Is Saudi Arabia ruled by Shariah Law?

[Durrah]

cool but hey u4got the men too ffended:

Re-read my post bro, I said brothers and sisters. But emphasised sisters more as they are the majority who feel the force of the law more.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

UNISLAMIC saudi laws like the sister getting lashed for being raped!!

This is completely false. A rape victim is not punished in Islam or in Saudi, as I even quoted from Saudi judges and jurists on this! Shaykh Sulayman Al-'Îsa , professor at Al-Imam university writes:

A woman will not be punished if there is any reason to believe that she was forced into the act. The least evidence in this regard will be sufficient to save the woman from punishment. Our Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Allah has pardoned my people for the acts they do by mistake, due to forgetfulness, and what they are coerced into doing” [Related by Ibn Mâjah and authenticated by al-Nawawî, Ibn Hajr, and al-Albânî].
​

Also, it was related by Ibn Abî Shaybah through Târiq b. Shahâb that a woman accused of adultery was taken to Caliph `Umar. The woman pleaded that she was asleep and woke up to find the man over her. `Umar released the woman. [The narration was approved by al-Albâni]. Ibn Qudâmah stated in his book al-Mughnî: “There is no punishment on the woman who was coerced into adultery.” (SOURCE)​

 

[Malaikah]

in particular sisters who often face the brunt of the corrupt backwards, UNISLAMIC saudi laws like the sister getting lashed for being raped!!

Um.. I'm 100% certain that the article said she (and the other boy who was also raped) was ordered to be lashed because she was in the car, alone, with a non-mahram before the incident occured, not because she was raped as the article tried to imply.

Thats a totally different thing.

 

[lolwatever]

^^ lol ok ok i guess every gender would like to think they're worse off under crooks

No it is not irrelevant because is the very question the OP has started this thread on! The original article was about an issue pertaining to criminal law, and the question asked if Saudi was following Shari'ah in this regard, and so I answered accordingly.

I'm not denying that there are other problems in Saudi and with the Saudi government but that is beyond the scope of the original question.

u sure das the topic of thread:?
the question was "Is saudi ruled by sharia law" rather than 'is it ruled by sharia criminal law'

but point is, suppose they do apply criminal law 100% correctly, that doesnt change the ruling regarding the regime, coz das 100% like the mongol rule, they decided to apply shariah in certain aspects and disregard it in others. So they where rendered as kuffaar by the scholars such as Ibn Katheer n Ibn taymiyah etc... more importantly by quran n sunnah.

 

[Durrah]

This is completely false. A rape victim is not punished in Islam or in Saudi, as I even quoted from Saudi judges and jurists on this! Shaykh Sulayman Al-'Îsa , professor at Al-Imam university writes:

A woman will not be punished if there is any reason to believe that she was forced into the act. The least evidence in this regard will be sufficient to save the woman from punishment. Our Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Allah has pardoned my people for the acts they do by mistake, due to forgetfulness, and what they are coerced into doing” [Related by Ibn Mâjah and authenticated by al-Nawawî, Ibn Hajr, and al-Albânî].
​

Also, it was related by Ibn Abî Shaybah through Târiq b. Shahâb that a woman accused of adultery was taken to Caliph `Umar. The woman pleaded that she was asleep and woke up to find the man over her. `Umar released the woman. [The narration was approved by al-Albâni]. Ibn Qudâmah stated in his book al-Mughnî: “There is no punishment on the woman who was coerced into adultery.” (SOURCE)​

I know a woman is not punished in islam for rape. But national laws in the 'muslim world' do punish women for being raped and take the same punishments for adultry and use that against raped women. And saudi is just one of those countries that do- but they arent alone.

Difference between what islam says and how muslim practise it (or dont practise it, more to the point!)

 

[Malaikah]

^Ansar Al-'Adl said that doesnt happen in Saudi either.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I know a woman is not punished in islam for rape. But national laws in the 'muslim world' do punish women for being raped and take the same punishments for adultry and use that against raped women. And saudi is just one of those countries that do- but they arent alone.

