How is sharia to be implemented, in Muslim countries?

We could post a number of Aayaat, Ahaadeeth, Fiqh rulings, etc. pertaining to Jihaad at-Talab, or "offensive Jihaad", but at this point in time it wouldn't be worth it because currently, there is only Jihaad ad-Dafa` (Defensive Jihaad) taking place, like in Syria, etc. So, now is not the time to be debating about Jihaad at-Talab. We take things one step at a time, and focus on what's important at the moment. At the moment, Muslims are being massacred globally, their lands are being destroyed, bombed, others are languishing in prisons around the world, some in prisons the rest of the people don't even know exist. So, the pressing issue for the Muslim Ummah right now is defence. Defence of the Deen, defence of the Muslim Ummah, defence of the Muslim lands. How to put a stop to what is happening to Muslims around the world, what is happening to them right now, as we speak. As we are writing these messages, Muslims in some part of the world are being killed. As we are writing these messages, bombs are dropping in Syria and Iraq.

The primary concern at the moment is the defence of the Muslims.

iv said it before but its the cost of war...

you cant start things if you actually care for the things your fighting for.. the family, the people, the workplace, the land.

all those have to be considered.

and as it looks now they were not..

all those people had all those things to start with..

who messed it up?

to implement change in government?

when you have all those things to begin with?


understand.


i know it does not work that way.. its a very harsh world if you allow yourself to be taken by it.

but maybe they should have put it in another order..

the family, the workplace, the people, the land..

and at all stages who would the government be?


let us not become tyrants.. although people would say its the job description.

your simply caretakers of the things allah swt has entrusted you with.

people tell me i will never be successful.. so take the above with a pinch of salt.

all praise is due to allah swt.

honestly i would not persue the world.

but if you did.. use your common sense.

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

Salam. Not all. If you mean "struggle" with jihad as in the original sense of word yes but if you mean "fight" no. Majority of Turkic people accepted Islam and implemented Shariah themselves long after the Umayyad and Abbasid conquests. Also we have the story of the Islamization of Malaysia and Indonesia. These are examples for that people can accept Islam and implement Shariah themselves.

Not to forget Yemen and even Yatrib , where was the jihad on Medinites ?? or on Yemen ?? Even Egypt at start When its ruler who did not accept Islam but sent Gifts to Prophet

But we understand the concern of our PIOUS BRETHREN HERE about our brethren being slaughtered some where else which hurts us all too, but i say its the returns for our deeds for not Listening to Allah and his prophet and becoming Khwarism Shahs as in my post #14 here . Read the link well particularly all of my 5-6 posts there to know the ROOT CAUSE , Allahu aalam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Huzaifah ibn Adam

Short excerpt from some books of Fiqh on the issue:النوع الأول: جهاد طلب وابتداءوهو أن تطلب الكفار في عقر دارهم ودعوتهم إلى الإسلام وقتالهم إذا لم يقبلوا الخضوع لحكم الإسلام.حكمه: حكم هذا النوع فرض على مجموع المسلمين."The first type: Jihaad of Talab (seeking) and Ibtidaa (commencement):It is that you seek the Kuffaar "fee `Uqri Daarihim" (literally, in the bellies of their homes). You give them the Da`wah to Islaam, and you fight them if they refuse to submit to the Law of Islaam (i.e. to Sharee`ah rule). Its ruling: This type of Jihaad is Fardh (obligatory) upon the community of the Muslims."Now, when you go further, it is explained that it is the duty of a Khaleefah to appoint an army who will do this kind of Jihaad-ut-Talab at least once or twice a year, and if this army of Mujaahideen undertake this task, then the duty falls off the rest of the Muslim Ummah. So, they go to a certain Kaafir land, and they call them to one of three things: 1) they accept Islaam, or 2) they keep their religions and they live under Sharee`ah rule while paying Jizyah, or 3) they fight.So let's say they went to America, for example. Would America accept Islaam? No. Would America opt for option two, i.e. surrender and have the Muslims rule the land according to the Sharee`ah? No, they would not. So that leaves only the last option. The fight.The fighting will always be there, whether people like it or not. It's part of this Dunyaa. It's inevitable. There has always been fighting. There always will be. In our times, there is even more fighting and killing than there was in the previous times. It's something that will not simply go away just because a few people dislike it. No amount of dislike will ever change realities.Was-Salaam.

if Muslims are ordered by your south African government to give tax for staying in ''their'' country or face the army, then what you will do Man...?

Those Muslims who live in a non Muslims populous country shouldn't pay attention to extremists and fanatics. follow the laws of the land until the laws go against the shariah. Live happily and let others live

Fatwa of darul uloom deoband: http://www.darulifta-deoband.com/hom...Relations/5024

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

Those Muslims who live in a non Muslims populous country shouldn't pay attention to extremists and fanatics. follow the laws of the land until the laws go against the shariah. Live happily and others live

Yes Right, I do not think Sayadina Jafar :RA: when we muslims emigrated to Abbysinia demanded Najjashi to bring Sharia law immediately . I do not know How some make Islam which represents peace as not a peace full religion and WHY bring rules from fiqh when the Noble Quran is clear cut on this '' When they drive away from your homes and try to kill the Prophet etc etc '' is mentioned in more than one verse of the Noble Quran. We need Fiqh only when something is not clear, confusing or an example is not found in Prophet or Sahabas

But mostly who claim such matters do not ponder on the ayah which said something Like Allah hates those people who preach others but do not practise themselves.

