you a khariji"- you've made Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah a khariji as he made takfir of the tatar on this basis and clearly considered it acceptable to fight them on this basis- and you've also made Sheikh Ibn Baz a khariji as Sheikh Ibn Baz called for fighting rulers who dismantle the shariah. btw I'm not calling for fighting rulers who dismantle the shariah, I just make the point that they are not legitimate and don't have the rights of legitimate Muslim rulers."
^Everything I said there is accurate.
you replied with this:
-"non of them Takfired the Modern rulers"
Where did I takfir the modern rulers?
-"and called for their removal"'
where did I do that?
-"non of them slandered people as madkhali"
There is a hizb, this is a real hizb that exists and that group of people is commonly known as "Madkhalis". The existence of this group is prior to whatever term we call them. I prefer the term ahlul starbucks and I use "Madkhalis" in quotes. I'm just using that term either quoting someone else (the "madkhali" thread's title is just quoting the title of the video in OP) or just using it so people know what group of people I'm referring to. Regardless... criticizing "Madkhalis" doesn't make somebody a khariji.
-"You and your bandits consider the Muslim rulers as Kafirs and non believers on Sins alone"
so we consider Muslim rulers not only as kafirs but "as Kafirs and non believers"?! how is someone a kaffir AND a non believer??? are there kaffirs who are believers? kaffirs who are disbelievers and kaffirs who are pious Muslims???
ok, joking aside... you are just making stuff up.... so because I say demolishing the shariah is kufr akbar (which scholars from classical to modern times have said)- you say therefore I am making takfir of the modern rulers. but not only this... because I say dismantling the shariah is kufr akbar (which it is), you say therefore I am making takfir of the rulers and I am making takfir on the basis of sins alone.
this is just.... you are just making stuff up. so now someone who says "dismantling the shariah is kufr akbar" is a khariji who makes takfir on the basis of sins alone? so all the classical scholars who held this view- you would be making them khawarij.
As. I. Said. :
"if you say "holding the view that dismantling the shariah is major kufr makes you a khariji"- ok, then this makes Ibn Hazm, Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir khawarij."
Last edited:
techsamatar
I put Books to the Test of Life
I will say this again for your poisoned brain, If the ruler believes Man made laws are better then Sharia and superior and he does not even implement nothing of it then that is Kufr Akbar.
But if He does not believe this to which I doubt no modern ruler today believes this but they implement parts of Sharia and even say 98% then this is not Kufr Akbar.
But you filthy rebellion callers brand the rulers as Kafirs just from Sins and even if they are coming short on one aspect, you use the verses of non believers for the Muslim.
again:
"if you say "holding the view that dismantling the shariah is major kufr makes you a khariji"- ok, then this makes Ibn Hazm, Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir khawarij."
and here is what Sheikh Uthaymeen said:
“And we say: Whoever doesn’t judge by what Allah Sent down out of belittling it, or hating it, or belief that other than the Judgement of Allah is more appropriate, and better for the subjects – then he is a Kafir, and this Kufr expels one from the fold of Islam – And from the manifestations of the aforementioned, is one who places for the people legislations that contradict the Islamic Legislations, and make them a source for the people to follow (i.e., permanently judge by); [and this manifestation is Kufr because] the one doing so doesn’t implement these legislations which contradict the Islamic Legislation, except that the believe that they’re more appropriate and/or better for the people [than the Islamic Legislation], For it is known by logical necessity, that a person doesn’t consciously move away from one way of life, to that which contradicts it, except that he believes the latter to be better than the former, and/or the former to be less than the latter.” -Sheikh Uthaymeen
فَنَقُولُ: مَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ اسْتِخْفَافًا بِهِ، أَوْ احْتِقَارًا لَهُ، أَوْ اعْتِقَادًا أَنَّ غَيْرَهُ أَصْلَحُ مِنْهُ، وَأَنْفَعُ لِلْخَلْقِ فَهُوَ كَافِرٌ كُفْرًا مُخْرَجًا عَنْ الْمِلَّةِ، وَمِنْ هَؤُلَاءِ مَنْ يَضَعُونَ لِلنَّاسِ تَشْرِيعَاتٍ تُخَالِفُ التَّشْرِيعَاتِ الْإِسْلَامِيَّةَ لِتَكُونَ مِنْهَاجًا يَسِيرُ النَّاسُ عَلَيْهِ، فَإِنَّهُمْ لَمْ يَضَعُوا تِلْكَ التَّشْرِيعَاتِ الْمُخَالِفَةَ لِلشَّرِيعَةِ الْإِسْلَامِيَّةِ إِلَّا وَهُمْ يَعْتَقِدُونَ أَنَّهَا أَصْلَحُ وَأَنْفَعُ لِلْخَلْقِ، إِذْ مِنْ الْمَعْلُومِ بِالضَّرُورَةِ الْعَقْلِيَّةِ، وَالْجِبِلَّةُ الْفِطْرِيَّةُ أَنَّ الْإِنْسَانَ لَا يَعْدِلُ عَنْ مِنْهَاجٍ إلَى مِنْهَاجٍ يُخَالِفُهُ إِلَّا وَهُوَ يَعْتَقِدُ فَضْلَ مَا عَدَلَ إِلَيْهِ وَنَقْصِ مَا عَدَلَ عَنْهُ
Furthermore, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm Āl al-Shaykh رحمه الله put out a famous fatwa saying that who dismantles the shariah is a kaffir
so, all those scholars I mentioned, they are khawarij who make takfir on the basis of sins?
I'm telling you, it's like SPUBS finds these random people and teaches them
Lesson one: -"okay, now here's how to make wudu"
Lesson two: -"ok, now here's why you should start calling anyone who criticizes Saudi Arabia a khariji".
and this guy not only is clueless but is a liar. this guy lied about knowing Arabic.
"I also learned Arabic to connect more deeply with the Deen". he "acquired an intermediate proficiency in classical Arabic along with understanding Egyptian Arabic".
but he didn't know the word khawarij is plural.
English translation of the Grand Mufti's fatwa:
“As for 'kufr duna kufr, it is when the ruler judges by other than what Allah revealed with firm conviction that it is disobedience. He believes that the judgement of Allah is the truth, but he left from it in specific case. As for whoever legislates Man-made laws and makes others obey them, then it is kufr, even if they said, "We sinned and the judgement of the Revealed Law is more just." This is still kufr that removes one from the millah (religion).” [Fatawa wa rasail, 12/280]
"وقال الشيخ محمد بن إبراهيم آل الشيخ رحمه الله: "أمَّا الذي قيل فيه: "كفر دون كفر" إذا حاكم إلى غير الله مع اعتقاده أنَّه عاصٍ وأنَّ حكم الله هو الحق؛ فهذا الذي يصدُر منه المرَّة ونحوها، أمَّا الذي جعل قوانين بترتيبٍ وتخضيعٍ، فهو كُفر وإن قالوا: أخطأنا وحُكمُ الشرع أعدل"؛ [فتاوى الشيخ محمد بن إبراهيم: المجلد الثاني العشر/ 280]."
www.alukah.net
So the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm Āl al-Shaykh رحمه الله was a khariji?
"In fact al-Fawzān himself approvingly cites the Fatwa and said, “He, رحمه الله , distinguished between a partial ruling that is not repeated and a general legislation that is the reference in all or most of the rulings, and he chose this Kufr takes outside the religion, because whoever leaves Islāmic Sharīʿāh and makes man-made law an alternative to it, this is evidence that he believes that the law is better and more correct than the Sharīʿāh, and this is undoubtedly Kufr Akbar that takes outside the religion and contradicts Tawḥīd”"
So Sheikh Fawzan- he is a khariji too now?