Re-read:

A rape victim is not punished in Islam or in Saudi, as I even quoted from SAUDI JUDGES AND JURISTS on this! Shaykh Sulayman Al-'Îsa , professor at Al-Imam university writes:

Al-Imam university is in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. And my source for what I've described about the rulings on rape in Islamic law comes from IslamToday.com, a fatwa website run by Saudi scholars with contributions from over 60 leading Muslim scholars throughout the middle east, including once again Saudi Court Judges.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

u sure das the topic of thread:?
the question was "Is saudi ruled by sharia law" rather than 'is it ruled by sharia criminal law'

Read the original post, brother. The sister was confused about a certain case of criminal law in Saudi.

So they where rendered as kuffaar by the scholars such as Ibn Katheer n Ibn taymiyah etc... more importantly by quran n sunnah.

It is completely wrong to make claim that they are kuffar!! This issue here is al-hukm bi-ghayri maa anzala Allah; if they actually say that they reject khilafa, or the islamic ruling on riba or anything else you mentioned, then they would be kaafirs. Even if we accept these spurious allegations of political and moral corruption in their government it does not make them disbelievers ! This could render one a faasiq not a kaafir. I warn you brother from going into this dangerous area of declaring others to be disbelievers.


Read from p.16 of this eBook which provides the refutation to this deviant view of takfir on the rulers:
http://salafimanhaj.com/ebook.php?ebook=34

 

[afriend]

u sure das the topic of thread:?
the question was "Is saudi ruled by sharia law" rather than 'is it ruled by sharia criminal law'

but point is, suppose they do apply criminal law 100% correctly, that doesnt change the ruling regarding the regime, coz das 100% like the mongol rule, they decided to apply shariah in certain aspects and disregard it in others. So they where* rendered as kuffaar by the scholars such as Ibn Katheer n Ibn taymiyah etc... more importantly by quran n sunnah.

*were

This is the state of the ummah at the moment. Not a single 'Islamic' country that follows the full shari'ah. They always implement a part of it, for example, Saudi implements Prayer, and heck it does it well...But other laws such as the complete removal of alcohol and intoxicants from the kingdom, are bluntly overlooked. What needs to be done? Reigime change! And this Reigime change must be initiated by us! The Muslims!, before other countries do it for us.

I constantly hear the mention of Saudi scholars in a bad light. It is not easy living in a country where your very words that you speak are limited and monitored, and a single extra word that they do not like, you get harrassed for it.

Nobody wants to be punnished or get themselves in prison...

There was a hadeeth, I'm sure it's saheeh, but I'm afraid I can't cite at the moment, but it goes along the lines of:

"If an action is wrong, you should try to change it either with your hand, or with your tongue, or hate it in your heart, and that is the lowest of faith"

If you pay attention to some of the Friday Sermons in Masjidul Harem, Makkah. It becomes pretty clear that some shuyookh refer to their rulers indirectly.

It's not that they are all complete walkovers, many have been excluded from the Masjidul Harem for many months.

May Allah bless them all. Ameen.

 

[lolwatever]

Read the original post, brother. The sister was confused about a certain case of criminal law in Saudi.

oh i thought u where referrin 2 the bro who started da thread...

Is Saudia Arabia ruled by Shariah law? This has to be the wrong ruling right?
I'm truly confused because I thought Saudi Arabia was the one and only country as of right now that rules by the Shariah Law. Please can someone explain this to me.

newayz khayr insh.

It is completely wrong to make claim that they are kuffar!! This issue here is al-hukm bi-ghayri maa anzala Allah; if they actually say that they reject khilafa, or the islamic ruling on riba or anything else you mentioned, then they would be kaafirs. But just the allegation of political and moral corruption in their government does not make them disbelievers ! This could render one a faasiq not a kaafir. I warn you brother from going into this dangerous area of declaring others to be disbelievers.

i guess the topic of this thread is whether they are ruling by shariah or not. rather than whether they are Muslim or not....

but just to make the point, someone who doesnt pray, are they regarded as non Muslims only if htey 'say they are against prayer' ? no? so what makes ruling by other than what allah revealed an exception? especially when the verses regadring it are all talking about the action rather than the 'belief'.

