Quantity or Quality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thinker
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 52
  • Views Views 9K
And, like I said above, I also wonder whether Muslims would be better served if they had a vetting service for Muslim converts i.e. someone who examines their mental state, knowledge if Islam and reasons for converting before allowing them into the fold?
Doesn't really work like that. To become Muslim, one need only recite the Shahadah (i.e. there is no God but Allah and Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him is His messenger), knowing and believing in what one is saying. It's not really a question of allowing someone into the fold, if you see what I mean.

The rest of your questions have been answered in the preceding posts with much more skill and clarity than I could offer.
 
It depends on the circumstance ultimately.

However, we are missing the vital point of Thinker's question. He asked if it was bad to coerce a 9 year old into slittting a captives throat. As a trainee psychologist, I say it is very bad!

If that captive is indeed to suffer his/her throat being slit (for whatever reason), it should most certainly NOT be done by coercing a child!

I seriously doubt there was anything in the history of Islam (i.e sunnah, hadith etc) that would allow one to coerce a CHILD into slaying a captive. This is the crux of the matter - not if captives can be slayed, but can one coerce a child into slaying a captive (answer is NO).

:sl:

and i dont see any coercion, only encouraging. if i lived in such places i would encourage my children and others to join the jihad and take part in all the military actions they were physically capable of doing.

i agree if a 9yo didnt want to do it then dont force them, if they were willing but needing a little encouragement then that is different and will help teach them necessary skills and mental attitudes just like a kitten being given a half killed mouse to play with.

:sl:
 
Actually I asked several questions at one time which may have caused confusion.

The questions I asked was to help me try to understand some things which to me appear anomalous.

The first stated what I believe to be true and that is that anyone can declare themselves Muslim unlike Christianity and Judaism where your have to go through a process and satisfy certain requirements before an official of that religion allows you to become a ‘member.’ So what? Because it impacts on my other questions . . .

1. Are Muslims obliged to support / defend the actions of every other Muslim? I asked that question because I have seen comments from Muslims on this forum criticising Muslim members who have criticised other Muslims saying that Muslims shouldn’t criticise the actions of other Muslims.

2. The question then occurred to me, apart from saying I am Muslim, what must a Muslim do to be accepted by other Muslims as a Muslim? Let’s say for example that I am a closet Nazi and I hate Jews as much as Adolf Hitler did and I decide that, in the political and social climate that exists today, I am going to get nowhere in my quest to kill Jews whilst I am dressed as a Nazi so I declare myself a Muslim and set about my personal Jihad on Jews under the banner of Islam. Surely that can’t be allowable? But if there is no structure within Islam to excommunicate people who bring the religion into disrepute and Muslim can kill anyone they like on their chosen Sheik’s interpretation of the Qu’ran and if every other Muslim is required to support and defend their actions isn’t that a problem to Islam?

1. to a certain degree yes, and to a certain degree no. i will support my brothers against the disbelievers 100% though even if i dont necessary agree with them 100%.

2. regarding this point, if someone has said their shahadah, fulfils its conditions and avoids its negations they are muslim, they could well be munafiq in their heart but i cant suspect them of this without proof.

saying that there is an islamic concept of excommunication, or rather an different process to achieve the same thing. it is called takfir where someone is declared outside the fold of islam and those muslims agreeing with such a fatwah would then boycott that person other than to try to talk them into returning to islam and they could even be killed if they have been warned and understood such a warning.
 
Originally Posted by Thinker
And, like I said above, I also wonder whether Muslims would be better served if they had a vetting service for Muslim converts i.e. someone who examines their mental state, knowledge if Islam and reasons for converting before allowing them into the fold?
Doesn't really work like that. To become Muslim, one need only recite the Shahadah (i.e. there is no God but Allah and Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him is His messenger), knowing and believing in what one is saying. It's not really a question of allowing someone into the fold, if you see what I mean.

The rest of your questions have been answered in the preceding posts with much more skill and clarity than I could offer.
:sl:
nonetheless would it NOT be wise to not take them as our leaders the moment they change their allegiance from their old creed to new and such (esp. those whose rhetoric is exactly same as before except that their target audience has changed somewhat)?