“As for 'kufr duna kufr, it is when the ruler judges by other than what Allah revealed with firm conviction that it is disobedience. He believes that the judgement of Allah is the truth, but he left from it in specific case. As for whoever legislates Man-made laws and makes others obey them, then it is kufr, even if they said, "We sinned and the judgement of the Revealed Law is more just." This is still kufr that removes one from the millah (religion).” [Fatawa wa rasail, 12/280]
"وقال الشيخ محمد بن إبراهيم آل الشيخ رحمه الله: "أمَّا الذي قيل فيه: "كفر دون كفر" إذا حاكم إلى غير الله مع اعتقاده أنَّه عاصٍ وأنَّ حكم الله هو الحق؛ فهذا الذي يصدُر منه المرَّة ونحوها، أمَّا الذي جعل قوانين بترتيبٍ وتخضيعٍ، فهو كُفر وإن قالوا: أخطأنا وحُكمُ الشرع أعدل"؛ [فتاوى الشيخ محمد بن إبراهيم: المجلد الثاني العشر/ 280]."
الفرق بين الحكم بغير ما أنزل الله في قضية معينة وبين تبديل شرع الله بقانون وضعي
<p>الفرق بين الحكم بغير ما أنزل الله في قضية معينة وبين تبديل شرع الله بقانون وضعي الحمد لله رب العالمين، حمدًا كثيرًا طيبًا مباركًا فيه، والصلاة والسلام على إمام الموحِّدين، وقائد المجاهدين، سيدنا محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم، وعلى آله الطيبين الطاهرين، وأصحابه الغرِّ الميامين. وبعد: فهذا مقالٌ...
So the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm Āl al-Shaykh رحمه الله was a khariji?
"In fact al-Fawzān himself approvingly cites the Fatwa and said, “He, رحمه الله , distinguished between a partial ruling that is not repeated and a general legislation that is the reference in all or most of the rulings, and he chose this Kufr takes outside the religion, because whoever leaves Islāmic Sharīʿāh and makes man-made law an alternative to it, this is evidence that he believes that the law is better and more correct than the Sharīʿāh, and this is undoubtedly Kufr Akbar that takes outside the religion and contradicts Tawḥīd”"
So Sheikh Fawzan- he is a khariji too now?
techsamatar
I put Books to the Test of Life
"out of belittling it, or hating it, or belief that other than the Judgement of Allah is more appropriate, and better for the subjects"
Case closed thank you for sending that to just prove me right, IF THE RULER BELIEVES WITH INTEINTION AND OUTWARD THAT SHARIA OR LAW OF ALLAH IS LESSER AND NOT BETTER THEN MAN MADE LAWS THEN HE COMMITTED KUFR AKBAR.
BUT PLEASE DO NOT COME HERE WITH YOUR BANDITS AND POSIONERS THAT POINT THE FINGER AT MUSLIM RULERS WHO IMPLEMENT PARTS OF THE SHARIA SHOWING THEY DO NOT BELIEVE SHARIA LAW IS LESSER THEN ANYTHING IF THEY DID THEY WOULD HAVE BANISHED ANY TRACE OF SHARIA.
BUT OF COURSE YOUR KIND IS KNOWN FOR LOOKING FOR ANY SIN OR SHORTCOMING TO BRAND THE RULERS AS KAFIRS TO THEN REBEL AND CAUSE CHAOS AFTER USING VERSE MEANT FOR THE DISBELIEVERS TO THE MUSLIMS.
please don't reply no point.
in other words, you just got wrecked. you had to edit out most of the Sheikh's statement- as though people here can't just read the rest of it!
"out of belittling it, or hating it, or belief that other than the Judgement of Allah is more appropriate, and better for the subjects"- yes and then he goes on to say
And from the manifestations of the aforementioned, is one who places for the people legislations that contradict the Islamic Legislations, and make them a source for the people to follow (i.e., permanently judge by); [and this manifestation is Kufr because] the one doing so doesn’t implement these legislations which contradict the Islamic Legislation, except that the believe that they’re more appropriate and/or better for the people [than the Islamic Legislation], For it is known by logical necessity, that a person doesn’t consciously move away from one way of life, to that which contradicts it, except that he believes the latter to be better than the former, and/or the former to be less than the latter.” -Sheikh Uthaymeen
I think everyone here can read English. the Sheikh did say what you quoted and then he went on to takfir rulers who don't rule by the shariah. he said that, not me.