Imam wakee'3 (imam shafi'3's teacher) has a neat book on this issue.. called 'news of the judges'... an excelelnt quote by ibn abbas when some of the tabi'3een told him "those verses where revealed regarding the people of the book" his reply was "they're your favourite cousins, whatever revealed that is bad, you say i'ts about them, and whatever good is revealed you make it for yourselves"..

jazaks 4 advsie about labelling others kafirs, i never do label anyone kafir alhamdulilah.. its no easy matter, unless there's clear cut evidence about groups of people.

neways back to topic

take care all the best bro, sorry if i sounded like i was takin a go at you abotu the topic of this thread thingy a post or 2 back!

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

This is the state of the ummah at the moment. Not a single 'Islamic' country that follows the full shari'ah. They always implement a part of it, for example, Saudi implements Prayer, and heck it does it well...But other laws such as the complete removal of alcohol and intoxicants from the kingdom, are bluntly overlooked.

Excuse me? Saudi Arabia prescribes the death penalty for major drug smugglers and completely bans all intoxicants.

What needs to be done? Reigime change! And this Reigime change must be initiated by us! The Muslims!, before other countries do it for us.

Allahu'l Musta'aan! This is the deviant kharaji ideology of causing chaos and anarchy by overthrowing the government!!
Brother please educate yourself on what the scholars have said about obeying those in authority over you, please you make such heretical statements. Please read:

Sincerity to the Muslim rulers entails loving the righteous and just people among them. It also means to recognize the leadership of those in authority and to love that there is solidarity to among Muslims in their support and to hate disunity and dissention. It means to obey them in everything that entails no disobedience to Allah and to hate those who rise up against them.

Allah says: “O you who believe, obey Allah and obey His Messenger and those in authority among you.” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 59]

We must obey the Muslim rulers in everything that does not entail disobedience to Allah, and we must refrain from rising up against them even if they fall short of what is expected from them. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “There will be rulers over you. You will agree with some of what they come with and reject some of it. Whoever rejects what must be rejected will maintain his innocence and whoever hates it will maintain his innocence. However, those who accept (what should be denied) and follow the ruler will be sinners.”

The Companions said: “O Messenger of Allah, shall we fight these rulers?”

He said: “No, as long as they pray.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhî]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The best among your Imams (rulers) are those whom you love and they love you, pray (make supplication) for you and you pray for them, and the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.”

Someone asked: “O Messenger of Allah! Shall we confront them with swords?”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “No, as long as they hold prayers among you. If you see from your rulers what you hate, hate the action they do but do not rebel against them.” [Sahîh Muslim]

Hudhayfah b. al-Yamân asked the Prophet (peace be upon him): “O Messenger of Allah, we were living in an evil (atmosphere) and Allah brought us good (Islam) and we live in it now. Will there be evil after this good?”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Yes.”

Hudhayfah b. al-Yamân said: “And any good after this evil?”

He said: “Yes.”

Hudhayfah b. al-Yamân said: “And any evil after this good?”

He said: “Yes.”

Hudhayfah said: “How will it be?”

He said: “Imams (rulers) after me who do not abide by my guidance and Sunnah. Some of their men will have Satan’s heart in a human’s body.”

Hudhayfah said: “What should I do, O Messenger of Allah, if I live to see that time?”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “You should listen and obey them even if (the ruler smites your back and takes your wealth.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

These hadîth are evidence that is unlawful to rebel against the rulers even if they are oppressive as long as they do not exhibit outright unbelief.

​

 

[lolwatever]

^ erm i think we're going off toic here... dis is about whether they ruling by Shariah or not... the answr is no.... i think the topic is dealt with :?

salamz

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

but just to make the point, someone who doesnt pray, are they regarded as non Muslims only if htey 'say they are against prayer' ? no? so what makes ruling by other than what allah revealed an exception? especially when the verses regadring it are all talking about the action rather than the 'belief'.