:w:
 
Last edited:
:sl:
nonetheless it would it NOT be wise, not no take them as our leaders the moment they change their allegiance from neo-Nazism to HT and such ?

:w:
It would certainly be wise to vet who we allow to lead us.

And that sounded so blindingly, ridiculously obvious, I can't believe I typed it. Do people not run background checks on these guys?
 
when a person is a muslim, he disassociates himself from displeasing Allaah. If this muslim is constantly doing unislamic acts then he should be punishes and reminded to repent and turn back to Allaah.

A muslim will ALWAYS be valued higher in the eyes of the ummah due to the fact that he isnt doing the one greatest sin, associating partners with Allah, but that doesnt mean such a muslim will be let loose and free to cause whatever mayhem he desires.


Honestly Thinker, read the lives of the Prophets/companions, its very self explanatory. You might understand more then you had hoped to.
 
I read a post on this forum which is a clip from a Muslim convert where he waxed lyrical about Muslim land and the Taliban. The author of that piece is David Myatt. That post prompted me to investigate who David Myatt is...

http://www.davidmyatt.info/

I think that you are projecting kaaffir ideas and assumptions onto Islam and Muslims, and particularly onto ibnmyatt.

Perhaps in your investigation you did not find that the past of a revert is irrelevant.

"Asking for details of a persons past and wanting to know what sins they might have committed when they were ignorant about Islam is not right at all. Allah covers peoples' sins and loves to see them covered (i.e. not dragged out into the open). So long as a person has repented, his sins have been wiped out. Islam deletes whatever came before, so why should we ask questions that will only embarrass people? Allah accepts people's repentance without their having to confess or expose their sins to any other person. A number of the sahabah [companions of the Prophet] had committed adultery and murder repeatedly, or had buried infant girls alive, or stolen things, but when they entered Islam they were the best of people. No one needs to be reminded of a shameful past; it is over and done with, and Allah is the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful." Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid


Perhaps in your investigation you did not find that we Muslims judge by what is apparent, and that no "investigation" of the person's intentions are necessary or even desired.

Perhaps in your investigation you did not find what ibn Myatt himself had to say on the matter on his reversion:

Many of the kuffar - and some Muslims, imitating the kuffar for whatever reason - have, on hearing about or learning about my reversion to Islam, not only made many assumptions about me, but they have also, almost without exception, described me according to their own prejudiced (and Western) assumptions. Thus, according to them I have simply "swapped one extremism for another", and have moved from one totalitarian "ideology" to another - from National-Socialism to "radical Islam". Thus do they reveal not only prejudice, but also arrogance and ignorance. Prejudice, because there is a pre-judgement based on existing assumptions and/or upon a failure to use Aql, a failure to perceive - a failure to-be - beyond one's hawah; Arrogance, because they assume or believe that the Western, kaffir, world-view and values, are correct and universal; Ignorance, because they are in ignorance not only of the true nature of Deen Al-Islam but also of their own true nature, as fallible human beings, who are but creations of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and who but briefly live, in the dunya, in a vast Cosmos, but who have an opportunity of eternal life in Jannah.

Those who understand correctly, those who use Aql, will understand my reversion (Alhamdulillah) as a gift from Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala: a dis-covery of Tawheed; a move toward a knowing of the numinous as the numinous is. Thus, it is rejection of Tawagheet and a simple, unaffected, reliance on, and remembrance of, only Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. Thus, all the terms that the kuffar (and those imitating them) may use to describe this reversion, and me, are irrelevant.

"You only do we obey and to You only do we turn for help." 1:5 Interpretation of Meaning

"The 'Ibaad of Ar-Rahman [Allah] are those who walk on earth in humility." 25:63 Interpretation of Meaning​
 
Many of the kuffar - and some Muslims, imitating the kuffar for whatever reason - have, on hearing about or learning about my reversion to Islam, not only made many assumptions about me, but they have also, almost without exception, described me according to their own prejudiced (and Western) assumptions. Thus, according to them I have simply "swapped one extremism for another", and have moved from one totalitarian "ideology" to another - from National-Socialism to "radical Islam". Thus do they reveal not only prejudice, but also arrogance and ignorance. Prejudice, because there is a pre-judgement based on existing assumptions and/or upon a failure to use Aql, a failure to perceive - a failure to-be - beyond one's hawah; Arrogance, because they assume or believe that the Western, kaffir, world-view and values, are correct and universal; Ignorance, because they are in ignorance not only of the true nature of Deen Al-Islam but also of their own true nature, as fallible human beings, who are but creations of
my reversion (Alhamdulillah) is a gift from Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala
is it not reminding you of conversion of Saul into Paul then what he proceeded to do to religion?

was what he did before "seeing the light" much different to what he did afterwards?
 
