/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Tony Blair calls on world to wage war on militant Islam



Uthman
04-23-2009, 04:23 PM
Tony Blair has said he does not regret leading Britain to war in Iraq when he was Prime Minister and has called on the world to take on and defeat Islamic extremists. He believes that, without intervention, the problem will continue to grow in countries such as Afghanistan.

He called for a battle to be waged against militant Islam similar to that fought against revolutionary communism.

In an address last night to a forum on religion and politics in Chicago, Mr Blair said that the world today faced a struggle posed by "an extreme and misguided form of Islam", which threatened the majority of Muslims as well as non-Muslims.

"Our job is simple: it is to support and partner those Muslims who believe deeply in Islam but also who believe in peaceful co-existence, in taking on and defeating the extremists who don't."

The struggle could not be won "without our active and wholehearted participation," he said.

Mr Blair was speaking almost ten years to the day since he gave an address in Chicago at the height of the Kosovo crisis when he set out what he described as a "doctrine of international community" that sought to justify intervention, including military intervention, not only when a nation's interests are directly engaged but also where there exists a humanitarian crisis or gross oppression of a civilian population.

The speech was criticised widely at the time as hopelessly idealistic and even dangerous.

"Probably, in the light of events since then, some would feel vindicated," Mr Blair said last night, but he stood by his stance. 'I still believe that those who oppress and brutalise their citizens are better put out of power than kept in it,' he said.

Defending his intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said the argument that Britain should revert to a more traditional, cautious foreign policy should be resisted.

"The case for the doctrine I advocated ten years ago remains as strong now as it was then," he said, arguing that there was a link between the murders in Mumbai, the terror attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempts to destabilise countries such as Yemen, and the training camps of insurgents in Somalia.

"It is not one movement. There is no defined command and control. But there is a shared ideology. There are many links criss-crossing the map of Jihadist extremism. And there are elements in the leadership of a major country, namely Iran, that can support and succour its practitioners."

Defending the Obama Administration's attempts to engage with Iran, Mr Blair said: "The Iranian Government should not be able to claim that we have refused the opportunity for constructive dialogue, and the stature and importance of such an ancient and extraordinary civilisation means that as a nation, Iran should command respect and be accorded its proper place in the world's affairs." I hope this engagement succeeds.

He argued that the purpose of such engagement should be clear and was about more than preventing Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. "It is to put a stop to the Iranian regime's policy of de-stabilisation and support of terrorism."

Listing the conflicts across the world, from Israel through Iraq to the Philippines and Algeria, he said: 'It is time to wrench ourselves out of a state of denial. There is one major factor in common. In each conflict there are those deeply engaged in it, who argue that they are fighting in the true name of Islam."

Mr Blair said that the doctrinal roots of extremism could be traced back to the period in the late 19th and early 20th century where modernising and moderate clerics and thinkers were slowly but surely pushed aside by the hard-line dogma of those, whose cultural and theological credentials were often dubious, but whose appeal lay in the simplicity of the message that Islam had lost its way and departed from the "true faith".

"The tragedy of this is that the authentic basis of Islam, as laid down in the Koran, is progressive, humanitarian, sees knowledge and scientific advance as a duty, which is why for centuries Islam was the fount of so much invention and innovation. Fundamental Islam is actually the opposite of what the extremists preach," he said.

He welcomed President Obama's reaching out to the Muslim world at the start of a new American Administration but warned that it would expose "the delusion of believing that there is any alternative to waging this struggle to its conclusion".

"But the ideology, as a movement within Islam, has to be defeated. It is incompatible not with 'the West' but with any society of open and tolerant people and that in particular means the many open and tolerant Muslims."

He had moved on from believing that the removal of a despotic regime was sufficient to create the condition for progress.

"This battle cannot so easily be won. Because it is based on an ideology and because its roots are deep, so our strategy for victory has to be broader, more comprehensive but also more sharply defined."

Outlining a six-point strategy, he said that this must include using the armed forces to fight where necessary.

"In the use of hard power, we have to understand one very simple thing: where we are called upon to fight, we have to do it. If we are defeated anywhere, we are at risk of being defeated everywhere."

He also advocated "soft" options. "I do not accept at all the view that democracy is unattainable or unaccepted in the Islamic world. On the contrary, eventually it is only by the embrace of greater democracy — albeit by evolution — that this battle will be won."

Source
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Muezzin
04-23-2009, 05:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tony Blair
"The tragedy of this is that the authentic basis of Islam, as laid down in the Koran, is progressive, humanitarian, sees knowledge and scientific advance as a duty, which is why for centuries Islam was the fount of so much invention and innovation. Fundamental Islam is actually the opposite of what the extremists preach," he said.
Holy moley. If Tony Blair were a member of LI, and this was part of one of his posts, it would probably be his only post to earn a rep from me.
Reply

The_Prince
04-23-2009, 06:29 PM
Palestine: Zionist Jews come to the land and kick people off, and occupy for 60 years, thats the reason of conflict.

Algeria: Islamic group wins elections, puppet western goverment doesnt like it, cancels everything, all our civil war breaks out, thats the reason why to this day algeria is unstable.

Iraq: Western forces illegally enter Iraq, leading to a creation of local insurgent groups to fight foreign troops.

Afghanistan: almost 30 years of foreign interference has led to the creation of several millitias, the most notable one being the taliban, and continued fighting happens now because the west for 8 years has been occupying.

we could carry on, :) this is a simple western LIE to say oh yeahhhh all of these conflicts are because of extremist Islam! thats the lie to take the attention of the real causes, everytime you look at the core reason you find westerners behind the root problems.
Reply

burdenofbeing
04-23-2009, 06:33 PM
curious...

should I read this as: "we will separate the ones we are attacking from others, so that they can feel safe, until we designate another target" ?

at any rate, it's disgusting that they still put pressure on Iran.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
burdenofbeing
04-23-2009, 06:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
Palestine: Zionist Jews come to the land and kick people off, and occupy for 60 years, thats the reason of conflict.

Algeria: Islamic group wins elections, puppet western goverment doesnt like it, cancels everything, all our civil war breaks out, thats the reason why to this day algeria is unstable.

Iraq: Western forces illegally enter Iraq, leading to a creation of local insurgent groups to fight foreign troops.

