what was sheikh al albani+sheikh bin baaz's way for khilafah

[asharee_salafi]

Assalaamulekum, what has sheikh bin baaz and sheikh al albani done in order for the khilafah to be written, have they written any books based upon the topic of khilafah?

im asking in a way which is not derogaratory to them. just curiosity, so please no attacks.

can one also detail wether they thought that they were living in a khilafah, is that why they asked people to obey the rulers? why did they tell people to do that?

ws

[Abu Hatim]

Asalam alaykum

In the name of Allah

The shayook did not believe they were living under a khalifah but as every muslim does, they wished for this blessing. I'm not aware of any book's written by either of them concerning this issue.
Concerning your question about obeying the ruler's. They said to obey the ruler's simply because this is from Islam. There is no proof from the Quran or the sunnah saying to uprise against the ruler UNLESS he has commited clear Kufr. And as the scholars understand it, they hav'nt commited this kufr.
Were all aware of the mistakes of the ruler's as we are aware of one another's mistakes. We know that they have many fault's and so do we. But we have to stay away from the action's and statement's of the khawarijee. The Khawarijee were responsible of killing many of the sahabah and have caused many war's because they differ over some issue with the khalifah or the ruler. And evan some of the ulema say that the khawarijee are kuffar. So rising up against the ruler is a obvious trade mark of the khawarijee.
And as imam Abu Bakr al-aujuree said "It is not permissible for the one who has seen the uprising of the khawarijee who has revolted aginst the ruler,just or oppressive, so this person has revolted and has gathered a group behind him, has pulled out his sword and have made lawful the killing of muslim's, it is not fitting for one who see's this, that he becomes decieved by this person's recitation of the Quraan,the lenght of his standing in prayer, nor his constant fasting,nor his good and excellent words of knowledge, when it is clear to him that this person's ways and methodology is that of the khawarijee" And Allah know's best.

Wa aslam alaykum

[gag order]

al-saud rose up against the ottoman khalifah so are they not khawaarij for doing so?

if a leader commits clear kufr like wearing a cross and killing and torturing believers the veterans of the afghan soviet war then to revolt against him is the same as khawarij? i dont think so!

dont forget the khawarj rebelled against legitimate rulers because of minor sins (what they think are sins)

the muslims today rebel against illigetimate rulers because of major kufr

there is abig BIG difference between the two i hope everyone can see the obvious!

[Abu Hatim]

Asalam alaykum

Sheikh Salih al-Fowzaan said-"So having enthusiasm and an over-protective love for the religion is not sufficient. They must be founded upon knowledge and understanding of Allah's religion."

This statement describes the Khawarijee. They have sincerity and also knowledge without the correct understanding of the deen.

Also they kill the kuffar in the arabian peninsula when the messenger(saw) said "expel them"! He did not say kill them and be barbaric against them.We have seen many instances of there misguidence,like the terrible operation in Riyad which killed mostly muslim's. This is also one of the charateristic's of the khawarij. They make lawful the killing of other muslim's. This has been affirmed by the modern day leader of the khawarij, Osama bin Mohammad bin Laden, when he was asked about the operation against the embassy's in Africa and why they killed mostly muslim's and he responded by saying, "whoever is killed in Jihad, this is Allah's will". This is a true statement but this does not mean that you should purposely target your muslim brother's and sister's. This is clear misguidence.

Allah say's in surat at-tawbah- "And if anyone of the mushrikeen seek's your protection then grant him protection,so that he can hear the word of Allah....."


The point being-There is not a need to rebell against the ruler's. We have many Jihad's on many front's against the Kuffar. These are more serious situation's that should be addressed. No doubt about it-the ruler's are corupt but you have to ask Allah to guide them. If a group takes up arm's and rises against the government then this is only playing into the hand's of shaytaan. This is exactly what the kuffar want. So don't spend your time making takfiir of the ruler's and ploting against them. especially Saudi because this is a country of Tawheed.

I want to end by reminding the brother's that when Ibn al-Qayyim was asked-"if you had only one du'aa to make, who would you make it for" and he responded by saying-"I would make it for the ruler because if he is guided the whole ummah will benefit, not just me".