Bro do you really want me to link paintings of Ottoman sodomy or provide accounts of prostitution in Istanbul or accounts of the prevalence of Raki during the Ottoman period.
These are all well documented things that happened in the Ottoman Empire.
As for your point that the Ottoman Empire was barely an Islamic government, I agree, hence why I originally put caliphate in quotation marks.
Just like how Somalia, Syria, Iraq or Libya are barely Islamic governments. The first three I listed were secular.
Somalis aren’t cursed because we deposed a leader who has been documented to pray to Jesus and have alcoholism issues, our issues is due to our own societal problems that existed before Siyaad Barre.
techsamatar
I put Books to the Test of Life
"who has been documented to pray to Jesus and have alcoholism issues" - Source: Trust me bro.
The documented evidence primarily points to Christian Somalis leading the rebels as well as members of those so called freedom fighters, promised North Somalia and Ogaden for their betrayal. It's worth noting that their initial coup occurred in 1972-1973, resulting in failure, after which they fled to Ethiopia. Importantly, this transpired before Siad Barre took any action, making it clear that attempts to shift blame or make excuses don't hold, as the events preceded any involvement from Siad Barre.
The bitter reality is that today, you're at the lowest point, considered the scum of the earth, marred by corruption, and lacking a centralized authority due to adopting Khariji thinking. Your own actions were fueled by Western funding and support from the Habesha. Christian Somalis, driven by greed rather than religious motives, led the charge to overthrow, causing a 30-year civil war and relentless bloodshed among believers.
What did Siad barre acquire and what did he lose once he left? What happened following his overthrow was 100 times worse and resulted in far more slaughter, and it is thanks to that that you are the scum of the planet today.
Was it legal and protected by the state is the question. Prostitution and alcohol consumption is rife in Xamar but that doesn't mean it's legalised. This things are happening in Somalia because of the weakness of the law enforcement. We need the sources.
Siyaad bare was a murtad. Here is him mocking the deen and denying verses from the Quran
And he executed the clerics who spoke out against his speech in the Friday prayer sermon but this lil kid qurbajoog likes to defend the dead murted for his imaginary Somalia
Things are 100 percent better after his fall as most of our wealth and development doesn't go to the capital city like used to be for example the whole north had only one main hospital built by the brits in the 50s located in Hargeisa and it wasn't properly funded by the govt so a person who sufferers from a serous sickness and needs urgent medical attention let's say in Laascanood have to take the long road to Mogadishu and you can see how bad it was during that period of time.
Bro you wrote all this yappa yappa but a simple google search would’ve shown you that I was right.
You could literally google the Alcohol tax that the Ottomans used to impose. Re: Muskirat Resmi laws.
You can also google how prostitution was legalised and regulated in the Ottoman Empire. Re: The Regulation on the Prevention of the spread of Veneral Disease law of 1915. (This was their last law but it was legal prior to that).
This is very basic information about the Ottoman Empire which you could’ve found yourself but here are the relevant legislation.
1. I hate Daesh.
2. Hypothetically, if we were to go by your standards, a ruler says his secular laws are better than the Sharia of Allah which will make him a disbeliever. Then Jihad is waajib on him. and even if he kills civilians that doesn't negate the fact that Jihaad is stil Waajib
Celery
We finally beat Medicare 🎊 🎉
Tell me about “secular laws”. Give me an example of a secular law
Democracy
free speech
free speech
Trending
-
Somalis are the new targets - open your eyes to the racial conflict of the future- Started by Khaem
- Replies: 78
-
-
Islamic-relief.org.uk. ''Mogadishu was founded by settlers in the 8th century''- Started by Fobnimo Till I Dhimo
- Replies: 102