Afghanistan: almost 30 years of foreign interference has led to the creation of several millitias, the most notable one being the taliban, and continued fighting happens now because the west for 8 years has been occupying.

we could carry on, :) this is a simple western LIE to say oh yeahhhh all of these conflicts are because of extremist Islam! thats the lie to take the attention of the real causes, everytime you look at the core reason you find westerners behind the root problems.
Ron Paul agrees with you.
Reply

The_Prince
04-23-2009, 11:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by burdenofbeing
Ron Paul agrees with you.
Ron Paul is a good man, he is what you call the real true American, original America and its values is what he represents, what you see today from Obama or the Neocons is a new backward ideology.
Reply

memories
04-23-2009, 11:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
Palestine: Zionist Jews come to the land and kick people off, and occupy for 60 years, thats the reason of conflict.

Algeria: Islamic group wins elections, puppet western goverment doesnt like it, cancels everything, all our civil war breaks out, thats the reason why to this day algeria is unstable.

Iraq: Western forces illegally enter Iraq, leading to a creation of local insurgent groups to fight foreign troops.

Afghanistan: almost 30 years of foreign interference has led to the creation of several millitias, the most notable one being the taliban, and continued fighting happens now because the west for 8 years has been occupying.

we could carry on, :) this is a simple western LIE to say oh yeahhhh all of these conflicts are because of extremist Islam! thats the lie to take the attention of the real causes, everytime you look at the core reason you find westerners behind the root problems.
well, we can say what we want but the extremists kinda ruined it on the rest non extremists, with the bombs and the treats and the violent flag burning protests and the planes and the.. I could go on. but your right on the fact that the west does interfere and has a long history of colonialism in those places. oil is what interest's the west nowadays.. gotta keep them big fords going, and i do agree that they did cause problems by these actions. but i think violence is not the solution, 2 rongs just dont make a right. dont you think ?
Reply

Strzelecki
04-24-2009, 01:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
Ron Paul is a good man, he is what you call the real true American, original America and its values is what he represents, what you see today from Obama or the Neocons is a new backward ideology.
Quoted for truth.
Reply

Keltoi
04-24-2009, 02:13 AM
Tony Blair realizes a very simple reality. There is widespread terrorist ideology out there that utilizes the Muslim faith for political and propoganda goals. One can argue about what and who they represent, but the reality is there for anybody to see.
Reply

nocturnal
04-25-2009, 02:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Tony Blair realizes a very simple reality. There is widespread terrorist ideology out there that utilizes the Muslim faith for political and propoganda goals. One can argue about what and who they represent, but the reality is there for anybody to see.
Tony Blair himself together in cahoots with Bush through their zealous quest for new conquests are the very people who instigated this "reality". He is not the prudent and prophetic visionary you're describing, he's a calaculating, conniving war criminal who plotted with Bush to grab and monoplise the Middle East's incalculably high energy reserves.

If today Afghanistan is a failed state, Iraq is plunged to theabject depths of sectarian strife, Pakistan is teetering on the brink of collapse, Somalia is haven for piracy activity etc. This is ALL the result of the Bush-Blair tandem. You know this very well Keltoi, i do not see how you can possibly act as apologists for these murderous thugs who engaged in the wanton slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people and fundamentally destabilised an entire continent.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-25-2009, 06:16 AM
Me, I blame the martians.
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-25-2009, 06:21 AM
tony blair and george w bush were the biggest terrorists of their time, now it is the turn of brown and obama to terrorise the world.

the muslim world is fighting a defensive war, a war to throw off the shackles of oppression and the ones doing that oppression can only fool other people because they want to be fooled, they dont want to see their country, their people as the aggressors so they turn around and blame the victim.

islam is coming back, you cant stop it, even as you struggle against it you only create more sympathy for it, subhanallah we've even got gitmo guards embracing islam!

i remember telling this to a very british aggressive soldier who came up to us on the dawah stall, he said he had killed taliban, i asked him how many, he said 3, i said ok but i by the grace of Allah have helped many many times more muslims than that here in the uk so you are losing.
Reply

Keltoi
04-25-2009, 10:29 AM
I see the old strategy continues. Avoid what "the brothers in Islam" are actually doing by pointing fingers the other direction.
Reply

nocturnal
04-25-2009, 07:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I see the old strategy continues. Avoid what "the brothers in Islam" are actually doing by pointing fingers the other direction.

Enlighten us as to what the "brothers in Islam" are doing. Is their resistance not legitimised by western aggression? do they have no right to defend themselves and their lands? do they not have the universally immutable right to self-determination, or are they destined to be subjected to foreign control all their life?

Do these "brothers in Islam" seek to control the western world or just preserve their own sovereignty. You have to be objective in your analysis rather than engage in fatuous rhetoric.
Reply

Zafran
04-25-2009, 08:45 PM
Salaam

Its shocking that Tony still doesnt get it that he made a mistake with Iraq and sticking too close to Bush - yet he doesnt learn

Furthermore extremism is a partial reaction to western interference and the corrupt governments- the western interference is not part of the solution but part of the problem. They have supported oppresive dictators for a long time - when its time to take them off innocent people have to pay the price - its a pity.
Reply

nocturnal
04-26-2009, 05:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Salaam

Its shocking that Tony still doesnt get it that he made a mistake with Iraq and sticking too close to Bush - yet he doesnt learn

Furthermore extremism is a partial reaction to western interference and the corrupt governments- the western interference is not part of the solution but part of the problem. They have supported oppresive dictators for a long time - when its time to take them off innocent people have to pay the price - its a pity.
I don't think there is anything for Tony Blair to "realise" here. He deliberately led the UK into an unnecessary war which has cost Iraq more than a million lives, daily bombings, intense sectarian strife and division, crumbling infrastructure, rampant corruption, etc. In doing so he served to satiate powerful corporate interests akin to that of Bush in the US.

The international community must set a precedent, that such aggression cannot go unchallenged by indicting these war criminals along with their cronies in israel and the wider Middle East who repress and inhumanely brutalize their own populations.
Reply

Pomak
04-26-2009, 07:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Tony Blair realizes a very simple reality. There is widespread terrorist ideology out there that utilizes the Muslim faith for political and propoganda goals. One can argue about what and who they represent, but the reality is there for anybody to see.
Does this sound familiar?