Another nice example of Prophet inclination towards peace at Hudaibiya is the incident of a Sahabi who escaped from Mecca and had come to Medina after much torments from kuffar and who was returned back to Meccan kuffar soldiers as per the treaty. But he escaped their hands and came again (from the back - forgot ) and told that Prophet has full filled his treaty by sending him back to the kuffar soldiers but now he has come back at which Prophet FROWNED at him calling him something like '' You PROVOCATEUR " and told him to leave for peace but with sadness from all on his plight.

format_quote Originally Posted by talibilm

Not to forget Yemen and even Yatrib , where was the jihad on Medinites ?? or on Yemen ?? Even Egypt at start When its ruler who did not accept Islam but sent Gifts to Prophet

Yes the very first Islamic state of Ythrib was established by immigration

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

Yes the very first Islamic state of Ythrib was established by immigration

Yes, because they could not practise their Deen in Mecca and had immense difficulties imposed on them for 13 years. At Last Allah gave permission to do Hijrah for his Prophet and all Muslims.

Even In Medina Allah, Ar Rahman The All Wise, did not LEVY ALL THE SHARIA LAW at one time like the rule of wine -intoxication, it came in three gradual steps in the form of Abrogation to ease the believer who were addicted to wine thus making them NOT TO SIN by transgressing the law of Allah , All of a sudden with a strict law .. imho.

1) At the time of the emigration to Abyssinia, the laws pertaining to Sharee`ah hadn't even been revealed yet. There was no "Sharee`ah law" yet at that time, no laws on Jihaad, nothing of the sort. So, trying to use that incident as a Daleel is a fallacy. Have you studied the laws of Naasikh wal-Mansookh? Abrogation in the Qur'aan and abrogation in the Sunnah. Some Aayaat abrogated previous Aayaat, and some Ahaadeeth abrogated previous ones. At one point in time, drinking wine was permissible. The Kutub of Fiqh are quoted because the A'immah of Islaam studied the Deen in-depth and knew which Aayaat and which Ahkaam abrogated previous ones. It is not for every Jaahil to open the Qur'aan and invent his own rulings based on what he feels, when in the first place, he isn't even reading the Qur'aan in Arabic and understanding it, he's relying on an English translation.

2) Once the Sharee`ah had been revealed and the Wahi had stopped and the Deen had been completed, there was no "going back" and "starting over". What you are trying to do is say that the Deen must go back to the 13 years and start over from there, which is a Baatil, ridiculous concept. After the Aayah about Ikmaal-ud-Deen was revealed, that is how everything stayed. The Deen does not retrogress. You cannot say that, let's go back to the 13 years, when Salaah hadn't been revealed yet, or Zakaat, and wine was permissible, etc. That is a Baatil and Kufr approach which opposes the Deen. It is not for people to make up their own rulings. The Fuqahaa and Mujtahideen have expounded upon the Qur'aan and the Ahaadeeth and codified the Deen, and explained the Deen, and Muslims have followed that path for 1,438 years. The Deen wasn't revealed yesterday. The Deen is not based on the whims and fancies of people, and what they like or dislike.

So far, all that I've seen are emotionally charged comments devoid of actual evidence. The Aayaat of Qur'aan are very clear when it comes to Jihaad. Yet, whenever those Aayaat are quoted, all the members are saying is, "I feel like this is giving a negative image to Islaam." You cannot counter a fact with a "feeling". If someone says that 1+1=2, you can't say: "That makes me uncomfortable, so I refuse to believe it." What has your being uncomfortable have to do with facts? Emotions and feelings play no part in coming to a Shar`i ruling: It's based on Qur'aan and Sunnah according to the understanding of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen.

Was-Salaam.

Once the third Aayah of Soorah al-Maa'idah was revealed (Soorah 5:3), the Deen became fixed and immutable. There is no place for additions, subtractions or alterations. There is no "going back to the 13 years of Makkah". The 13 years of Makkah is over and past and will never come back. Once the Deen was completed and perfected, that is how it would remain till the Day of Qiyaamah, never changing.

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

if Muslims are ordered by your south African government to give tax for staying in ''their'' country or face the army, then what you will do Man...?

News flash:

Everyone in South Africa pays tax. Heavy taxes. Much more than Kuffaar would pay under an Islaamic government ruled by Sharee`ah. Their Jizyah that they would pay is significantly less than the taxes people pay who live in the Kaafir lands. So, such an argument is fallacious. Muslims live under a Kaafir government and pay taxes. If the Kuffaar are living under an Islaamic government, they will pay the Jizyah, which is much less than taxes.

format_quote Originally Posted by Huzaifah ibn Adam

News flash:Everyone in South Africa pays tax. Heavy taxes. Much more than Kuffaar would pay under an Islaamic government ruled by Sharee`ah. Their Jizyah that they would pay is significantly less than the taxes people pay who live in the Kaafir lands. So, such an argument is fallacious. Muslims live under a Kaafir government and pay taxes. If the Kuffaar are living under an Islaamic government, they will pay the Jizyah, which is much less than taxes.