Last edited:
was what he did before "seeing the light" much different to what he did afterwards?

What has he done afterwards that contradicts his Islam - that contradicts his submission to only Allah azza wa jal? He has publicly renounced all the tahgoot he formerly accepted - such as and in particular nationalism and racism.

While it is true he may, in the opinion of some Muslims, incline toward some positions that some other Muslims may not themselves agree with - such as supporting the Taliban - it is also true that, in the opinion of some other Muslims (millions?), there is nothing incorrect in supporting those Mujahideen who are fighting the kuffaar who have invaded a Muslim land.

Since you highlighted the term, is it not true to say that - from the perspective of Islam - that "totalitarianism", of whatever sort, is a kaaffir idea, a Taghoot, and that to interpret Islam, or the position of some Muslims, in terms of such a kaaffir idea is incorrect?

Thus, when the kuffaar speak and write of "totalitarianism" in relation to Islam and Muslims they are interpreting it and us incorrectly due to their ignorance of Islam.
 
Actually I asked several questions at one time which may have caused confusion.

The questions I asked was to help me try to understand some things which to me appear anomalous.

The first stated what I believe to be true and that is that anyone can declare themselves Muslim unlike Christianity and Judaism where your have to go through a process and satisfy certain requirements before an official of that religion allows you to become a ‘member.’ So what? Because it impacts on my other questions . . .

1. Are Muslims obliged to support / defend the actions of every other Muslim? I asked that question because I have seen comments from Muslims on this forum criticising Muslim members who have criticised other Muslims saying that Muslims shouldn’t criticise the actions of other Muslims.
lol.. I got dizzy reading that-- hmmn -- have you read this?
http://www.islamicboard.com/advice-support/134278973-i-have-huge-dilemma.html

if your actions are overtly bad, then it doesn't matter what your religious affiliations! I have encountered many awful Muslims as I have of every other group!
2. The question then occurred to me, apart from saying I am Muslim, what must a Muslim do to be accepted by other Muslims as a Muslim?
Being Muslim isn't about acceptance by your cohorts, rather whether God will accept your deeds.. we are told that there are some Muslim whose prayer and other 'good deeds' won't be accepted on the day of recompense--

Let’s say for example that I am a closet Nazi and I hate Jews as much as Adolf Hitler did and I decide that, in the political and social climate that exists today, I am going to get nowhere in my quest to kill Jews whilst I am dressed as a Nazi so I declare myself a Muslim and set about my personal Jihad on Jews under the banner of Islam. Surely that can’t be allowable?
I think it is easier to be a Nazi than a Muslim now a days, given the current climate against Muslims no? There is nothing in Islam that states, go on hating Jews.. But we are indeed at war with the colonial settler state of Israel. If I were a civilian in Palestine, I wouldn't hesitate to defend my country by whatever means. It is very difficult to conjure up sympathies for Israelis --everything considered!

But if there is no structure within Islam to excommunicate people who bring the religion into disrepute and Muslim can kill anyone they like on their chosen Sheik’s interpretation of the Qu’ran and if every other Muslim is required to support and defend their actions isn’t that a problem to Islam?
oh? How do you figure?
Do read this
THE KHAWARIJ AND THE SECTS DERIVED FROM THEM



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're browsing:
Sahih Muslim
~> The Book of Zakat (Kitab Al-Zakat)
~> Chapter 45: exhortation to kill the khwarij
Number of hadeeths in this subject: 11, showing 1 - 10
This subject's pages: 1 - 2 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jump to hadeeth : 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2328
Narrator:

'Ali said: Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) believe it to be absolutely true as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (the Holy Prophet) which he never said. When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for battle is an outwitting. I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of judgmelat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2329
Narrator:

A hadith like this has been narrated through another chain of transmitters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2330
Narrator:

This hadith has been narrated on the authority of A'mash with the same chain of transmitters, but (these words) are not there:" They pass through the religion clean as the arrow passes through the prey."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2331
Narrator:

'Abida narrated from 'Ali that he made a mention of the Khwarij (and in this connection) said that there would be a person among them with a defective hand. (or with a short hand) or a fleshy hand. If you were to exercise restraint, I would tell you what Allah has promised to those who would kill them on the order of Mubarrmad (may peace be upon him). I (the narrator) said to him: Did you hear it from Muhammad: (may peace be upon him)? He (Hadrat 'Ali) said: Yes, by the Lord of the Ka'ba; Yes, by the Lord of the Ka'ba; yes, by the Lord of the Ka'ba.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2332
Narrator:

'Abida said: I will not narrate to you except what I heard from him (Hadrat 'Ali), and then he narrated from him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2333
Narrator:

Zaid b. Wahb Jahani reported and he was among the squadron which wall under the command of Ali (Allah be pleased with him) and which set out (to curb the activities) of the Khwarij. 'Ali (Allah be pleased with him) said: 0 people, I heard the Messeinger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: There would arise from my Ummah a people who would recite the Qur'an, and your recital would seem insignificant as compared with their recital, your prayer as compared with their prayer, arid your fast, as compared with their fast. They would recite the Qur'an thinking that it sup- ports them, whereas it is an evidence against them. Their prayer does not get beyond their collar bone; they would swerve through Islam just as the arrow passes through the prey. If the squadron which is to encounter them were to know (what great boon) has been assured to them by their Apostle (may peace be upon him) they would completely rely upon this deed (alone and cease to do other good deeds), and their (that of the Khwarij) distinctive mark is that there would be (among them) a person whose wrist would be without the arm, and the end of his wrist would be fleshy like the nipple of the breast on which there would be white hair. You would be marching towards Muawiya and the people of Syria and you would leave them behind among your children and your property (to do harm). By Allah, I believe that these are the people (against whom you have been commanded to fight and get reward) for they have shed forbidden blood, and raided the animals of the people. So go forth in the name of Allah (to fight against them). Salama b. Kuhail mentioned that Zaid b. Wahb made me alight at every stage, till we crossed a bridge. 'Abdullah b. Wahb al-Rasibi was at the head of the Khwarij when we encountered them. He ('Abdullah) said to his army: Throw the spears and draw out your swords from their sheaths, for I fear that they would attack you as they attacked you on the day of Harura. They went back and threw their spears and drew out their swords, and people fought against them with spears and they were killed one after another. Only two persons were killed among the people (among the army led by Hadrat 'Ali) on that day. 'Ali (Allah be pleased with him) said: Find out from among them (the dead bodies of the Khwarij) (the maimed). They searched but did not find him. 'Ali (Allah be pleased with him) then himself stood up and (walked) till he came to the people who had been killed one after another. He ('Ali) said: Search them to the last, and then ('Ali's companions) found him (the dead body of the maimed) near the earth. He (Hadrat 'Ali) then pronounced Allah-O-Akbar (Allah is the Greatest) and then said, Allah told the Truth and His Messenger (may peace be upon him) conveyed it. Then there stood before him 'Abida Salmani who said: Commander of the Believers, by Allah, besides Whom there is no god but He, (tell me) whether you heard this hadith from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He said: Yes, by Allah, besides Whom there is no god but He. He asked him to take an oath thrice and he took the oath.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2334
Narrator:

'Ubaidullah b. Abu Rafi', the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), said: When Haruria (the Khwarij) set out and as he was with 'Ali b. Abu Talib (Allah be pleased with him) they said," There is no command but that of Allah." Upon this 'Ali said: The statement is true but it is intentionally applied (to support) a wrong (cause). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him described their characteristics and I found these characteristics in them. They state the truth with their tongue, but it does not go beyond this part of their bodies (and the narrator pointed towards his throat). The most hateful among the creation of Allah us one black man among them (Khwarij). One of his hand is like the teat of a goat or the nipple of the breast. When 'Ali b. Abu Talib (Allah be pleased with him) killed them, he said: Search (for his dead body). They searched for him, but they did not find it (his dead body). Upon this he said: Go (and search for him). By Allah, neither I have spoken a lie nor has the lie been spoken to me. 'Ali said this twice and thrice. They then found him (the dead body) in a rain. They brought (his dead) body till they placed it before him (Hadrat 'Ali). 'Ubaidullah said: And, I was present at (that place) when this happened and when 'Ali said about them. A person narrated to me from Ibn Hanain that he said: I saw that black man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2335
Narrator:

Abu Dharr reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verily there would arise from my Ummah after me or soon after me a group (of people) who would recite the Qar'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass clean through their religion just as the arrow passes through the prey, and they would never come back to it. They would be the worst among the creation and the creatures. Ibn Samit (one of the narrators) said: I met Rafi' b. 'Amr Ghifari, the brother of Al-Hakam Ghifari and I said: What is this hadith that I heard from Abu Dharr, i. e. so and so? -and then I narrated that hadith to him and said: I heard it from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2336
Narrator:

Yusair b. 'Amr reported that he inquired of Sahl b. Hunaif: Did you hear the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) making a mention of the Khwarij? He said: I heard him say (and he pointed with his hand towards the east) that these would be a people who would recite the Qur'an with their tongues and it would not go beyond their collar bones. They would pass clean through their religion just as the arrow passes through the prey.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2337
Narrator:

http://www.jannah.com/cgi-bin/library/hadeeth.pl?coll=2&book=5&chap=45


another set..

There is a word of truth in what they say but their ends are devious" - Hazrat 'Ali (r.a)
The Khwarij and the Puritanical Revolt
"There will come a time when a group of people will leave our ranks. They will recite the Qur�an with fervour and passion but its spirit will not go beyond their throats. They will leave our ranks in the manner of an arrow when it shoots from its bow." - al-Hadis

by Motiur Rahman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Are men to arbitrate in the affairs of Allah? There can be no arbitration except by Allah."
Origins
After the Battle of Hunain the Prophet (s.aw) gave preference to a number of non-Muslims when distributing the booty in order to attract them to Islam. A man named Hurqus rebuked the Prophet (s.a.w) by saying: "Be just in your distribution O Messenger of Allah." The Prophet was incensed by this remark and responded by saying: "Then who can be called just if I am not just?" To this the Prophet added: "There will come a time when a group of people will leave our ranks. They will recite the Qur�an with fervour and passion but its spirit will not go beyond their throats. They will leave our ranks in the manner of an arrow when it shoots from its bow."

The first antiestablishment tendency in Islam was instigated by a group of people known as the Khwarij in the first century of Islam during the lifetimes of the eminent Sahaba of the Prophet (s.a.w) of the likes of �Ali ibn Abu Talib (r.a.) and Mu�wayiah (r.a) amongst many others. To the Khwarij, the standard of the Sahaba were not good enough (Allah protect us from such accusations), that the Sahaba were not ruling according to the Book of Allah, that legitimate rule belongs to Allah, and that arbitration is a pre-Islamic practice. The term Khwarij (literally 'rebels') first referred to a group of dissidents who rebelled against the leadership of Hazrat 'Ali (r.a) following the Battle of Siffin (ah 37/ad 658) between Hazrat 'Ali and Mu'awiya (r.a), and later evolved into a distinct antiestablishment tendency.

Urwa ibn Udaiyya, along with 12,000 others, seceded from the party of Hazrat Ali (r.a) after the Battle of Siffin. They elected Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi and Hurqus ibn Zuhair as their leaders. Al-Rasibi was known for his fervour in reciting the Qur�an, nicknamed Dhu al-Thafanat (the one whose kneecaps appeared like two humps of a camel due to his prostration in Salaah). At the time of arbitration between Hazrat �Ali and Hazrat Mu�wayiah (r.a), Urwa ibn Udaiyya said: "Are men to arbitrate in the affairs of Allah? There can be no arbitration except by Allah." In his support he quoted the Qur�an: "The prerogative of command rests with none but Allah. He declares the truth and he is the best of judges" (6:57). Hazrat �Ali commented: �There is a word of truth in what they say but their ends are devious�.