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-26-2009, 09:13 AM
i am totally against tony blair and those like him who wish to impose their way of life upon everyone else, by violence if necessary.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-26-2009, 05:13 PM
I completely agree with you Dawud_uk. This applies universally, to all sides of these conflicts.
Reply

Amadeus85
04-26-2009, 05:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
i am totally against tony blair and those like him who wish to impose their way of life upon everyone else, by violence if necessary.
How it goes along with...

Originally Posted by Dawud_uk View Post
i'll be honest with you though, this is not a popularity contest, it doesnt matter if the people want shariah or democracy, it is not a debate a muslim can have as this is a muslim land so it is either they accept shariah willingly or the mujahideen will fight.
Reply

Yanal
04-26-2009, 05:58 PM
Nicely quoted Muezzin,PS have you ever imagined someone being famous on this forum but we don't know him until an article about him shows up.
Reply

nocturnal
04-26-2009, 06:45 PM
We haven't allowed ourselves to be destroyed, we have allowed ourselves to be victims of western subversion and conspiracy. This is what spawned the present reality..
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-27-2009, 06:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Amadeus85
How it goes along with...
the difference is they are doing it in the lands of the muslims, the muslims are not doing it in the west.

but yes in our own lands the shariah is implemented whether people like it or not, it is a fine line but the difference is there.
Reply

Pomak
04-27-2009, 07:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
the difference is they are doing it in the lands of the muslims, the muslims are not doing it in the west.

but yes in our own lands the shariah is implemented whether people like it or not, it is a fine line but the difference is there.
In which land is shariah implemented?
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-27-2009, 08:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
In which land is shariah implemented?
the tribal territories, swat and southern somalia so far, but dont worry, we've got much bigger ambitions than this.
Reply

Snowflake
04-27-2009, 08:50 AM
Originally Posted by Tony Blair
"The tragedy of this is that the authentic basis of Islam, as laid down in the Koran, is progressive, humanitarian, sees knowledge and scientific advance as a duty, which is why for centuries Islam was the fount of so much invention and innovation. Fundamental Islam is actually the opposite of what the extremists preach," he said
.

Holy moley. If Tony Blair were a member of LI, and this was part of one of his posts, it would probably be his only post to earn a rep from me.
I don't believe a word that comes out of that kaffirs mouth!
Reply

Pomak
04-27-2009, 11:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
the tribal territories, swat and southern somalia so far, but dont worry, we've got much bigger ambitions than this.
Tell me on the list of priorities of shariah where about is "right to life"

a. towards the top
b. around the middle
c. at the bottom
d. i don't know
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-27-2009, 12:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
Tell me on the list of priorities of shariah where about is "right to life"

a. towards the top
b. around the middle
c. at the bottom
d. i don't know
i see where you are going with this, if you wish for me to respond in the manner of the kuffar, with their bill of rights and universial declarations then i will not as such paper is only fit for toilet paper.

but from a point of view of the shariah, protecting the lives of muslims and dhimmis is one of the primary responsibilities so near the top, but higher than this is the promotion of Allah swt's word by what ever means are necessary, whether by word of deed.

:sl:
Reply

Pomak
04-27-2009, 02:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
i see where you are going with this, if you wish for me to respond in the manner of the kuffar, with their bill of rights and universial declarations then i will not as such paper is only fit for toilet paper.

but from a point of view of the shariah, protecting the lives of muslims and dhimmis is one of the primary responsibilities so near the top, but higher than this is the promotion of Allah swt's word by what ever means are necessary, whether by word of deed.

:sl:
Yes freedom of worship is number one. Actually speaking of freedom of worship, tell me if i went to "southern Somalia" or pathan areas of Pakistan, what would happen if say i turned up in suit and tie, or perhaps i felt like celebrating Persian New year, ect. (aka do anything where there is a scholarly difference of opinion)

Now you also said "promotion of Allah swt's word", please explain further, keeping in mind phrases such as "guided by the light, not blinded by the light", "correct with the possibility of being wrong and wrong with the possibility of being right" and lastly Allahu alam.
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-27-2009, 03:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
Yes freedom of worship is number one. Actually speaking of freedom of worship, tell me if i went to "southern Somalia" or pathan areas of Pakistan, what would happen if say i turned up in suit and tie, or perhaps i felt like celebrating Persian New year, ect. (aka do anything where there is a scholarly difference of opinion)

Now you also said "promotion of Allah swt's word", please explain further, keeping in mind phrases such as "guided by the light, not blinded by the light", "correct with the possibility of being wrong and wrong with the possibility of being right" and lastly Allahu alam.
RE suit and tie, i have no idea, i know plenty of pathans and somalis who wear suit and tie, i dont see it as a big issue, if the local amir asked people not to wear them as he felt it was going to far towards immitation of the kuffar then i would have no issue with that either.

re persian new year, this is not allowed, the only two such allowed celebration are the two eids as i am sure you aware and there is no valid opinion otherwise, though there is of-course scholars who say it is allowed but you can find scholars saying wine is allowed or eating haram food ok as long as not over 5% of the total and other such rubish.

what i meant by making Allah's word highest is that the law, the code of government, the way of life should be by the shariah, and that ruling by other than this is kufr and fighting for it and preserving it is more important than saving lives, even of believers.
Reply

Foxhole
04-27-2009, 08:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
i am totally against tony blair and those like him who wish to impose their way of life upon everyone else, by violence if necessary.
Like the Taliban, for example?
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-27-2009, 09:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Foxhole
Like the Taliban, for example?
yeah delt with that point already, if youre going to come late to the discussion at least have the curtasy to read the previous posts
Reply

Foxhole
04-27-2009, 09:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
yeah delt with that point already, if youre going to come late to the discussion at least have the curtasy to read the previous posts
I read up to the post I responded to. Does forum etiquette require a responder to read the entire thread before replying to an earlier post? If so, sorry.

I have a question for you. You have stated that you believe that militants have the right to impose Sharia by force in "Muslim lands".