And also to gag order, when you bring a argument, bring the proof from the sunnah, do not bring me something that your sheikh said or something from one of the leader's of the khawarij/ and Allah know's best.

[asharee_salafi]

I think this can be debated in another forum, this thread is about khilafah and al albani and bin baaz,

but, yes i agree with gag order in one say, if it walks like a kafir, quacks like a kafir , talks like a kafir, and acts like a kafir then isnt it a kafir?

i think its pointless to say whats in his heart? like one saudi salafi said to me, he kept pointing to the heart in terms of it having imaan, and we all the know the hadeeth of muhammed peace and blessings be upon him when he said that there is one thing where is it is good then teh whole of it is good, and if it is bad the whole of it is bad, verily its the heart(parafrased)

[gag order]

sorry about going off topic i will come back to it for i have an opinion and would like to see how well it stands up to scrutiny.

first of all alqaida are not khawarij let me illustrate my point

if you walk into a mosque whith your left foot first then according to the accepted description of a khawarij he will make takfir on you for something that is not even a major sin.

if anybody knows any jihadis aka the wrongly labelled khawarij ask him if he makes takfir on muslims if they were to walk in to the mosque with the left foot first? obviously not! even i wouldnt dare!

and besides accusing the ottoman khalifah of shirk and kufr and kicking them out of hijaz and other areas as far as aqaba then isnt that bieng a khawarij - revolting against a ruler?

eventually whatever goes around comes around. alqaida will to al-saud what they did to the ottomans. because of their sufi biddah they were removed by a group who were evidently purer in iman but unfortunaetly the dawah of muhammad ibn abdul wahhab was laid to waste by al-saud! kings when they enter a land they corrupt it.

it is the house of saud that makes the noblest of men the lowest of the low. shaykh bin baaz and shaykh al-albaani may be they were government hostages rather than "government scholars" ? and whatever they had said or written about khilafah and how to bring it back then we will never know thanks to saudisalafi security and suppression of the truth and spreading of lies.

one big lie is the saudisalafis claim the bin baaz made takfir on the afghan veterans as they returned home frm afghanistan - utter nonsense! the truth is bin baaz endorsed the same mujahideen as claimed by shaykh abdullah azzam.

another big lie shaykh al albaani debated with a jihadi and won the debate that there is no valid jihad anywhere in the world - actually shaykh al-baani believes in jihad and no such debate took place!

and what about khalifah? may be when al-saud is forcibly removed by puritanical alqaida the truth will come out that bin baaz did demand an islamic state! and was a hostage of a corrupt regime - anyway this is just an opinion there is no proof for it but we all know al-saud will try to buy you out and if they cant they will lock you up and if they cant they will blackmail you to pass dodgy fatwas like the gulf war fatwa

[Abu Hatim]

Asalam alaykum

I want to apologize first about getting off the topic but since the discussion has started now we must continue it.

I want to make two point's first. The debate between the islamic Jihad sheikh and Al-albani did take place but Al-albani never said there was not a jihad without Khalifah.I think that was a distortion. What I recall Al-albani said was that there was a defensive jihad that is a obligation upon every individual muslim but not a colective jihad which is upon the whole ummah. This is from the sunnah. There are many hadith confirming this.Al-albani obviously knew there was a jihad because he himself tryed to fight jihad against Israel in the 1967 war.
Also Bin baz never made any such takfir against the afghani Arab's that fought in Afghanistan. I have never heard this, I would appreciate if you could give me the proof, Jazakum Allah Khair. Bin baz himself knew there were many jihad's going on and this is confirmed by one incident I recall. He was making Hajj one year and a brother from kenya asked him was Bosnia a Jihad and he responded by saying "yes, bosnia was a jihad like palestine is a jihad and like every place muslim are being oppressed"
And also this is the opinion of maky of Bin Baz's and Al-albani's student's. I was in Toronto at the salafi conference 2 years ago and Ali Hasan al-Halabi(one of the biggest al-albani students) said "palestine is a jihad that we can not abandon".
So we know that jihad is not forgotton. the Majority of the shayook understand this and say this including our sheihk Abu Hatim Usamah Abdul Latif al-qoosee.
This is not a issue of Jihad though. I will give you a example. After the Afghan war ended the muslim's there began fighting one another and the country was a mess untill the Taliban came in 96. After they came it was still a mess but better then before. The Kuffar have used this against Islam and this is the same what will happen if the "al-qieda" try to overthrow the government. There will be civil war and many muslim's will die. On the contrary if we make the jihad against the Kuffar and force them to leave the region, InshaAllah, the Saudi government will not be threatened by the kuffar and therefore they will turn to islam. If this happen's we will save a lot of innocent muslim life. And if they don't turn to Islam you can make the dawah with them and if they reject, there is no harm in overthrowing them if it is possible. The point being THERE IS NO IMEDIATE NEED TO OVERTHROW THE RULERS.

