Jihaad as understood by Ahlu-sunnah in contrast with the khawarij of the era

  • Thread starter Thread starter boriqee
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 11
  • Views Views 4K
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

boriqee

Elite Member
Messages
259
Reaction score
51
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
Last edited by a moderator:
I had to register just to read the links, but I must say it was quit disappointing to read what you collected. Are you not simply making an alliance in ideology with the kuffar by calling Muslims terrorists? And who were you referring to as "terrorists" and khawarij may I ask?

There are certain rules that must be followed when writing a successful document and one of it is to compose a thesis statement in order to clarify to the readers what the essay will be about. InshAllah I hope you elucidate.

wa'l alayka salaam
 
Khawarij anyone who allies himself with the pagans and kills muslims. Or anyone who rebels agiasn't a rightly guided ruler. Or anyone who accuses muslim of being a kaffir then kills him. If he only accuses muslim of being kaffir that would make him a takfiri NOT khawarij.

The word terrorist can be used in many ways. Americans troops and allies can be terrorist. Also muslims can be terrorist depends on your definition of a terrorist.

http://replytoterrorists.tripod.com/id40.html

Are you accusing Shiekh Abdullah Azzam R.A., Shiekh Ibn Bin Baz , and other great scholars of being a terrorist or takfiri?

Also these websites have Hadeeth and Ayats without reference.
 
:sl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawarij
As you can see from here, the Khawarij were brutal and cruel, much worse than today's terrorists. They believed in slaughtering helpless children and women, and fought against the rightly-guided caliphs. I've even heard a hadith in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) makes a prophecy about the Khawarij and calls them 'pigs and dogs'.
:w:
 
Islamic_warrior said:
Khawarij anyone who allies himself with the pagans and kills muslims. Or anyone who rebels agiasn't a rightly guided ruler. Or anyone who accuses muslim of being a kaffir then kills him. If he only accuses muslim of being kaffir that would make him a takfiri NOT khawarij.
Click to expand...

Thank you for replying, I actually started reading on the descriptions of the "Khawarij" and what you said regarding them killing Muslims while giving respite to the pagans is the most correct description. Why do I say it is the most correct description? Because since Prophet Muhammad -sas- was the one who foretold us about their emergence, than it is righteous to refer it back to the Sunnah and what it says. So I found a hadeeth which gives a proper description and a distinct feature of theirs in order to recognize them. The hadeeth which is in Saheeh al Bukhaari says (not full text):
‘Out of the offspring of this man there will be people who will recite the Qur’aan but it will not go past their throats, and they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes our through the game. They will kill the Muslims and leave the pagans. If I were to be present when they appear, I would kill them as the killing of the nation of Ad.’

What I underlined is the most important thing, since it gives the main characteristic of the Khawarij. So if this characteristic is not present amongst the group of people, than they cannot be called Khawarij or whatever labels people like to put on others.

As for rebelling against rightly guided ruler, than again this doesn't seem as a legit accusation against a person to be labelled as Khawarij. If this was the case, than we should label few Companions of Rasoolullaah -sas- and some of the Taabi'een as Khawarij due to them rebelling against the ruler of their time. And one of the most famous of them were Mu'awiyah bin Abu Sufyan -ra-, ibn az-Zubayr -ra- and Hussayn -ra-.


The word terrorist can be used in many ways. Americans troops and allies can be terrorist. Also muslims can be terrorist depends on your definition of a terrorist.
Click to expand...
That is true, what i was referring to is what was being implied in the links which was pretty much giving off the impression agreeing with the kuffar against the sincere Muslims who are resisting occupation.


http://replytoterrorists.tripod.com/id40.html

Are you accusing Shiekh Abdullah Azzam R.A., Shiekh Ibn Bin Baz , and other great scholars of being a terrorist or takfiri?

Also these websites have Hadeeth and Ayats without reference.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to me, than no im not accusing anyone of anything.

wa'l alaykum salaam
 
Fishman said:
:sl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawarij
As you can see from here, the Khawarij were brutal and cruel, much worse than today's terrorists. They believed in slaughtering helpless children and women, and fought against the rightly-guided caliphs. I've even heard a hadith in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) makes a prophecy about the Khawarij and calls them 'pigs and dogs'.
:w:
Click to expand...

The Khawarij would only target Muslims, as there is a incident of them when they had encountered pagans and had killed one of their pigs by mistake. the Khawarij apologized and paid for the pig while they killed a son of a Sahaba and his wife including the unborn baby in her belly!!!

I have read that the Prophet -sas- had called the hawarij "dogs of hell"
 
Assalamalikum

As for rebelling against rightly guided ruler, than again this doesn't seem as a legit accusation against a person to be labelled as Khawarij. If this was the case, than we should label few Companions of Rasoolullaah -sas- and some of the Taabi'een as Khawarij due to them rebelling against the ruler of their time. And one of the most famous of them were Mu'awiyah bin Abu Sufyan -ra-, ibn az-Zubayr -ra- and Hussayn -ra-.
Click to expand...