Can you define what constitutes a "Muslim land"? I ask because I wish to know if there are any circumstances (change in population demographics, e.g.) under which the UK or US could be considered a "Muslim land", and hence trigger the conditions for the imposition of Sharia by force.
Reply

Pomak
04-28-2009, 02:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
RE suit and tie, i have no idea, i know plenty of pathans and somalis who wear suit and tie, i dont see it as a big issue, if the local amir asked people not to wear them as he felt it was going to far towards immitation of the kuffar then i would have no issue with that either.

re persian new year, this is not allowed, the only two such allowed celebration are the two eids as i am sure you aware and there is no valid opinion otherwise, though there is of-course scholars who say it is allowed but you can find scholars saying wine is allowed or eating haram food ok as long as not over 5% of the total and other such rubish.

what i meant by making Allah's word highest is that the law, the code of government, the way of life should be by the shariah, and that ruling by other than this is kufr and fighting for it and preserving it is more important than saving lives, even of believers.
Like i said, considering that those advocating that "x y or z has shariah", seem to be stuck in a "our way or the highway" type of mentality i highly doubt that what is implemented in tribal lands of Pakistan is shariah.

Just because you package something as "shariah" doesn't make it so, case and point is General Zia-ul-Haq's Islamisation.
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-28-2009, 05:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Foxhole
I read up to the post I responded to. Does forum etiquette require a responder to read the entire thread before replying to an earlier post? If so, sorry.

I have a question for you. You have stated that you believe that militants have the right to impose Sharia by force in "Muslim lands".

Can you define what constitutes a "Muslim land"? I ask because I wish to know if there are any circumstances (change in population demographics, e.g.) under which the UK or US could be considered a "Muslim land", and hence trigger the conditions for the imposition of Sharia by force.
hi foxhole,

the muslim lands are those where the rule of Allah has been implemented in the past or somewhere the rule of Allah is being implemented right there and then, it doesnt mean somewhere where there is a muslim majority.

so there have been muslim lands without a muslim majority, such as yemen or egypt just after the coming of islam, and places with a muslim majority which are not considered muslim lands. it is the muslim rule and law which makes it a muslim land, not the people themselves.

so we will never give up on palestine, never. it can be put on the back burner for a bit, whilst we deal with problems elsewhere, but sooner or later we are coming back to take palestine when we are in a position of strength.
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-28-2009, 05:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
Like i said, considering that those advocating that "x y or z has shariah", seem to be stuck in a "our way or the highway" type of mentality i highly doubt that what is implemented in tribal lands of Pakistan is shariah.

Just because you package something as "shariah" doesn't make it so, case and point is General Zia-ul-Haq's Islamisation.
i agree RE zia ul haq, he was a taghoot same as the other sham muslim leaders, a little better than the rest but still fell short of implementing the shariah, only ended up with some aspects of it, leaving others.

ok, you say you doubt they have the shariah in the tribal territories, i agree they will falldown in some areas but the point is they are trying their best to implement the law of Allah, they have made an intention and if you disagree with some aspect of the shariah they use then go to a amir there and make a complaint, bring forth your proofs.
Reply

Foxhole
04-28-2009, 05:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
hi foxhole,

the muslim lands are those where the rule of Allah has been implemented in the past or somewhere the rule of Allah is being implemented right there and then, it doesnt mean somewhere where there is a muslim majority.

so there have been muslim lands without a muslim majority, such as yemen or egypt just after the coming of islam, and places with a muslim majority which are not considered muslim lands. it is the muslim rule and law which makes it a muslim land, not the people themselves.

so we will never give up on palestine, never. it can be put on the back burner for a bit, whilst we deal with problems elsewhere, but sooner or later we are coming back to take palestine when we are in a position of strength.
OK, so as far as the US and UK are concerned (and a lot of other countries, of course), these are not Muslim lands since they do not and have not implemented Islamic law. Can I assume then that the imperative to establish Islamic law would have no basis in those countries and they have a right to permanently govern according to their own system, such as secular democracy?

I ask this specifically because I have seen the view expressed by some Muslims that non-Islamic governments outside of the Caliphate can be tolerated for a time, but that eventually these non-Islamic governments must either implement Islamic rule or pay a tribute tax (which is of course a humiliation that no nation would ever tolerate except under threat of violence.)
Reply

nocturnal
04-28-2009, 05:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Foxhole
OK, so as far as the US and UK are concerned (and a lot of other countries, of course), these are not Muslim lands since they do not and have not implemented Islamic law. Can I assume then that the imperative to establish Islamic law would have no basis in those countries and they have a right to permanently govern according to their own system, such as secular democracy?

I ask this specifically because I have seen the view expressed by some Muslims that non-Islamic governments outside of the Caliphate can be tolerated for a time, but that eventually these non-Islamic governments must either implement Islamic rule or pay a tribute tax (which is of course a humiliation that no nation would ever tolerate except under threat of violence.)
I don't think that would be the case. What you're talking about was a different epoch altogether where the emphasis was on mercantalism and opening up trade routes with conquests, which were ostensibly religious in nature.

The reality today is quite different, Muslims do not seek to do what the US and it's allies have done throughout the post-war period, which is to exert hegemony to devastating levels. We want to emancipate ourselves and be governed by a progressive leadership whose reference point is Islam. It is possible and it can be done, but we must first establish ourselves as a proud, dignified and independent nation not subject to directives from neo-imperialist powers.
Reply

Pomak
04-28-2009, 05:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Foxhole
OK, so as far as the US and UK are concerned (and a lot of other countries, of course), these are not Muslim lands since they do not and have not implemented Islamic law. Can I assume then that the imperative to establish Islamic law would have no basis in those countries and they have a right to permanently govern according to their own system, such as secular democracy?

I ask this specifically because I have seen the view expressed by some Muslims that non-Islamic governments outside of the Caliphate can be tolerated for a time, but that eventually these non-Islamic governments must either implement Islamic rule or pay a tribute tax (which is of course a humiliation that no nation would ever tolerate except under threat of violence.)
1. khalifate doesn't exist.
2. the tax is on conquered peoples.

btw please define secular democracy. If you are American you will know the reaction of large parts of the US when Obama said "America isn't a Christian country"


i agree RE zia ul haq, he was a taghoot same as the other sham muslim leaders, a little better than the rest but still fell short of implementing the shariah, only ended up with some aspects of it, leaving others.
Under his laws a woman can be raped and be punished for it. (a bit like what happens in KSA). That isn't "part implementation" thats called injustice. And last time i looked it up Shariah can't be unjust.

I have quoted a 16th century Ottomani shariah verdict on DV. Show me anything that comes close to that, that has come from any of these "part implemented shariah" countries.

I would argue that if the US repackaged its legal system as "shariah" (without any changes) it would come closer to "real" shariah than the swat valley or parts of Somalia.