One of the students of knowledge from Algeria asked the noble Shaikh, Muhammad bin Saalih al-Uthaimeen about some groups of people who make takfir of the rulers without any guidelines and conditions.
Listen to the recorded discussion in Real Audio
The Shaikh replied: "Those who make takfir, they are the inheritors of the Khawaarij, those who rebelled against Ali bin Abi Taalib (radiallahu anhu). The kaafir is the one whom Allaah and His Messenger have declared a kaafir, and takfir itself has conditions, amongst them, ilm (knowledge) and amongst them iraadah (will, intent). So we ought to know that this ruler opposed the truth, and he knew the truth, and he intended deliberate opposition, and that he did not have any faulty interpretation (in the matter), such as when a person prostrates to an idol, and he knows that prostrating to an idol is Shirk and he does not have any faulty understanding either.
What is important is that this affair has conditions, and it is not permissible to rush into takfir, just as it is not permissible to rush into the saying, "This is halaal (lawful) and this is haraam (unlawful)."
​

 

[lolwatever]

One of the students of knowledge from Algeria asked the noble Shaikh, Muhammad bin Saalih al-Uthaimeen about some groups of people who make takfir of the rulers without any guidelines and conditions.​

Listen to the recorded discussion in Real Audio ​

The Shaikh replied: "Those who make takfir, they are the inheritors of the Khawaarij, those who rebelled against Ali bin Abi Taalib (radiallahu anhu). The kaafir is the one whom Allaah and His Messenger have declared a kaafir, and takfir itself has conditions, amongst them, ilm (knowledge) and amongst them iraadah (will, intent). So we ought to know that this ruler opposed the truth, and he knew the truth, and he intended deliberate opposition, and that he did not have any faulty interpretation (in the matter), such as when a person prostrates to an idol, and he knows that prostrating to an idol is Shirk and he does not have any faulty understanding either.​

What is important is that this affair has conditions, and it is not permissible to rush into takfir, just as it is not permissible to rush into the saying, "This is halaal (lawful) and this is haraam (unlawful)."​

bro its easy to throw names at people who disagree with u n giv thema ll sorts of ugly names...

so does that make Umar a kafir/khawarij? when he told the prophet 'let me behead that munafiq" and in another narration "that kafir" (and ibn hajar literally says "hayhaata hayhaata liman araada tadh'3eef tilkarriyawaah".

And i disagree with his conditions. People who make jokes about the prophet for example are out of Islam regardless whether they have knowledge or not.... read surat tawbah for example, when some people mocked the prophet n his companions and Allah affirmed that they "wher eonly joking and playing". Yet allah said "is it with allah and his ayahs that you mock, don't apologise, you have disbelieved afer your belief".

Similarly the example i gave about prayer... the saem scholars who use these conditions seem to disregard them when they clearly say anyone who doesnt pray is disbeliever whether they say they are agaisnt paryer or not.

 

[afriend]

Excuse me? Saudi Arabia prescribes the death penalty for major drug smugglers and completely bans all intoxicants.

Don't get me wrong. I would give my life to fight for al 'Umm Al Quraa' wa man hawlahaa.....Defend it with my life

Believe it or not brother, I have family in Jeddah, and they have told me stories about bars for the 'kuffar' living in the kingdom.

Allahu'l Musta'aan! This is the deviant kharaji ideology of causing chaos and anarchy by overthrowing the government!!
Brother please educate yourself on what the scholars have said about obeying those in authority over you, please you make such heretical statements. Please read:

Heretical am I?

firstly I will convey my feelings towards this.

The kharaji tribe was going against Allah's messenger and the belivers. Surely that is a great crime. Today it is being ruled by a corrupt, two faced government who makes deals with the Americans and allows kuffar armies to guard it's own territories.

It hurts me to see the holy land being ruled by these people.

To address your quotes:

I humbly accept it.

Although, I am not refering to an uprising or a rebellion. You read it wrong. The worst thing ever would be to destabilize the order in the holy land, but look at Iraq. The government was corrupt, there was no upraoar or open rebellions towards it, however, look at it now.

Rather there should have been an organised democractic opposition towards the government, democracy is allowed in Islam.

It is vital that we instill the khilaafah of Allah in the world, and it should start at home. Saudi Arabia should be ruled by democracy, not by a monarchy. There was no Monarchy in Arabia during the times of the khulafaa rashideen.

please you make such heretical statements.

May Allah have mercy upon you.

Jazakallah khair for those quotes.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

bro its easy to throw names at people who disagree with u n giv thema ll sorts of ugly names...

In case you didn't notice, it is Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih Al-'Uthaymeen speaking, not me.

so does that make Umar a kafir/khawarij? when he told the prophet 'let me behead that munafiq" and in another narration "that kafir" (and ibn hajar literally says "hayhaata hayhaata liman araada tadh'3eef tilkarriyawaah".