Now I will get to the second part of your claim's. The muslim's overthrow the ottoman empire because they were clearly standing on the piller's of Kufr. They were killing the muslim's and also worshiping the graves. This is clear shirk and therefore Kufr. They also did not establish the salah. Also we have the example of Ibn Taymiyyah when he made the comment to the ruler at his time-"I swear by Allah if I could I would overthrow you".
So we know if the proof have been brought against the ruler then this would be legitamate. The other point that I want to make is, none of the muslim's are a Ibn Tamiyyah or Ibn al-Qayyim or Abdul Wahhab. If we had a ibn Tamiyyah and he said to overthrow the governmet I would rush to do so. But how can I believe that we should overthrow the government when the leader of this called Bin Baz a Kafir? This is nonsense and he should be killed as a apostate for saying that.

So InshaAllah we need to focus on our ibadah and leave these issue's to the ulema, inshaAllah!

[gag order]

bin laden never called bin baaz a kafir he accused al saud of manipulating him blackmailing him BIG DIFFERENCE no doubt! obviously you must have got this info from the lying saudislafis akhi just as the sufis are misgiuded so to are the saudisalafis avoid them they slander bin baaz by putting words in his mouth which i believe he never spoke of his own free will such as the gulf war fatwa a man of his learning can never say that he is free from error!

they also accuse bin laden of bieng a sufi - do you believ that? by the way sufis dont belive in jihad. much less to cordinate guerilla war against the US army rangers.

they also say he is kahrijite - do you belive that? a man who fights kuffar how can he be a kharijite when kharijites believe in bieng nice to kuffar and be harsh to believers and we all know bin laden is hateful and vengeful against kuffar only and may he be victiorious over america before allah takes him - ameen

when imam mahdi appears and it becomes apparent to all that he is of the jihad fikra im pretty sure that the saudisalafis if theyre still around will accuse mahdi of bieng a sufi and a kharijee and takfeeri and write their ad dalalah books and form allinaces with jews and rafidah to stop imam mahdi.

you know the al-saud regime is backed by saudi rafidah because they know if alqaida comes to power the rafidah will be expelled or killed! just like in talibanistan no mercy was shown to the shia wahdat!

i will continue this elswhere bcos the bro who started this topic has been patient with us for going off topic.

[ali]

It was said in the first post

can one also detail wether they thought that they were living in a khilafah, is that why they asked people to obey the rulers? why did they tell people to do that?

It was because they understood and obeyed the hadeeth of the prophet salallahu alaihi wa salam when he said "obey them even if they beat your backs"

[Abu Hatim]

It was said in the first post

can one also detail wether they thought that they were living in a khilafah, is that why they asked people to obey the rulers? why did they tell people to do that?

It was because they understood and obeyed the hadeeth of the prophet salallahu alaihi wa salam when he said "obey them even if they beat your backs"

Allahu Akbar-Great advice brother!

[gag order]

"obey them (rulers) even if they beat your backs"

ibn taymiyyah shouldve told the muslims to obey the tartar rulers instead of calling a jihad against them - get my point?

todays al saud are the mirror image of the taatars, supposedly islamic rulers who pick and choose from the quran what to implement and what not

they were overthrown as a result of it and so should al saud! the tartars were replaced by a kahlifah reinstalled by force of arms by amir baibras

and insahllah al saud will be replaced by a khalifah reinstalled by force of arms courtesy of alqaida - ameen

we all know al saud wont go quietly!