One last thing, do you know the attitude of Shariah on the subject of muslim killing muslim?(highly relevant if were talking about Somalia or Pakistan)
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-28-2009, 05:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Foxhole
OK, so as far as the US and UK are concerned (and a lot of other countries, of course), these are not Muslim lands since they do not and have not implemented Islamic law. Can I assume then that the imperative to establish Islamic law would have no basis in those countries and they have a right to permanently govern according to their own system, such as secular democracy?

I ask this specifically because I have seen the view expressed by some Muslims that non-Islamic governments outside of the Caliphate can be tolerated for a time, but that eventually these non-Islamic governments must either implement Islamic rule or pay a tribute tax (which is of course a humiliation that no nation would ever tolerate except under threat of violence.)
hi foxhole,

i live in the uk, and do advocate islamic law for this country. i also know it will probably never happen in my lifetime but eventually yes, through keeping growing not just the numbers but the faith of the believers i think it will happen eventually.

only those countries who fight the believers are forced into a treaty of jiziyah or conquered with islamic law then becomming the law of the land, non islamic governments are fine for your non muslim lands, that is your business so long as the believers are not oppressed there by you or you go waging wars against muslims.
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-28-2009, 06:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
1. khalifate doesn't exist.
2. the tax is on conquered peoples.

btw please define secular democracy. If you are American you will know the reaction of large parts of the US when Obama said "America isn't a Christian country"



Under his laws a woman can be raped and be punished for it. (a bit like what happens in KSA). That isn't "part implementation" thats called injustice. And last time i looked it up Shariah can't be unjust.

I have quoted a 16th century Ottomani shariah verdict on DV. Show me anything that comes close to that, that has come from any of these "part implemented shariah" countries.

I would argue that if the US repackaged its legal system as "shariah" (without any changes) it would come closer to "real" shariah than the swat valley or parts of Somalia.

One last thing, do you know the attitude of Shariah on the subject of muslim killing muslim?(highly relevant if were talking about Somalia or Pakistan)
yes, i know that law and it is unjust and against the shariah of Allah. if you examine the rulings of rape, it requires four witnesses but an allegation of rape can also lead to a charge of hiraba (taking something through force) which requires less evidence and has much more severe punishments.

once again you bring no proof for your slanders against the mujahideen in somalia and pakistan, bring your proof.

RE your final point, it is not applicable with the apostate, hence the need to refer to the rulings of the past and how the one who fought against the shariah was dealt with which was harsher than the mujahideen are dealing with them today.
Reply

Pomak
04-28-2009, 02:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
yes, i know that law and it is unjust and against the shariah of Allah. if you examine the rulings of rape, it requires four witnesses but an allegation of rape can also lead to a charge of hiraba (taking something through force) which requires less evidence and has much more severe punishments.

once again you bring no proof for your slanders against the mujahideen in somalia and pakistan, bring your proof.

RE your final point, it is not applicable with the apostate, hence the need to refer to the rulings of the past and how the one who fought against the shariah was dealt with which was harsher than the mujahideen are dealing with them today.
Yes common sense would dictate that there is something between "not guilty" and capital punishment.

And if you look over what i said, i wasn't talking about the people or even their actions. So by virtue it can't be slander.

And on your last point, speaking of the scholar of old, tell me did they say

a. any joe blow can make takfir for what he thinks is kufr
b. only a qadi can make takfir based on a highly detailed list of things that take one out of Islam.

and further did the scholars of old, believe that you can make takfir based on association?

Now do explain how the rebels in Somalia turn around and become the state? Kindly explain how one supports the ones who when told join the coalition for peace, bringing the country together again and stopping the bleeding, how one ignores the Quranic injunction on what you do when someone "inclines toward peace".
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-28-2009, 02:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
Yes common sense would dictate that there is something between "not guilty" and capital punishment.

And if you look over what i said, i wasn't talking about the people or even their actions. So by virtue it can't be slander.

And on your last point, speaking of the scholar of old, tell me did they say

a. any joe blow can make takfir for what he thinks is kufr
b. only a qadi can make takfir based on a highly detailed list of things that take one out of Islam.

and further did the scholars of old, believe that you can make takfir based on association?

Now do explain how the rebels in Somalia turn around and become the state? Kindly explain how one supports the ones who when told join the coalition for peace, bringing the country together again and stopping the bleeding, how one ignores the Quranic injunction on what you do when someone "inclines toward peace".
:sl:

dealing with each issue you bring up in order,

you are incorrect regarding only a qadi being able to make takfir, the difference is when there is an islamic state setup with the legal code in place then when allegations of takfir are made the qadi need look into them and see if they warrent the death penalty or are baseless, if they do warrent the death penalty are there are any mitigating factors to prevent this such as madness etc.

there are some matters of takfir which are left for the people of knowledge, but others which are known by necessity, such as allying with the kuffar, ruling by other than Allah has revealled in this case.

regarding takfir by association, who said this? if someone allies with the kuffar and takes their side they are kuffar themselves, like the apostasy wars, these people still claimed islam, some refused to pay zakaat, some followed new 'prophets' whilst others only sided with their tribes because of tribal alliance and all were fought killed, enslaved because of their apostasy.

now finally dealing with somalia, you are not seriously giving support and legitimacy to the gangsters who made up the transitional government? or those who refer to the UN, go cap in hand to the enemies of Allah, the US, AU, EU and UN begging them for money?

if people have no intention of bringing in the shariah or ally with the kuffar then they will be raised with them and more importantly for our discussion fought like them.
Reply

Pomak
04-29-2009, 02:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
:sl:

dealing with each issue you bring up in order,

you are incorrect regarding only a qadi being able to make takfir, the difference is when there is an islamic state setup with the legal code in place then when allegations of takfir are made the qadi need look into them and see if they warrent the death penalty or are baseless, if they do warrent the death penalty are there are any mitigating factors to prevent this such as madness etc.

there are some matters of takfir which are left for the people of knowledge, but others which are known by necessity, such as allying with the kuffar, ruling by other than Allah has revealled in this case.

regarding takfir by association, who said this? if someone allies with the kuffar and takes their side they are kuffar themselves, like the apostasy wars, these people still claimed islam, some refused to pay zakaat, some followed new 'prophets' whilst others only sided with their tribes because of tribal alliance and all were fought killed, enslaved because of their apostasy.

now finally dealing with somalia, you are not seriously giving support and legitimacy to the gangsters who made up the transitional government? or those who refer to the UN, go cap in hand to the enemies of Allah, the US, AU, EU and UN begging them for money?

if people have no intention of bringing in the shariah or ally with the kuffar then they will be raised with them and more importantly for our discussion fought like them.
No your incorrect, only a qadi can make a judgement, i will supply the proofs in due time.