How much do you know about the case of Haatib ibn Abi Balta'ah RADIALLAHU ANHU? This is what I wrote to another brother in pm:

we need only look at the case of Haatib ibn Abi Balta'ah rd and what the scholars have said concerning him. If alliance and assistance of the kuffaar rendered one an apostate then why did RasulAllah saws refuse to punish him and say that his participation in Badr was sufficient for his forgiveness. We know that shirk and kufr wipes out what was before and nullifies one's good deeds so how can this act itself be such? I encourage you to read the commentary on this incident by Imaam Shafi'i, Imaam Al-Qurtubi, Imaam Ibn Al-Jawzi and so many other scholars.​

I will take the initiative to provide you with some of that commentary now. From Shaykh 'Abdul-Muhsin Ibn Nâsir Âl 'Ubaykân:

لدليل : قصة حاطب بن أبي بلتعة رضي الله عنه الذي رواها البخاري ومسلم وغيرهما وهي أنه كتب كتابا ً لقريش يخبرهم فيه باستعداد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم للزحف على مكة إذ كان يتجهز لفتحها وكان يكتم ذلك ليبغت قريشا ً على غير استعداد منها فتضطر إلى قبول الصلح وما كان يريد حرباً ، وأرسل حاطب كتابه مع جاريه وضعته في عقص شعرها فأعلم الله نبيه بذلك فأرسل في أثرها علياً والزبير والمقداد وقال : (( انطلقوا حتى تأتوا روضة خاخ فإن بها ظعينة معها كتاب فخذوه منها )) فلما أتي به قال : (( يا حاطب ما هذا )) ؟ فقال : يا رسول الله لا تعجل على ! إن كنت حليفاً لقريش ولم أكن من أنفسها وكان من معك من المهاجرين لهم قرابات يحمون أهليهم وأموالهم فأحببت إذ فاتني ذلك من النسب فيهم أن أتخذ عندهم يدا ً يحمون بها قرابتي ولم أفعله ارتدادا ً عن ديني ولا رضي بالكفر بعد الإسلام ، فقال عليه الصلاة والسلام: (( أما إنه قد صدقكم )) واستأذن عمر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في قتله فلم يأذن له ، قالوا وفي ذلك نزل قوله تعالى : { يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تتخذوا عدوي وعدوكم أولياء تلقون إليهم بالمودة وقد كفروا بما جاءكم من الحق يخرجون الرسول وإياكم أن تؤمنوا بالله ربكم } ( 1 ) سورة الممتحنة .. الخ .



قال الحافظ ابن حجر : [ قوله في قصة حاطب بن أبي بلتعة (( فقال عمر : دعني يا رسول الله فأضرب عنقه )) إنمـا قال ذلك عمر مع تصديق رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لحاطب فيما اعتذر به لما كان عند عمر من القوة في الدين وبغض من بنسب إلى النفاق وظن أن من يخلف ما أمر به رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم استحق القتل لكنه لم يجزم بذلك فلذلك استأذن في قتله وأطلق عليه منافقاً لكونه أبطن خلاف ما أظهر وعذر حاطب ما ذكره فإنه صنع ذلك متأولا أن لا ضرر فيه وعند الطبري من طريق الحارث عن علي في هذه القصة (( فقال: أليس قد شهد بدراً قال بلى ولكنه نكث وظاهر أعداءك عليك )) أ هـ .



وقال ابن حزم : [ وأما من حملته الحمية من أهل الثغر من المسلمين فاستعان بالمشركين الحربيين وأطلق أيديهم على قتل من خالفه من المسلمين أو على أخذ أموالهم أو سبيهم فإن كانت يده هي الغالبة وكان الكفار له كأتباع فهو هالك في غاية الفسوق ولا يكون بذلك كافراً لأنه لم يأت شيئا ً أوجب به عليه كفراً قرآن أو إجماع ] أ هـ .



وقال الشيخ محمد رشيد رضا : [ وإذا كان الشارع لم يحكم بكفر حاطب في موالاة المشركين التي هي موضع النهي ] أ هـ .



ولذا لم يذكر الفقهاء الموالاة والمظاهر من ضمن المكفرات في باب حكم المرتد يتضح ذلك لمن أطلع على كتاب الإقناع وشرحه والمغني وغيرهما .



