Those whole rule by man-made laws.

[Adem Al-Albani]

asSalaamu'alaykum

http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_RulingByManMadeLaws.pdf

Makes sense to me. Anyone else would like to comment?

[greenshirt]

wa alaikum salaam

that sounds about like what i have heard in the past.

which is why i get really upset when people question other people's islam because they support or oppose things that are contrary to shariah.. it is certainly haraam and should be condemned, but many times does not constitute kufr.

that article sounds to affirm the belief of ahl al-sunnah wal jammah!

[anam]

This was already posted on the forum

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=13592

[Adem Al-Albani]

JazakAllahu Khair

[Abu Ma'mar]

Shaykh is talking about a ruler ruling against the shariah once, twice... basically on occasions.

He is not talking about someone permanently making something halal or making something haram wich conflicts with the Shariah as Sh Fawzan called that Shirk al-Akbar.

[anam]

Wa iyaak


salafi manhaj and Halabi have been unjust

why use some of Fawzan's words when they suit you and regect and even call him takfeeri at other times when they dont!?

They know this statement is not clear and cant be taken just like that specialy after what they have been accused of! ..
a ruler can disbelieve through his actions and doesn't need to make istihlaal or have juhood of Islam

and Fawzaan doesn't believe in these restrictions as they do
plus he sais duna kufr is in particular matter


everything is made clear in this audio from Fawzaan's book of Tawheed:


Section 2: Chapter 6 to 7
Ruling by other than what Allah revealed | Claiming the Right of Legislation, Legalization and Illegalization

http://qsep.com/modules.php?name=ilm...ewilm&catid=24

[anam]

Shaykh is talking about a ruler ruling against the shariah once, twice... basically on occasions.


This is where Sh Muhammed Ibn Ibrahim said the words of Ibn Abbas apply

[anam]

He is not talking about someone permanently making something halal or making something haram wich conflicts with the Shariah as Sh Fawzan called that Shirk al-Akbar.


Im suprised because one of the Salafi shuyukh of today Saleh al Asaykh exposed those who claimed consensus on words of Ibn Abbas for legislation and aggreed that this is apostacy wether he makes it halal or not yet others say he has Eman of a mustard seed because they cant see kufr happening without beliefs or regection

[Salah ad-Din]

Brother, they would rather accept what befits their desires and call it "ijma"...and they will neglect what scholars like Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Al ash-Shaikh, Shaikh Saleh al-Uthaimin, Shaikh Abdurrazzaq al-'Afifi, Shaikh Saleh Al ash-Shaikh and others said about it. They try to pinpoint some ambigious words and ´thus to prove their own "wahm"...And ALLAH guides whomever He wishes!

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

asSalaamu'alaykum

http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_RulingByManMadeLaws.pdf

Makes sense to me. Anyone else would like to comment?

cant recommend irjaamanhaj.com

[anam]

They try to pinpoint some ambigious words and ´thus to prove their own "wahm"...And ALLAH guides whomever He wishes!


And we believe that division and following the Mutashabihat instead of the Muhkamat, and desire in place of the sound guidance is from the signs of the people of innovation.

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

asSalaamu'alaykum

http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_RulingByManMadeLaws.pdf

Makes sense to me. Anyone else would like to comment?

he should mention what all the scholars have said regarding this topic
shaikh ibn taymiyya said such a ruler is a kaffir according to the ijmaa of all muslims he didnt say just the scholars he said ijmaa according to all the muslims but these days doubtful scholars like to make doubtful excuses for such rulers,

[Adem Al-Albani]

When Najaashi became muslim, and didn't replace his laws for the laws of Allah 'azza wa jall.

Did he become a Kaffir?

[abou_intiqaam]

The doubts concerning the nadjaashi issue could be answered in several ways:

Is there any proof that he didn`t implemented the shariah after embracing islaam?