As for takfir by association, i am partially referring to what happened in the sub content. "This group is kafir and anyone who doesn't agree with me is a kafir".

As for Somalia, i am referring to the govt headed by the Head of the former Islamic Courts Union co-founder. (Who is also a very practicing muslim as well as being a shaykh in both meanings of the word)
Reply

Dawud_uk
04-29-2009, 05:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
No your incorrect, only a qadi can make a judgement, i will supply the proofs in due time.

As for takfir by association, i am partially referring to what happened in the sub content. "This group is kafir and anyone who doesn't agree with me is a kafir".

As for Somalia, i am referring to the govt headed by the Head of the former Islamic Courts Union co-founder. (Who is also a very practicing muslim as well as being a shaykh in both meanings of the word)
ok, we will disagree upon takfir until we both bring more solid proofs,

RE what you refer to as takfir by association then it depends what you mean. for example there are some matters clearly known by necessity, such as the christians and jews being kuffar. now the one who denies this is not a kaffir because of association, he is a kaffir as he has disagreed with Allah and his messenger (saws).

now as for somalia, Sheikh Ahmed Sharif fled, his movement of which he was only one amongst many sheikhs was destroyed. but ash-shabaab remained, not being affraid of death nor wanting to cling to this life, they remained and fought on and have a large area of land, more than the original islamic courts movement under their control.

so it is sheikh ahmed sharif who is coming late, who is in rebellion against the authority in control of southern somalia. even if this was not the case there are other problems with him.

he has now effectively switched sides, went into partnership with the gangsters and warlords of the transitional government, he comes and goes in the ethiopian capital, the EU and elsewhere where the enemies of Allah have control, he can do this as he is no threat to them. he has taken their money, agreed to foreign occupation of muslim soil because the kuffar see the muslims winning so as always will seek to come between them and divide and rule or at least get the most favourable ruler towards them.

i hope he see's his mistakes before it is too late and repents from them but he has turned against Allah's deen and is the kuffar's chief representative in this land now and it is difficult for people to turn away from such power.
Reply

Pomak
04-30-2009, 12:35 AM
RE what you refer to as takfir by association then it depends what you mean. for example there are some matters clearly known by necessity, such as the christians and jews being kuffar. now the one who denies this is not a kaffir because of association, he is a kaffir as he has disagreed with Allah and his messenger (saws).
Yes, when i come back i will post my proofs and it talks about this subject.
but a distinction has to be made, for example you can say Christians are kaffir, but you can't say everyone in (muslim group) is kaffir, even if the group holds a particular idea that is outside sunni Islam. As long as they say Shahada, they are judged individually. Thats what i meant by takfir by association.

now as for somalia, Sheikh Ahmed Sharif fled, his movement of which he was only one amongst many sheikhs was destroyed. but ash-shabaab remained, not being affraid of death nor wanting to cling to this life, they remained and fought on and have a large area of land, more than the original islamic courts movement under their control.
The ICU got everything except the TG's capital. So no the AS don't have more land. And he didn't flee, all the leadership went into hiding because well there was Ethiopia on one side and US cruise missles on the other.

And now the rebels basically started a civil war in Somalia not only between them and the Government but between sufis and salafis. Remind me the punishment for killing a muslim.


he has now effectively switched sides, went into partnership with the gangsters and warlords of the transitional government, he comes and goes in the ethiopian capital, the EU and elsewhere where the enemies of Allah have control, he can do this as he is no threat to them. he has taken their money, agreed to foreign occupation of muslim soil because the kuffar see the muslims winning so as always will seek to come between them and divide and rule or at least get the most favourable ruler towards them.
Yes how knowledgeable you must be, to be making pseudo-takfeer on scholars and shaykhs. Maybe the only problem is actually politics. Oh yes, who does that (mentality) remind me of? Thats right the Christians under the Catholic church and its Inquisition.
Reply

Dawud_uk
05-01-2009, 06:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
Yes, when i come back i will post my proofs and it talks about this subject.
but a distinction has to be made, for example you can say Christians are kaffir, but you can't say everyone in (muslim group) is kaffir, even if the group holds a particular idea that is outside sunni Islam. As long as they say Shahada, they are judged individually. Thats what i meant by takfir by association.
ok once again we need to come back with proofs, as i have been taught where a characteristic of a group if kufr known by necessity then the whole group is labelled as kuffar such as the qadianis or the alawis, both groups say the shahadah but both are kuffar.

as well as this, to get back to our discussion, when a group of people are acting in a certain way, such as allying with the kuffar or ruling by other than Allah has revealled then takfir is given upon them all and all are fought.

a good example of this was the tartars where they claimed islam, even had some elements of shariah in their law, but yet the scholars of that time including ibn taymiyyah gave takfir on them, saying their blood, wealth and families was all halal to take for the musilms.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
The ICU got everything except the TG's capital. So no the AS don't have more land. And he didn't flee, all the leadership went into hiding because well there was Ethiopia on one side and US cruise missles on the other.
i agree go into hiding, the leadership needs to be protected, so i take this comment back but i will of-course feel a leader who stays and fights is more sincere than one who doesnt.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
And now the rebels basically started a civil war in Somalia not only between them and the Government but between sufis and salafis. Remind me the punishment for killing a muslim.
they have destroyed some idols, do you have an issue with this? when Rasoolullah (saws) sent people on exhibitions he told them not to leave idols standing or graves over a very short height.

these graves had been taken as places of worship, so they needed to be demolished down to a ground level and people stopped from their shirk.


format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
Yes how knowledgeable you must be, to be making pseudo-takfeer on scholars and shaykhs. Maybe the only problem is actually politics. Oh yes, who does that (mentality) remind me of? Thats right the Christians under the Catholic church and its Inquisition.
ya akhi, i dont claim to be that knowledgeable, you are probably more knowledgeable than me in certain areas but in this matter you are incorrect, the deen includes politics so if someone by their actions negates their shahadah, takes the kuffar as his awliya then there is nothing wrong with stating this so throw whatever allegations against me you wish, i forgive you for them myself as i do everyone who insults me.
Reply

Pomak
05-02-2009, 03:52 AM
as i have been taught where a characteristic of a group if kufr known by necessity then the whole group is labelled as kuffar such as the qadianis or the alawis, both groups say the shahadah but both are kuffar.
The problem arises is when people associate with groups or sects but don't really believe in all the doctrines. So for example a person can call themselves a
(insert group) but your average person isn't going to really debate the fine details.