This first group of rationalists were concerned with theological speculations, they were concerned with the nature of legitimate leadership and the conditions for salvation, and the 'status of sinners'. At this point in history, in the interpretation of the Sahaba (r.a) it was unanimously held that the Khwarij had to be tackled, by both parties of Hazrat �Ali and Hazrat Muwayia (r.a), as none considered the Muslims outside the fold of Islam except the Khwarij.

Later, from among the group of rationalists emerged another, the Qadariyya which advocated the freedom of the human will in their doctrine. Opposed to this doctrine were the Jabriyya (determinists), led by Jahm ibn Safwan (d. ah 128/ad 746), who taught that no attributes could be predicated of God except for creation, power and action, since any attribute that could be predicated of creatures was not fit to be predicated of the Creator. Jahm�s teaching went against the Qur�an and the Sunnah, Muslims hold that Allah has ninety-nine (implying endless) attributes. Also, contrary to the Qur�an and Sunnah, Jahm held the Qur�an to be created and not the literal Word of Allah.

All these rationalist groups have some characteristics in common: tawhid and �adl or God�s Oneness and Justice. In their search for tawhid and �adl reason had taken the primary position over revelation; the Mu�tazila had even gone so far as to formulate a creed based upon Greek philosophical reasoning and interpreting the Qur�an and the Sunnah in such a way to make it fit into their line of thinking contravening the apparent meanings of the primary sources of Islam, in the name of the science of ta�wil (interpretation). The Mu�tazila had claimed that reason could explain everything, that revelation were only a back-up for reason, and only through reason we can find validity and proper justification for the Divine Revelation (wahy). This rationalistic project in itself is a bida or heresy � the imposition of human concepts on Divine Justice, the understanding of God through human reasoning � was something far removed from the practise of the Sahaba (r.a) whose motto was �We hear and obey�.

Among the issues the rationalists both from the Khwarij and the Mu�tazila are concerned with is the status of the grave sinner. In this field what distinguishes the Khawarij from the Mu�tazila is that the former hold that any person who committed a grave sin automatically became a non-believer, thus forfeiting all rights and protections afforded by Islamic law, while the latter believe that such a person was in an intermediate position, being neither a Muslim nor an unbeliever. With this charge of unbelief the Khwarij and the proto-Mu�tazila even during the first century at the times of the Sahaba (r.a) have terrorized Muslims and waged war against them, plundering persons and property.

Characteristics of the Khwarij

Those who fight against the Muslims and falsely declare the Muslims as "disbelievers" (takf�r), "pagans" (tashr�k), "misguided" (tadl�l), "innovators" (tabd�`), "pantheists" (ittih�d�, hul�l�), "grave-worshippers" (qub�r�), "cultists" (turuq�), and so forth.

The following are the common between different Khwarij groups:

1) The declaration of kufr (unbelief) on the Sahaba e.g. Hazrat �Ali, Uthman, 'Amr ibn al-`As, Abu Musa al-`Ashari, Mu'awiya, and all those who consented to the process of arbitration.


2) That all perpetrators of major sins were permanently destined for hell.

3) The declaration of either kufr or shirk upon those who differed with them.

4) That it was obligatory to overthrow an oppressive ruler by force.

It is important to remember that to falsely charge a Muslim outside the fold of Islam takes one outside of Islam himself. Allah save us from such sins and accusations. Amin!

http://www.ijma.org.uk/features/khawarij.html
 
Last edited:
What has he done afterwards that contradicts his Islam - that contradicts his submission to only Allah azza wa jal? He has publicly renounced all the tahgoot he formerly accepted - such as and in particular nationalism and racism.

While it is true he may, in the opinion of some Muslims, incline toward some positions that some other Muslims may not themselves agree with - such as supporting the Taliban - it is also true that, in the opinion of some other Muslims (millions?), there is nothing incorrect in supporting those Mujahideen who are fighting the kuffaar who have invaded a Muslim land.

Since you highlighted the term, is it not true to say that - from the perspective of Islam - that "totalitarianism", of whatever sort, is a kaaffir idea, a Taghoot, and that to interpret Islam, or the position of some Muslims, in terms of such a kaaffir idea is incorrect?