ويلاحظ أن الله عز وجل نادى حاطبا ً بلفظ الإيمان في قوله تعالى : { يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تتخذوا } الآيـة، فـدل علـى أنه لم يكفر بذلك العمل مع أنه قال: { تلقون إليهم بالمودة } و قال: { تسرون إليهم بالمودة } .
​

The evidence is the story of Hatib Bin-Abi-Balta'ah, God be satisfied with him, which was told by Al-Bukhari and Muslim, God have mercy on their souls, and others. Hatib wrote a message to Quraysh telling them that the Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, was preparing to march on Mecca; the prophet was preparing for the conquest of Mecca, but was hiding the news to surprise them, and hence the infidels would be forced to agree to peace because the Prophet did not want war; Hatib sent his message with his slave, and she hid it in her hair; God told His Prophet about that, and the prophet sent Ali, Al-Zubayr, and Al-Miqdad, God be satisfied with them, and said: "Go to the Khakh Park, you will find a slave with a letter, take it from her;" when they brought the letter, the Prophet said: "What is this Hatib?" Hatib said: O God's Messenger, do not be angry with me; I was an ally of Quraysh, but I was not one of the important ones; those who immigrated with you have relatives there to protect their families and friends; since I do not have such links, I wanted to do them a favor so that they would protect my family; I did not do it because I relinquished my faith or accepted infidelity after Islam. The Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, said: "He is telling the truth." Umar Bin-al-Khattab asked the Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, to give him permission to kill Hatib, but the Prophet did not allow him. They say that following this God sent the verses including, "O you who believe! Do not take My enemy and yours for friends, offering them friendship, while they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and expelling the Messenger and you only because you believe in God your Lord."

Al-Hafidh Bin-Hajar: "When he said in the story of Hatib Bin-Abi-Balta'ah: 'Umar said: O God's Messenger, let me cut off his head," Umar only said that after the Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, believed the excuse of Hatib, because of his strong faith and hatred of hypocrisy; Umar thought that anyone who disobeyed the Prophet deserved to be killed, but he was not categorically sure, and that is why he asked for permission to kill him, and he called Hatib a hypocrite because he was hiding the opposite of what he was announcing. The excuse of Hatib which he mentioned was that he did what he did thinking that there was no harm in it." With regard to this story, Al-Tabari attributed to Al-Harith, who attributed to Ali: "He said: Has he not witnessed the Badr conquest? He said: Yes, but he changed, and he supported your enemies against you."

Ibn-Hazm said: As for some Muslim who is taken by zeal, used military polytheists, and gave them a freehand to kill his Muslim opponents, take their money, or enslave them, if he were to be victorious, and the infidels were his subordinates, then he would perish as an extreme wanton, but he would not be an infidel, because he did not do anything that would make him an infidel according to the Quran or the unanimous opinion."

Sheikh Muhammad Rashid Rida, God have mercy on his soul, said: "Therefore, the street did not judge Hatib to be an infidel by allying himself to the polytheists, which was prohibited."

Therefore, the scholars did not mention alliance and support as a reason for infidelity when they talked about the rules of apostasy. This is clear to anyone who reads Al-Iqna wa Sharhuh, Al-Mughni, and other books.

It is noteworthy that God Almighty addressed Hatib as a believer when He said: "O you who believe! Do not take..." which indicates that he did not become an infidel by his deed. This is despite the fact that God Almighty said: "offering them friendship;" and He said: "Holding secret converse of friendship with them."

​

And i disagree with his conditions. People who make jokes about the prophet for example are out of Islam regardless whether they have knowledge or not...

We are specifically speaking about the issue of al-hukm bi-ghayri maa anzala Allah, so kufr istihzah is a red-herring. You are denying the condition of knowledge?? So if someone doesn't know the Islamic ruling on something and they act against it they are a disbeliever?! You think that if some brother grew up not knowing that in Islam you have to grow a beard that therefore he was a kaafir and all his prayers and fasts and duas were not accepted all that time?? No, someone has to actually know the ruling in order to disbeliever in it!

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

You'd think the city that has the Kabaa in would at least be setting an example

 

[lolwatever]

bro hangon... first of all, before you start launchign accusations against people. First establish the proof against them inshalah with the evidence. And then feel free to label me with what you please.

