Tony Blair calls on world to wage war on militant Islam

[Dawud_uk]

1. khalifate doesn't exist.
2. the tax is on conquered peoples.

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



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

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

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

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

yes, i know that law and it is unjust and against the shariah of Allah. if you examine the rulings of rape, it requires four witnesses but an allegation of rape can also lead to a charge of hiraba (taking something through force) which requires less evidence and has much more severe punishments.

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

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

 

[Pomak]

yes, i know that law and it is unjust and against the shariah of Allah. if you examine the rulings of rape, it requires four witnesses but an allegation of rape can also lead to a charge of hiraba (taking something through force) which requires less evidence and has much more severe punishments.

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

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

Yes common sense would dictate that there is something between "not guilty" and capital punishment.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dawud_uk]

Yes common sense would dictate that there is something between "not guilty" and capital punishment.

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

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

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

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

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

dealing with each issue you bring up in order,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pomak]

dealing with each issue you bring up in order,

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

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

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

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

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

No your incorrect, only a qadi can make a judgement, i will supply the proofs in due time.

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

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

 

[Dawud_uk]

No your incorrect, only a qadi can make a judgement, i will supply the proofs in due time.

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

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

ok, we will disagree upon takfir until we both bring more solid proofs,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pomak]

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

Yes, when i come back i will post my proofs and it talks about this subject.
but a distinction has to be made, for example you can say Christians are kaffir, but you can't say everyone in (muslim group) is kaffir, even if the group holds a particular idea that is outside sunni Islam. As long as they say Shahada, they are judged individually. Thats what i meant by takfir by association.

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

The ICU got everything except the TG's capital. So no the AS don't have more land. And he didn't flee, all the leadership went into hiding because well there was Ethiopia on one side and US cruise missles on the other.

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

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

Yes how knowledgeable you must be, to be making pseudo-takfeer on scholars and shaykhs. Maybe the only problem is actually politics. Oh yes, who does that (mentality) remind me of? Thats right the Christians under the Catholic church and its Inquisition.

 

[Dawud_uk]

Yes, when i come back i will post my proofs and it talks about this subject.
but a distinction has to be made, for example you can say Christians are kaffir, but you can't say everyone in (muslim group) is kaffir, even if the group holds a particular idea that is outside sunni Islam. As long as they say Shahada, they are judged individually. Thats what i meant by takfir by association.

ok once again we need to come back with proofs, as i have been taught where a characteristic of a group if kufr known by necessity then the whole group is labelled as kuffar such as the qadianis or the alawis, both groups say the shahadah but both are kuffar.

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

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

The ICU got everything except the TG's capital. So no the AS don't have more land. And he didn't flee, all the leadership went into hiding because well there was Ethiopia on one side and US cruise missles on the other.

i agree go into hiding, the leadership needs to be protected, so i take this comment back but i will of-course feel a leader who stays and fights is more sincere than one who doesnt.

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

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

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

Yes how knowledgeable you must be, to be making pseudo-takfeer on scholars and shaykhs. Maybe the only problem is actually politics. Oh yes, who does that (mentality) remind me of? Thats right the Christians under the Catholic church and its Inquisition.

ya akhi, i dont claim to be that knowledgeable, you are probably more knowledgeable than me in certain areas but in this matter you are incorrect, the deen includes politics so if someone by their actions negates their shahadah, takes the kuffar as his awliya then there is nothing wrong with stating this so throw whatever allegations against me you wish, i forgive you for them myself as i do everyone who insults me.

 

[Pomak]

as i have been taught where a characteristic of a group if kufr known by necessity then the whole group is labelled as kuffar such as the qadianis or the alawis, both groups say the shahadah but both are kuffar.

The problem arises is when people associate with groups or sects but don't really believe in all the doctrines. So for example a person can call themselves a
(insert group) but your average person isn't going to really debate the fine details.

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

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

And from what i know most of the other scholars said that fatwa was massively wrong.

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

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

One of the principles is that if someone says or does something that looks and sounds like kufr you have to look at it and make sure there is no possible way for it to have another meaning. For example one of the sahaba was lost in the desert and when by chance (aka god's will) his camel/horse came back to him after it had run away, he said "Allah is my slave and i am your lord". Now no one is going to make takfeer on him, since its pretty obvious that he meant the opposite.

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

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

The large whole in your argument is the pyramids, the sahaba knew about it and left it.

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

ya akhi, i dont claim to be that knowledgeable, you are probably more knowledgeable than me in certain areas but in this matter you are incorrect, the deen includes politics so if someone by their actions negates their shahadah, takes the kuffar as his awliya then there is nothing wrong with stating this so throw whatever allegations against me you wish, i forgive you for them myself as i do everyone who insults me.

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

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

 

[Dawud_uk]

The problem arises is when people associate with groups or sects but don't really believe in all the doctrines. So for example a person can call themselves a
(insert group) but your average person isn't going to really debate the fine details.

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

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

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

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

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

And from what i know most of the other scholars said that fatwa was massively wrong.

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

these fataawah dont deal with every tartar in every land, but the rulers of baghdad and elsewhere who claimed islam but ruled by other than Allah has revealled, they denied the sole right of Allah to act as legislator and as such were kuffar.

One of the principles is that if someone says or does something that looks and sounds like kufr you have to look at it and make sure there is no possible way for it to have another meaning. For example one of the sahaba was lost in the desert and when by chance (aka god's will) his camel/horse came back to him after it had run away, he said "Allah is my slave and i am your lord". Now no one is going to make takfeer on him, since its pretty obvious that he meant the opposite.

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

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

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

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

The large whole in your argument is the pyramids, the sahaba knew about it and left it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[alcurad]

^brother, there is no such thing as punishment for the murtaad. that is, he is not killed for his apostasy, but if he fights the muslims and helps their enemies etc then he is to be treated as them.

 

[Dawud_uk]

^brother, there is no such thing as punishment for the murtaad. that is, he is not killed for his apostasy, but if he fights the muslims and helps their enemies etc then he is to be treated as them.

i have heard that argument and it is weak, the ahadith in this case are general to every murtad and do not mention it is in regards to treason etc.

 

[biozoid]

I agree with what you say about Blair but how can you say the same about
Brown who was and still remains one of his fiercest opponents?

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

 

[noorseeker]

I call on the world to fight against militant secularism

 

[alcurad]

i have heard that argument and it is weak, the ahadith in this case are general...

not if taken within context.
if taken as you say it,it would go against the verses in the qur'an that allow whomever who wishes to believe/disbelieve to do so.

 

[Dawud_uk]

not if taken within context.
if taken as you say it,it would go against the verses in the qur'an that allow whomever who wishes to believe/disbelieve to do so.

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

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

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

 

[Pomak]

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

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

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

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

1. Not really, that is one understanding which is rather weak. People are judged by what they believe and what they act. For that reason there is are several hadith that say that Christians will enter paradise, but at a smaller number than muslims.

these fataawah dont deal with every tartar in every land, but the rulers of baghdad and elsewhere who claimed islam but ruled by other than Allah has revealled, they denied the sole right of Allah to act as legislator and as such were kuffar.

It was a fatwah which no other scholar would give and after he gave it, it was controversial.

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

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

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

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

Apostasy wars were wars which were clear cut. Do you want me to quote the hadith about the conversation between abu bakr and umar before they set out?

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

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

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

He commanded us to destroy the idols in mecca.

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

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

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

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

Ok prove it, with hadith and ayats only.

 

[Pomak]

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

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

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