A person isn't going to go to hell because they belonged to a group that believed in x y or z, they will only go to hell for what they do or believe in, personally.


a good example of this was the tartars where they claimed islam, even had some elements of shariah in their law, but yet the scholars of that time including ibn taymiyyah gave takfir on them, saying their blood, wealth and families was all halal to take for the musilms.
And from what i know most of the other scholars said that fatwa was massively wrong.

PS. Volga Bulgars (also "Tatars") were muslim from 992 C.E., but i know that he meant the Mongolians.

as well as this, to get back to our discussion, when a group of people are acting in a certain way, such as allying with the kuffar or ruling by other than Allah has revealled then takfir is given upon them all and all are fought.
One of the principles is that if someone says or does something that looks and sounds like kufr you have to look at it and make sure there is no possible way for it to have another meaning. For example one of the sahaba was lost in the desert and when by chance (aka god's will) his camel/horse came back to him after it had run away, he said "Allah is my slave and i am your lord". Now no one is going to make takfeer on him, since its pretty obvious that he meant the opposite.

they have destroyed some idols, do you have an issue with this? when Rasoolullah (saws) sent people on exhibitions he told them not to leave idols standing or graves over a very short height.

these graves had been taken as places of worship, so they needed to be demolished down to a ground level and people stopped from their shirk.
The large whole in your argument is the pyramids, the sahaba knew about it and left it.

Anyways they don't have any authority to do it.

ya akhi, i dont claim to be that knowledgeable, you are probably more knowledgeable than me in certain areas but in this matter you are incorrect, the deen includes politics so if someone by their actions negates their shahadah, takes the kuffar as his awliya then there is nothing wrong with stating this so throw whatever allegations against me you wish, i forgive you for them myself as i do everyone who insults me.
Yes i know the whole don't take them as "awliya", but someone who does is not a kaffir. Its a very very very good piece of advice, but from what i know it has no stipulated punishment for ignoring the advice.

My point is that because someone does something we politically disagree with, badly, does not make one a hypocrite or kaffir or what not. It just means that we disagree with them on certain issues. Thats why were told not to hold ill feelings toward believers.
Reply

Dawud_uk
05-02-2009, 06:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
The problem arises is when people associate with groups or sects but don't really believe in all the doctrines. So for example a person can call themselves a
(insert group) but your average person isn't going to really debate the fine details.

A person isn't going to go to hell because they belonged to a group that believed in x y or z, they will only go to hell for what they do or believe in, personally.
Wahb ibn Baqiyyah told us from Khaalid from Muhammad ibn ‘Amr from Abu Salamah from Abu Hurayrah who said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Jews were divided into seventy-one or seventy-two sects, and the Christians were divided into seventy-one or seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will be divided into seventy-three sects.”
narrated by Abu Dawood in his Sunan, Kitaab al-Sunnah, Baab Sharh al-Sunnah.

It was reported from ‘Awf ibn Maalik who said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Jews were divided into seventy-one sects, one of which is in Paradise and seventy are in the Fire. The Christians were divided into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which are in the Fire and one is in Paradise. By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, my Ummah will be divided into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two will be in the Fire.” It was said, O Messenger of Allaah, who are they? He said, “Al-Jamaa’ah.”
Sunan Ibn Maajah, no. 3982.

so yes, if someone attributes themselves to a group, saying they are one of them and they are amongst the people of hellfire then he is one of them, will be raised with them and dealt with the same way.

This is why it is so important to stick to the main jamma'ah, not to go to deviant groups and sects, alliance is a very important issue.


format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
And from what i know most of the other scholars said that fatwa was massively wrong.

PS. Volga Bulgars (also "Tatars") were muslim from 992 C.E., but i know that he meant the Mongolians.
these fataawah dont deal with every tartar in every land, but the rulers of baghdad and elsewhere who claimed islam but ruled by other than Allah has revealled, they denied the sole right of Allah to act as legislator and as such were kuffar.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
One of the principles is that if someone says or does something that looks and sounds like kufr you have to look at it and make sure there is no possible way for it to have another meaning. For example one of the sahaba was lost in the desert and when by chance (aka god's will) his camel/horse came back to him after it had run away, he said "Allah is my slave and i am your lord". Now no one is going to make takfeer on him, since its pretty obvious that he meant the opposite.
once again you confuse the situation where islamic rule is already established to where it isn't and is being established, you confuse a peaceful with a war situation.

so yes if there is peace in the muslim lands, and some scholar or lay person makes a declaration or action of kufr then we look at all angles, the qadi should certainly check every aspect before making takfir and having that person executed as should others before they give takfir, though their declaration doesnt carry a death penalty.

but in war, where one side is fighting for Allah, the other for nationalism, one side for shariah and the other for secularism we dont stop and have a trial just as the sahabah never stopped and had a trial during the apostasy wars everytime an enemy is fought.

no you kill the enemies of Allah, if someone picks up a weapon and is fighting or is speaking out in favour of this kufr then the ruling is they are dealt with.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
The large whole in your argument is the pyramids, the sahaba knew about it and left it.

Anyways they don't have any authority to do it.
two bogus arguments and i will explain why, first of all who needs to give authority to do what Allah and his messenger (saws) have already commanded us to do?

secondly, many were not clear what the pyramids were when first found but many idols around them were destroyed, when it was clear they were parts of the same structure they attempted to destroy some of the pyramids and al-azhar is partially built with marble stripped off the pyramids.


format_quote Originally Posted by Pomak
Yes i know the whole don't take them as "awliya", but someone who does is not a kaffir. Its a very very very good piece of advice, but from what i know it has no stipulated punishment for ignoring the advice.