And as i mentioned, this is way off topic so i'm not the one who's asking for warnigns here! kay:

How much do you know about the case of Haatib ibn Abi Balta'ah RADIALLAHU ANHU? This is what I wrote to another brother in pm:

Regardign hatibs case, jazaks 4 ur initiative but i think you missed the point:

my point is, hatib is someone who's from top sahabah, it's a joke to even compare him with the opressors you've got in saudi, yet the prophet didn't tell umar "you're a khawarij for calling hatib kafir/munafiq", he didnt even repremand him for using those terms.

that's the point.

in our case, we're dealign wtih ppl who aren't even comparable to hatib, and you're launchign all sorts of baseless accusatiosn against us, (whether its you or the sheikh u quoted, you're supporting it obviously).

We are specifically speaking about the issue of al-hukm bi-ghayri maa anzala Allah, so kufr istihzah is a red-herring. You are denying the condition of knowledge?? So if someone doesn't know the Islamic ruling on something and they act against it they are a disbeliever?! You think that if some brother grew up not knowing that in Islam you have to grow a beard that therefore he was a kaafir and all his prayers and fasts and duas were not accepted all that time?? No, someone has to actually know the ruling in order to disbeliever in it!

you're mixing up a few things here. First of all you're bypassing my prayer example, you havn't answered the question.

"Why is it in taht case 'believing that prayer isn't fardh' isn't a condition to be kafir, and in this case, you are supporting it?'

There's a difference between not growing a beard, and mocking people who grow the beard, and fighting people who grow a beard coz of their beard.

The regime we're discussing is literally fighting human rights, fighting anyoen who wants to shutdown a riba bank. So you're example is way off the point.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

bro hangon... first of all, before you start launchign accusations against people. First establish the proof against them inshalah with the evidence. And then feel free to label me with what you please.

I never labelled you anything, so please don't make up nonsense.

my point is, hatib is someone who's from top sahabah, it's a joke to even compare him with the opressors you've got in saudi

Did you read the numerous ahadith of the Prophet saws?
He said: “Imams (rulers) after me who do not abide by my guidance and Sunnah. Some of their men will have Satan’s heart in a human’s body.”

Hudhayfah said: “What should I do, O Messenger of Allah, if I live to see that time?”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “You should listen and obey them even if (the ruler smites your back and takes your wealth.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

And the many many others posted which I am not going to just repost.

, yet the prophet didn't tell umar "you're a khawarij for calling hatib kafir/munafiq", he didnt even repremand him for using those terms.

And I didn't say you were a kharaji. But the Prophet saws said 'Umar was WRONG to think that Haatib had commited nifaq or kufr. Likewise, you are WRONG to think that these rulers have not only committed kufr but become kuffaar!!

that's the point.

and you're launchign all sorts of baseless accusatiosn against us, (whether its you or the sheikh u quoted, you're supporting it obviously).

Mashaa'Allah, so Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih Al-'Uthaymeen is "launching baseless allegations" when he is clarifying an important point of aqeedah?

you're mixing up a few things here. First of all you're bypassing my prayer example, you havn't answered the question.

Actually I have, and I told you that it is a red-herring since we are specifically speaking about al-hukm bi ghayri maa anzala Allah, unless you are saying that the Saudi rulers deny the obligation of prayer. If someone denies the obligation of salaah then they are definitely kaafir. If someone does not pray salah out of laziness while acknowledging their sin then according to Malik, Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa and Al-Albani they are a faasiq, not a kaafir.

There's a difference between not growing a beard, and mocking people who grow the beard, and fighting people who grow a beard coz of their beard.

Considering the fact that all the great Saudi Ulama have beards I think this is an utterly innane argument.

The regime we're discussing is literally fighting human rights, fighting anyoen who wants to shutdown a riba bank.

Did they say riba is permissible? No, they all said it is haraam.

 

[Malaikah]

If someone does not pray salah out of laziness while acknowledging their sin then according to Malik, Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa and Al-Albani they are a faasiq, not a kaafir.

Though you admit there are scholars who hold the opinion that those who abandon prayer out of laziness while knowing it is obligatory are also classed as kafirs, right? And that is a valid opinion with strong supporting evidence too.