Second , he died before Allah completed his shariah so will that mean that if he didn`t implemented the whole shariah (assuming the case that he didn`t for the sake of the argument) that his case is proof that not implementing the laws of shariah in these days is in fact a minor form of kufr??
This are just a few ways of answering the nadjaashi issue but
there are refutations written concerning this topic so anybody who wishses to study this topic further should dig in to these refutations.

[Salah ad-Din]

When Najaashi became muslim, and didn't replace his laws for the laws of Allah 'azza wa jall.

Did he become a Kaffir?

well, well, well...are you sincere in your question? If you hade searched for an answer you would certainly have found it. What you want to prove is that Najashi didnt implement sharia laws and it gives excuse for modern hukkam to remain in the fold of Islam, though they have totally abandoned sharia and they ignore it...
It's Ibn Taymiyya who said that "some even reported that he didn't pray five daily prayers and didn't rule with sharia"...yes, Ibn Taymiyya said these words which shows that itäs not proven, but merely some suggested it.
Secondly, Ibn Taymiyya explained it himself and he said that Najashi was "'aajiz", ya'ni he had no ability to do it and he had shari excuse.
This is answer to your question!

[Adem Al-Albani]

Salah ad-Din, jazakAllahu khair akhee.

[Logic lover]

To add to Najjashi issue: he did not even publicise his Islam due to hostile environment.

[Adem Al-Albani]

To add to Najjashi issue: he did not even publicise his Islam due to hostile environment.

So when we bash all the scholars that support the rulers, and the rulers themselves, how do we not know there is a "hostile environment"?

How do we know they aren't threatened with death?

p.s. I hate the gov'ts of muslim lands. I'm not defending anyone, just trying to understand this issue.

[Salah ad-Din]

So when we bash all the scholars that support the rulers, and the rulers themselves, how do we not know there is a "hostile environment"?

How do we know they aren't threatened with death?


In other words you admit that these governments are enemies of Islam?!

[Brother_Mujahid]

Are we to say that openly secularist rulers like Egypt's Hosni Mubarak are excused with "kufr duna kufr"?

[Adem Al-Albani]

In other words you admit that these governments are enemies of Islam?!

Yes, I think they are enemies. But I don't call them kaffir. It's just way too dangerous to me. I don't want that kufr to fall upon me.

[justabro]

brothers, be nice to the brother, i think he is genuinely trying to understand the issue

[Salah ad-Din]

Yes, I think they are enemies. But I don't call them kaffir. It's just way too dangerous to me. I don't want that kufr to fall upon me.

So you dont believe that they do it deliberately? (Otherwise you should accept the fact that they are pure kuffar and mushriks)
So if Turkish courts and Tunisian government ban hijab, and if you are imprisoned for implementing shariah in muslim countries like former Soviet republics, Egypt, Pakistan and so on and if you are arrested for participation in combat against US and handed over to Guantanamo and if..if..if... and you believe that they don't do it deliberately? Think over it!

[Abu Abdallah al-Bulghari]

So you dont believe that they do it deliberately? (Otherwise you should accept the fact that they are pure kuffar and mushriks)
So if Turkish courts and Tunisian government ban hijab, and if you are imprisoned for implementing shariah in muslim countries like former Soviet republics, Egypt, Pakistan and so on and if you are arrested for participation in combat against US and handed over to Guantanamo and if..if..if... and you believe that they don't do it deliberately? Think over it!

Calling them Kaafir or not is irrelevant. A rebellion against any Muslim rule is justified when the ruler stops enforcing Salah which happens to rulers much earlier than leaving Islam.

That is pretty much every single modern Muslim country except Taliban (past?) and Somali Courts (if I am not mistaken) and Saudi Arabia.

[y-mughal]

Calling them Kaafir or not is irrelevant.

Brother I think it is relevant knowing the blatant Kufr/secularism espoused by todays regimes - it illustrates the persons ignorance with regard to Tawheed.