Originally Posted by convert
Actually, that is what people with severe Aqeeda deficiency or lack of knowledge say. Make up false claims and accusations and insults on great scholars and call proper muslims on the right path as "Madkhali cult" to give themselves the feeling or illusion of righteousness. Moreover, they pass takfir and apostacy on everyone and call for the shedding of muslim blood. Naturally then Qutb is a complete hero to them and has done nothing wrong. When you ask for sources and proofs or evidence, they quote unknowns and rebels, and their evidence is nothing but a string of illogical deductions to subvert clear textual evidence that what they are saying is forbidden and against the Aqeedah of the companions and the Salaf and all the great scholars of Islam.
They will say that rebellion against rulers is acceptable, and start off using a verse in Quran that was about jews, and using the description of "kafiroon" to remake it into the ruling of the action, then slap it onto the rulers and then say "they were muslims, so now they are apostates, and they should be killed", all the while flat out ignoring the prophet's strict prohibition of doing that and specifically saying that there will be bad rulers not applying Shariah but we still cannot fight them otherwise we forbidden blood will be shed. They will also say suicide bombs in civilian areas are acceptable because the aim is to attack "agents", and a suicide bomber pushing his own button is a martyr. They will say it's ok to kill civilian muslims, either because they were supposed to be fighting with the "mujahideen" otherwise protecting apostate rulers and then apostates themselves, or just acceptable casualty.
Jihad is their coat of arms and it has nothing to do with them, their guns and bombs are aimed at their own communities and never at the real enemy outside (except in verbal ranty lectures of course where they bash America and England and all that, yet strangely enough always seem to find someone back home to start blaming and fixate on and criticise and make as a target for the hate).
Strangely enough, they contradict themselves usually by accusing the regular muslims and great scholars of passing takfir, when people can clearly see that scholars will never do so, but have to pronounce the acts of kufr to clarify. Yet they themselves are the ones passing takfir and apostacy on muslims and rulers, and further more making declarations that specific people are to be killed "their blood is halal", and are the ones who would not make Salam on what their likes consider to be non-muslim.
No place or time to waste going over the refutations of all that, yet warning against these polymecs is a duty on every muslim who knows, and I will continue to do mine:
A- Waging war against civilians, muslim or non-muslims, is strictly forbidden and there is no martyrdom in blowing yourself up amongst unarmed people.
B- Rebellion against rulers no matter how corrupt, is strictly forbidden by more than a dozen hadiths. Some of which:
Hudhaifa bin al-Yaman narrated a hadith in which he said, “The Prophet (saws) said, ‘there will be after me leaders who do not follow my guidance and do not follow my sunna, and there will be among them men whose hearts are like those of satan in the body of a human being.’ And I asked the Prophet (saws), ‘What I should do at that time if I reach it?’ He said, ‘listen and obey the ruler, even if he lashed your back and took your money, listen and obey.’" [Sahih Muslim]
In another narration, Auf bin Malik said, “O Prophet of Allah, do you recommend that we fight them?” He said, “No, don’t fight them as long as they do not prevent you from your prayers. And if you see from them something that you dislike, dislike their acts, do not dislike them. And do not take your hand out from obedience to them.” [Sahih Muslim] it has other narrations:
1) “There will be upon you leaders who you will recognize and disapprove of; whoever rejects them is free, whoever hates them is safe as opposed to those who are pleased and obey them”, they said, “should we not fight them”. He said, “No, as long as they hold the prayer, as long as they do hold the prayer!”
2)”The best of your leaders are those you love and they love you, you pray for them and they pray for you. The worst of your leaders are those who anger you and you anger them and you curse them and they curse you. He said we replied, “O Messenger of Allah, should we not remove them at that?” He r said, “No, as long as they establish the prayer amongst you.”
From Abdullah ibn al-Abbas, “if someone dislikes his ruler, he must be patient, because if he comes against the ruler in a rebellious or destructive manner by only a handspan and dies, he dies in a state of pre-Islamic ignorance (jahiliyyah) and sin.” [Bukhari and Muslim]
C- The blood of muslims is haraam and cannot be shed except in the Shariah dictated instances and ONLY by the authorized magistrate after proving evidence and making sure conditions are upheld and excuses do not apply. Apostacy can NEVER be declared simply by not abiding by Shariah, for it is by textual evidence only a sin, and even apostacy at heart (lack of belief) cannot be punishable by war and does not absolve the person of the sanctity of his blood. Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal was asked about what is being said about Quran being created, and said it is kufr, they asked whether they should fight the ruler since he is declaring that and is corrupt and torturing people just for not agreeing to that, and he insisted that it is completely impermissible.
To take fighting the ruler further and declare war on all muslims living in a country and considering their blood to be permissible to be shed in the quest to overthrow the ruler, is the heart of the act of Khawarej.
Be warned and aware of who you listen to in order to guard your faith from one of the worst corruptions you can face. Khawarij were warned against by the prophet -pbuh-: "One who defected from obedience (to the ruler) and separated from the main body of the Muslims-if he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya (i. e. would not die as a Muslim). One who fights under the banner of a people who are blind (to the cause for which they are fighting. i. e. do not know whether their cause is just or otherwise), who gets flared up with family pride, calls to fight for their family honour, and supports his kin (his family or tribe) -if he is killed, he dies as one belonging to the days of Jhiliyya. Who so ever attacks my Umma (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his promise made with those who have been given a pledge of security-he has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with him.” (Sahih Muslim).