Thus, when the kuffaar speak and write of "totalitarianism" in relation to Islam and Muslims they are interpreting it and us incorrectly due to their ignorance of Islam.
before I reply to this I am going to try to find out; which member it is that this is second ID of. and if it is not it is a strange coincident that first post these people make is, of this nature, just plain unbelievable. I have, on this site, been bitten by such people many times before; where they egg me on using one ID, then go on to "refute" me using another one.

BTW. I already made an effort to build and post here, a comprehensive picture of this "reformed" neoNazi but I was stopped in my tracks by Muhammad the Admin (as off-topic), last time he deleted around 6 posts of mine regarding this new imaam of "Muslims" mr myatt. what assurance are you willing to provide me that it will not be a wasted effort if I were to take you on ?

if you get banned during an argument, you can always use another ID but If I get the boot, I have to wait for the ban to end before I come back (except in helpdesk).
 
Last edited:

Because that is the Muslim thing to do...

"You who believe [in Allah and The Last Day]: do not befriend nor rely upon those outside [your Deen] for they will lead you astray desiring as they do to harm you: and although hatred issues forth from their mouths what they conceal in their hearts is far worse. Here are Signs, for those who have Aql." 3, 118
 
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
i will support my brothers against the disbelievers 100% though even if i dont necessary agree with them 100%.

why?

Because that is the Muslim thing to do...

Would you be offended if a non Muslim discriminated against a Muslim on the basis of his/her religion?
 
Would you be offended if a non Muslim discriminated against a Muslim on the basis of his/her religion?

Look around you mate.... that is already the case.

'Discrimination' is a very small word for what the Muslims are enduring right now.

I think the people of Palestine have a little more than "discrimination" to worry about.

If you mean would I be offended if a person from another faith preferred to hang out with people of his own faith? No.. I wouldn't be offended at all.
 
there is an islamic concept of excommunication, or rather an different process to achieve the same thing. it is called takfir where someone is declared outside the fold of islam and those muslims agreeing with such a fatwah would then boycott that person other than to try to talk them into returning to islam and they could even be killed if they have been warned and understood such a warning.


Takfir – Interesting – can you (or anyone else) tell me has any Muslim who has been designated as a terrorist / radical / extremist been declared takfir?

OR can you tell me anyone who has been declared takfir?

Thanks
 
Look around you mate.... that is already the case.

'Discrimination' is a very small word for what the Muslims are enduring right now.

I think the people of Palestine have a little more than "discrimination" to worry about.

If you mean would I be offended if a person from another faith preferred to hang out with people of his own faith? No.. I wouldn't be offended at all.

Then you will no doubt agree with me that everyone should be treated equally without regard to their colour, ethnicity or creed and so a Muslim should not give preference to a Muslim over another?
 
OR can you tell me anyone who has been declared takfir?

I think takfir was declared upon Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses by Ayatollah Khomeini.

However, I'm not sure.
 

because the last prophet of God commanded me to support me brother whether he be oppressed or the oppressor, when asked how do you help him if he is the oppressor then Muhammad (pbuh) said 'by holding his hand'

so if a muslim is going to do something i disagree with i will try to stop him myself, but i would never turn him over to the kuffar, never.

in matters of war, alliance, friendship even, to side with a disbeliever against a believer is something that will take you outside of islam.

note for the muslims, sheikh anwar al-awlaki has covered this topic in his blog recently in speaking out against those who are siding with the kuffar and calling for alliegence and alliance with them.
 
Takfir – Interesting – can you (or anyone else) tell me has any Muslim who has been designated as a terrorist / radical / extremist been declared takfir?

OR can you tell me anyone who has been declared takfir?

Thanks

there have been incorrect classifications of takfir against some believers on this issue by ignorant people, some of whom have repented since that time alhamdulillah (all praise be to God) when their errors were pointed out to them.

you see even if i incorrectly killed 1 person, or 1 million people, that doesnt take me outside of islam.

but i worship one idol, then i become a disbeliever, even if i dont believe it to be permissable, and there is no compulsion like someone holding a gun to my head etc.

some sins are worse than others in the eyes of God.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top