My point is that because someone does something we politically disagree with, badly, does not make one a hypocrite or kaffir or what not. It just means that we disagree with them on certain issues. Thats why were told not to hold ill feelings toward believers.
ya akhi, is this your opinion or have you taken it from elsewhere?

i ask this because we differ on so many matters you seem to be taking your advice and learning from completely different places to where i have, very much like simular advice i took when i first came into the deen before i realised these scholars were weak in their evidences.

but regarding the matter of taking them as your awliya it is a clear declaration of kufr from Allah above his throne, the punishment for the murtad is death, or do you disagree with this also?
Reply

alcurad
05-02-2009, 10:32 AM
^brother, there is no such thing as punishment for the murtaad. that is, he is not killed for his apostasy, but if he fights the muslims and helps their enemies etc then he is to be treated as them.
Reply

Dawud_uk
05-03-2009, 08:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by alcurad
^brother, there is no such thing as punishment for the murtaad. that is, he is not killed for his apostasy, but if he fights the muslims and helps their enemies etc then he is to be treated as them.
i have heard that argument and it is weak, the ahadith in this case are general to every murtad and do not mention it is in regards to treason etc.
Reply

biozoid
05-03-2009, 09:03 AM
I agree with what you say about Blair but how can you say the same about
Brown who was and still remains one of his fiercest opponents?

format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
tony blair and george w bush were the biggest terrorists of their time, now it is the turn of brown and obama to terrorise the world.
Reply

noorseeker
05-04-2009, 08:04 AM
I call on the world to fight against militant secularism
Reply

alcurad
05-04-2009, 04:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
i have heard that argument and it is weak, the ahadith in this case are general...
not if taken within context.
if taken as you say it,it would go against the verses in the qur'an that allow whomever who wishes to believe/disbelieve to do so.
Reply

Dawud_uk
05-05-2009, 06:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by alcurad
not if taken within context.
if taken as you say it,it would go against the verses in the qur'an that allow whomever who wishes to believe/disbelieve to do so.
:sl:

to look at any matter in the deen requires context and understanding, first the understanding or Rasoolullah (saws), then the companions, then the other salaf as their understanding is better than our own as reported in authentic narrations.

so the killing of the apostate was not disagreed upon by any of the companions or salaf, nor the scholars for centuries after the death of Rasoolullah (saws) showing the correct understanding of these hadith are there apparent meaning which is the killing of the murtad.

in islamic history even those who disagreed on fundemental matters of the deen were put on trial and killed, even if they were not waging war on their fellow believers so this is not a relevent issue as according to the manhaj of the salaf which we are also ordered to follow, according to the ulema until very recently this has been the ruling that has been followed and implemented.

:sl:
Reply

Pomak
05-06-2009, 04:13 AM
Wahb ibn Baqiyyah told us from Khaalid from Muhammad ibn ‘Amr from Abu Salamah from Abu Hurayrah who said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Jews were divided into seventy-one or seventy-two sects, and the Christians were divided into seventy-one or seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will be divided into seventy-three sects.”
narrated by Abu Dawood in his Sunan, Kitaab al-Sunnah, Baab Sharh al-Sunnah.

It was reported from ‘Awf ibn Maalik who said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Jews were divided into seventy-one sects, one of which is in Paradise and seventy are in the Fire. The Christians were divided into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which are in the Fire and one is in Paradise. By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, my Ummah will be divided into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two will be in the Fire.” It was said, O Messenger of Allaah, who are they? He said, “Al-Jamaa’ah.”
Sunan Ibn Maajah, no. 3982.

so yes, if someone attributes themselves to a group, saying they are one of them and they are amongst the people of hellfire then he is one of them, will be raised with them and dealt with the same way.

This is why it is so important to stick to the main jamma'ah, not to go to deviant groups and sects, alliance is a very important issue.
1. Not really, that is one understanding which is rather weak. People are judged by what they believe and what they act. For that reason there is are several hadith that say that Christians will enter paradise, but at a smaller number than muslims.

these fataawah dont deal with every tartar in every land, but the rulers of baghdad and elsewhere who claimed islam but ruled by other than Allah has revealled, they denied the sole right of Allah to act as legislator and as such were kuffar.
It was a fatwah which no other scholar would give and after he gave it, it was controversial.

once again you confuse the situation where islamic rule is already established to where it isn't and is being established, you confuse a peaceful with a war situation.

so yes if there is peace in the muslim lands, and some scholar or lay person makes a declaration or action of kufr then we look at all angles, the qadi should certainly check every aspect before making takfir and having that person executed as should others before they give takfir, though their declaration doesnt carry a death penalty.

but in war, where one side is fighting for Allah, the other for nationalism, one side for shariah and the other for secularism we dont stop and have a trial just as the sahabah never stopped and had a trial during the apostasy wars everytime an enemy is fought.

no you kill the enemies of Allah, if someone picks up a weapon and is fighting or is speaking out in favour of this kufr then the ruling is they are dealt with.
Apostasy wars were wars which were clear cut. Do you want me to quote the hadith about the conversation between abu bakr and umar before they set out?

Also its rather impolite to compare the legitimate ruler of all muslims (abu bakr) with people these days.

two bogus arguments and i will explain why, first of all who needs to give authority to do what Allah and his messenger (saws) have already commanded us to do?

secondly, many were not clear what the pyramids were when first found but many idols around them were destroyed, when it was clear they were parts of the same structure they attempted to destroy some of the pyramids and al-azhar is partially built with marble stripped off the pyramids.
He commanded us to destroy the idols in mecca.

And i think that your underestimating the intellect of the sahaba.

ya akhi, is this your opinion or have you taken it from elsewhere?

i ask this because we differ on so many matters you seem to be taking your advice and learning from completely different places to where i have, very much like simular advice i took when i first came into the deen before i realised these scholars were weak in their evidences.

but regarding the matter of taking them as your awliya it is a clear declaration of kufr from Allah above his throne, the punishment for the murtad is death, or do you disagree with this also?
Ok prove it, with hadith and ayats only.
Reply

Pomak
05-06-2009, 04:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
:sl:
in islamic history even those who disagreed on fundemental matters of the deen were put on trial and killed, even if they were not waging war on their fellow believers so this is not a relevent issue as according to the manhaj of the salaf which we are also ordered to follow, according to the ulema until very recently this has been the ruling that has been followed and implemented.

:sl:
This is actually wrong, it was a minority opinion from the start.

Also part of the context is that the early political system of Islam was one where the state was not secular, as in apostasy was both apostasy and treason at the same time.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-09-2014, 09:43 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-09-2014, 02:19 PM
  3. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-13-2011, 10:08 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-22-2008, 05:01 PM
  5. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 10:50 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!