I agree but Shiekh Bin Baz in his books have said whoever rebelled agiasn't the ruler is khawarij.

Yazeed was the agressor because Hussayn R.A. send his cousin to check on things not wage a war. But Yazeed had him killed and I do not believe Yazeed was a Sahabi. No Ahle Sunnah wal jammah thinks Yazeed was sahabi, only few. This is a very long subject the best is to avoid it right now as there were muslims killing members of the Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. family ruthlessly. Yazeed was the head of this gang of murderist.
 
Islamic_warrior said:
Assalamalikum

I agree but Shiekh Bin Baz in his books have said whoever rebelled agiasn't the ruler is khawarij.
Click to expand...

:w: Thanks for replying again brother. According to the Saheeh ahadeeth, it would not be proper to label people as Kharji simply due to them rebelling against a ruler and even more against a evil ruler. The Prophet -sas- also gave a certain limit on the obedience to a ruler who implements Islaamic law both internally and externally.


Yazeed was the agressor because Hussayn R.A. send his cousin to check on things not wage a war. But Yazeed had him killed and I do not believe Yazeed was a Sahabi. No Ahle Sunnah wal jammah thinks Yazeed was sahabi, only few. This is a very long subject the best is to avoid it right now as there were muslims killing members of the Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. family ruthlessly. Yazeed was the head of this gang of murderist.
Click to expand...

I never implied Yazid to be a Sahaabi.

I am still curious as to whom was being referred to as "terrorists" and "Khawarij" in the links above and on what grounds i.e. proof.
 
Assalamalikum

Thanks for replying again brother
Click to expand...

Your welcome!

According to the Saheeh ahadeeth, it would not be proper to label people as Kharji simply due to them rebelling against a ruler and even more against a evil ruler. The Prophet -sas- also gave a certain limit on the obedience to a ruler who implements Islaamic law both internally and externally.
Click to expand...

Interesting can you please give me hadeeths with references. Jazak'allah khair

I never implied Yazid to be a Sahaabi
Click to expand...
I am sorry! I thought you would be one of the people who believe Yazeed to be Sahabi.

I am still curious as to whom was being referred to as "terrorists" and "Khawarij" in the links above and on what grounds i.e. proof.
Click to expand...

Jihad Fard Ayn as far as i read from Shekh Abdullah Azzam R.A. he believe everyone should go and there should be a valid excuse for someone to stay behind similar with Shiekh Bin Baz and Alabani..
 
Last edited:
Jihaad is of two types. That performed in the state of weakness and that which is performed in the state of strength. One being without the Khalifa and one being that with the khilaafa. That was the way of the messenger and the sahaba no matter how much the disbeleiver from among the non muslims and the khawarij like Bin laden and others hate it.
Click to expand...

Isn't Osama Bin Laden considered Khawarij because he rebelled agiasn't the saudi kingdom? As far as I know thats the reason Shiekh Bin Baz called hima Khawarij. This I could never understand because Saudi government is the real Khawarij
 
Islamic_warrior said:
Assalamalikum

Interesting can you please give me hadeeths with references. Jazak'allah khair
Click to expand...

:w:
InshAllaah I will, there are alot of ahadeeth so I might not be able to get them all, but I will try to post the ones that give a description of them.


Jihad Fard Ayn as far as i read from Shekh Abdullah Azzam R.A. he believe everyone should go and there should be a valid excuse for someone to stay behind similar with Shiekh Bin Baz and Alabani..
Click to expand...

Well no one can deny Jihaad, it is fard no matter what with or without a Amir.


Isn't Osama Bin Laden considered Khawarij because he rebelled agiasn't the saudi kingdom? As far as I know thats the reason Shiekh Bin Baz called hima Khawarij. This I could never understand because Saudi government is the real Khawarij
Click to expand...

Even though bin Baz words arent regarded as Wahi or even evidence, was this ever confirmed that he said such? Since the only people who spread this around are a people who run Salafipublications using his advice towards some individuals (whom I never herd of by the way) named 'al-Masari' and 'al-Faqeeh' and not bin Laden. They had ADDED in the name 'bin Laden' and pretty much LIED about it saying it was from bin Baz.

But since the Prophet was the one who prophecized the Khawarij emergence, it is best to refer it to the Sunnah and not follow what people say. What is the truth today as is continuously being proven, that bin Laden is nowhere near being a Khwarij since the Khawarij FIGHT/KILL Muslims while giving respite to the mushrikeen. And I think America and its allies are on top of his list and not any Muslims which Im sure no one will disagree with hehe :D

Allaah Alim
wa'l alaykam salaam
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top