[ali]

So i ask why do all the people who take this mila as their mila focus on the best country available Versus the rest who do not stand up for tawheed and openly takes al-b'athiyyah as their aqeedah and sufiyyah as their aqeedah and all of them defiently says that they do not wish to implement shari'ah. I mean if i was caught up in the mila of revolt, i would focus on those rulers who do not have tawheed and fight it, since Jthe correct jihaad is only in upholding at-tawheed.

I mean if a person had the ability to cure a gallon of milk to be pure after it being spoiled, and there are many gallons like that and one that is getting there (keeping in mind that we need to give drink to the people as much and as fast as we can) so yet does it make sense to focus on all those that are rotton or concentrate all your efforts on one thats getting there.

asalamu alaikum

[Abu Hatim]

If a group of fighter's rise up against Al-Saud and overthrow them who would be the Khalifah and where would this Khalifah come from? Why do we focus on overthrowing the ruler's who carry the banner of Tawheed? What other land has Tawheed like Saudi?
These are the question's that you should ask yourself. If you want to focus on the ruler's that are such a little threat to the security of the Muslim's and turn a blind eye to the Kuffar that are massecreing the Muslim's everywhere, why don't you go Overthrow Syria for Example? The Syrian Government are Kuffar without a doubt. They are Raafidah Shi'a that inprison the muslim's and do not let them pray. Why not overthrow them for example? I will answer that. It is because certain people of our time are carrying the Kufr banner of the Khawarij and blindly following a "khalifah" that dos'nt exist. Your Khalifah is a man that allow's the shaving of the beard and put's more effort into writeing "terrorist manuals" them reading the Quran. Were is the Hikum in this? This is only Fassad and ignorance. Ya Acki gag order, learn your deen and fullfill the obligation of Hajj and other obligatory act's and stop misleading the people on this forum. Do not put Ibn Tamiyyah's word's over the prophet's word's and do not blindly follow the Khawarij.
We have more important thing's to do then sitting around and talking about overthrowing the government, were not evan acting, were simply talking. If you want to go fullfill the obligation of Jihad why don't you go to Iraq or Palestine to HELP denfend your Ickwaan and not to KILL them as the modern day leader of the Khwarij has allowed. More Muslim's in this false Jihad have been killed then Kuffar.......When will this ignorance end?

[ali]

barakallahu feek yaa Abi Haatim
to further strengthen what we have been saying then I bring the following

Ibn al-Qayyim - may Allaah have mercy upon him - said:
“This is a great topic, containing much benefit and due to ignorance of this topic a great mistake has fallen upon the Sharee’ah…”
Up until he said, after mentioning that the basis of the Sharee’ah is built upon the welfare and benefits of the servants:
“…The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi-wasallam) legislated for his ummah, the obligation of rejecting the evil so that by its rejection, the goodness that Allaah and His Messenger love is obtained. And when rejecting the evil leads to what is more evil and more hated by Allaah and His Messenger then it is not allowed to reject it - even if Allaah hates it and detests those who perform it (the evil). And this is like rejection [inkaar] against the kings, and the ones in authority by coming out against them [with arms etc. to fight them] - for verily, that is the basis and foundation of every evil (sharr) and every tribulation (fitnah) till the end of time.
And the Companions asked permission from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) for killing the leaders [Umaraa’] who delay the prayer from its proper time, saying: “Shall we not kill them.” So he said: “No, so long as they establish the prayer”, and he also said: “Whoever sees something from his leader [ameer] something that he dislikes then let him be patient and let him not raise his hand [away] from the leader’s obedience.”
And whoever reflects upon the greatest and smallest trials that have befallen Islaam, then he will see that they are due to the negligence and wastage of this principle and the lack of patience upon [witnessing] evil. So he seeks bring about its end and as a result of this, a greater evil is brought about.
And the Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) saw the greatest of evils in Makkah and he was not able to change them. In fact even when Allaah opened up for the Muslims Makkah [i.e. gave the Muslims victory over it] and when it became daar ul-Islaam he was resolved to changing the Ka’abah and returning it to the foundations that Ibraaheem (alaihis-salaam) had built it upon - but even though he had the capacity to do that, he was prevented from it by the fear that something greater would occurr due to the lack of tolerance of the Quraish, since they were new to Islaam and had recently left disbelief - and for this reason he did not grant permission for rejecting against the leaders [Umaraa’] with the use of one’s hand [i.e. with force] due to the greatness of what results afterwards on account of it…” Ibn al-Qayyim in ‘I’laam ul-Muwaqqi’een an Rabbil-Aalameen.