By which article or law of constitution the special tax for being Muslims is levied ONLY on Muslim community.......

format_quote Originally Posted by Huzaifah ibn Adam

Once the third Aayah of Soorah al-Maa'idah was revealed (Soorah 5:3), the Deen became fixed and immutable. There is no place for additions, subtractions or alterations. There is no "going back to the 13 years of Makkah". The 13 years of Makkah is over and past and will never come back. Once the Deen was completed and perfected, that is how it would remain till the Day of Qiyaamah, never changing.

I'm in touch with knowledgeable ulama

format_quote Originally Posted by Huzaifah ibn Adam

1) At the time of the emigration to Abyssinia, the laws pertaining to Sharee`ah hadn't even been revealed yet. There was no "Sharee`ah law" yet at that time, no laws on Jihaad, nothing of the sort. So, trying to use that incident as a Daleel is a fallacy. Have you studied the laws of Naasikh wal-Mansookh? Abrogation in the Qur'aan and abrogation in the Sunnah. Some Aayaat abrogated previous Aayaat, and some Ahaadeeth abrogated previous ones. At one point in time, drinking wine was permissible. The Kutub of Fiqh are quoted because the A'immah of Islaam studied the Deen in-depth and knew which Aayaat and which Ahkaam abrogated previous ones. It is not for every Jaahil to open the Qur'aan and invent his own rulings based on what he feels, when in the first place, he isn't even reading the Qur'aan in Arabic and understanding it, he's relying on an English translation.2) Once the Sharee`ah had been revealed and the Wahi had stopped and the Deen had been completed, there was no "going back" and "starting over". What you are trying to do is say that the Deen must go back to the 13 years and start over from there, which is a Baatil, ridiculous concept. After the Aayah about Ikmaal-ud-Deen was revealed, that is how everything stayed. The Deen does not retrogress. You cannot say that, let's go back to the 13 years, when Salaah hadn't been revealed yet, or Zakaat, and wine was permissible, etc. That is a Baatil and Kufr approach which opposes the Deen. It is not for people to make up their own rulings. The Fuqahaa and Mujtahideen have expounded upon the Qur'aan and the Ahaadeeth and codified the Deen, and explained the Deen, and Muslims have followed that path for 1,438 years. The Deen wasn't revealed yesterday. The Deen is not based on the whims and fancies of people, and what they like or dislike.So far, all that I've seen are emotionally charged comments devoid of actual evidence. The Aayaat of Qur'aan are very clear when it comes to Jihaad. Yet, whenever those Aayaat are quoted, all the members are saying is, "I feel like this is giving a negative image to Islaam." You cannot counter a fact with a "feeling". If someone says that 1+1=2, you can't say: "That makes me uncomfortable, so I refuse to believe it." What has your being uncomfortable have to do with facts? Emotions and feelings play no part in coming to a Shar`i ruling: It's based on Qur'aan and Sunnah according to the understanding of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen.Was-Salaam.

you failed to prove you point.......

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

By which article or law of constitution the special tax for being Muslims is levied ONLY on Muslim community.......

That's not the point. The point is this: Everyone in the world pays taxes. When Muslims live in a Kaafir country, they pay their taxes just like everyone else does. When it is an Islaamic government, the Kuffaar will pay Jizyah, and the Muslims pay Zakaah, and the Zakaah paid by the Muslims is much, Much more than the Jizyah paid by the Kuffaar. People need to understand this. The Jizyah paid by them is not as much as the taxes that we pay currently, and not only that, but the Jizyah which they pay is not as much as the Zakaah paid by the Muslims. The Muslims actually end up paying more than them in any case.

Read this:

https://islamqa.info/en/214074

format_quote Originally Posted by Huzaifah ibn Adam

That's not the point. The point is this: Everyone in the world pays taxes. When Muslims live in a Kaafir country, they pay their taxes just like everyone else does. When it is an Islaamic government, the Kuffaar will pay Jizyah, and the Muslims pay Zakaah, and the Zakaah paid by the Muslims is much, Much more than the Jizyah paid by the Kuffaar. People need to understand this. The Jizyah paid by them is not as much as the taxes that we pay currently, and not only that, but the Jizyah which they pay is not as much as the Zakaah paid by the Muslims. The Muslims actually end up paying more than them in any case.Read this:https://islamqa.info/en/214074

And i want to drill into your mind that your country doesn't levy any taxes on you for being Muslim. And you are free to follow your religion and you are not forced to follow the religion of majority and despite all these fundamental rights you are of this mentality that all non Muslim countries should follow the Islamic laws and all non Muslims should follow Islam. What picture of Islam you are depicting..? You are proving that Muslims don't believe in concept of co existence. They can't tolerate non Muslims and non Muslim countries on this planet, they are to be forced to follow Islam....? But this fact that Islamic shariah isn't applied on non Muslims, perhaps you are unaware of.