and

The Conditional Promise
BY-IBN KATHEER



“Allaah has promised to those of you who believe and do righteous actions, that He will certainly grant them succession (khilaafah) upon the earth, as He granted it to those before them; and that He will grant them authority to practice their Religion, the one that He has chosen for them and He will change their state from one of fear in which they lived, to one of peace and security. They will worship Me alone, not associating any partner with Me. But whosoever disbelieves after this, then they are the rebellious ones.” [Soorah Noor 24:55]
’Ubayy Ibn Ka’b relates that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said: “Give glad-tidings to this Ummah of high position, establishment upon this earth, victory and a lofty status in this world and in the Hearafter.” [1]
Al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer (d.774H) – rahimahullaah – said: [2]
“This is a promise from Allaah – the Most High – to His Messenger, may the Prayers of Allaah and the peace be upon him, that he will make this Ummah the khulafaa‘ (successors) upon the earth. Meaning that they will be the leaders and rulers over mankind, by whom nations will be corrected and to whom mankind will submit. And that He will replace their state of fear in which they lived, to one of security and dominion. Allaah – the Blessed, the Most High – has fulfilled His promise, and to Him belongs all praise and thanks. For the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) did not die until Allaah made him conquer Makkah, Khaybar, al-Bahrain, the remaining lands of the Arabian peninsula and the whole of Yemen. He took jizyah (protection tax) from the Magians of Hajar and from the people of the surrounding areas of Syria. The Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) received gifts from Heraclius – the king of Rome; the ruler of Egypt and Alexandria – the Mawqawqis; the kings of Oman; and Negus, the king of Ethiopia, who became king after Ashamah died – may Allaah have mercy upon him and grant him nobility.
After the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) died, Allaah having chosen for him the reward that is with Him, Aboo Bakr as-Siddeeq was then established as his Khaleefah (successor), taking charge unwaveringly. Aboo Bakr took the Arabian peninsula and put it in order. He sent forth armies of Islaam to the lands of Persia, under the command of Khaalid Ibnul-Waleed (radiyallaahu ’anhu). They conquered parts of these lands, slaying a number of it’s inhabitants. A second army was sent to the lands of Syria, under the leadership of Aboo ’Ubaydah (radiyallaahu ’anhu) and those who followed him. A third army was sent to Egypt under the leadership of ’Amr Ibnul-’Aas (radiyallaahu ’anhu). It was during his time that the armies sent to Syria conquered the cities of Busra, Damascus and it’s environs from the land of Hawraan and it’s surroundings. Allaah – the Mighty and Majestic – took the soul of Aboo Bakr – choosing for him the reward which is with Him. Allaah blessed the people of Islaam by inspiring as-Siddeeq to chose ’Umar al-Faarooq as a successor.
’Umar then stood up, taking charge completely. The heavens will not witness – after the Prophets – anyone like ’Umar, whether in the strength of his reign, or in the fulfillment of justice. It was during his time that the conquest of Syria was completed; as was that of Egypt to it’s farthest reaches, as well as the province of Persia. He destroyed Kisraa (Chosroes) and humiliated him to the utmost, forcing him to retreat back to the farthest reaches of his kingdom. Similarly, ’Umar destroyed Qaysar (Caesar), wrestling from his hands the lands of Syria and bottling him up in Constantinople. He spent the wealth (conquered from them) in the path of Allaah – as the Messenger of Allaah had informed and promised – may the most complete salaam and most purest salaat be bestowed upon the Messenger from his Lord.
Then there was the rule of ’Uthmaan, under whom the possessions of Islaam extended to the furthest eastern and western reaches of the earth. The lands of the west were conquered to the farthest reaches of what lies there – Andulus, Cyprus, the lands of Qayrawaan and the lands of Ceuta – which is next to the all encompassing ocean; and to the farthest lands of China. Kisraa was killed and his kingdom totally vanquished. The cities of al-’Iraaq, Khuraasaan and Ahwaaz were conquered and the Muslims slew a large number of Turks. Allaah having humiliated the Turks and their great king Kha-Khaan. The wealth of the east and the west was collected and brought to the Ameerul-Mu‘mineen (leader of the Believers) ’Uthmaan Ibn ’Affaan (radiyallaahu ’anhu). All of this came about as a result of his recitation, study and gathering the Ummah upon the preservation of the Qur‘aan.
It is confirmed in the Saheeh that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said: “Indeed Allaah gathered up the earth for me, so that I saw it’s east and it’s west. Indeed the dominion of my Ummah will reach what was gathered up for me, from it.” [3] We fluctuate in what Allaah has promised us with and in what His Messenger has promised. Allaah and His Messenger have spoken the truth. We ask Allaah to grant us eemaan (faith) in Him and His Messenger, and that we establish gratitude of what Allaah has given us, in the matter that He is please with.
’Umar related to us, that Sufyaan related to us from ’Abdul-Malik Ibn ’Umayr, from Jaabir Ibn Samurah who said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) say: “The affair of the people will continue to be upright whilst twelve men are in charge in of them.” The Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) then said something which I could not make not. So I asked my father: What did the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) say? He replied: “They are all from Quraysh.” This narration is also narrated by al-Bukhaaree. [4]
In this narration there exists a clear evidence that all twelve of these man must be leaders from Quraysh. They are not the twelve imaams claimed by the Shaee’ah, because many of them had no leadership over the Muslims. As for these twelve, they will be from Quraysh and they will be just rulers. The glad-tidings of their appearance have also occurred in the previous scriptures. Furthermore, it is not necessary that they succeed one another. Rather, their appearance in the Ummah could be successive or separate. Four of them were in order, namely, Aboo Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthmaan and ’Alee (radiyallaahu ’anhum). After these four there was a gap. Others amongst the twelve appeared as and when Allaah willed. It is possible that some of them will appear during a time which only Allaah – the Most High – knows. Amongst them will be the Mahdee whose name will be that of the Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), and his kunyaa (nickname) that of his kunyaa. He will fill the earth with justice as it is filled with tyranny and injustice.
Imaam Ahmad, Aboo Daawood, at-Tirmidhee and an-Nisaa‘ee have all reported from the hadeeth of Sa’eed Ibn Juhmaan, from Safeenah – the mawlaa (master) of the Messenger of Allaah (sallalaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said: “The Khilaafah (successorship) after me will last for thirty years. Then kingship will appear.” [5]
Indeed ar-Rabee’ Ibn Anas has said that Abul-’Aaliyah has remarked concerning this aayah: “The Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) and his Companions were in Makkah for ten years afraid, secretly calling to Allaah and His worship alone, He has no partner. They remained in such a state that they were ordered to migrate to al-Madeenah. They were ordered by Allaah to fight. Whilst they were (in al-Madeenah) they were in constant fear (of attack). They would go to sleep armed and awake armed. They remained patient upon that state for as long as Allaah willed, until one day when one individual from amongst the Companions said: “O Messenger of Allaah! Will we remain in a state of fear until the end of time? Will there not come a time when we will be in a state of security, so that we may lay down our weapons?” The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) then said: “Be patient for a while, for there will come a time when any man from amongst you will sit in a crowd unharmed.” Allaah sent down this aayah and made his Prophet victorious over the Arabian Peninsula. The Companions of the Prophet were now safe and they could lay down their weapons. Allaah – the Most High – then took the soul of His Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) and the Muslims remained in such a state during the leadership of Aboo Bakr, ’Umar and ’Uthmaan; until the Muslims fell into what they fell into from discord. So fear entered into their hearts and they took armies and guards for protection. For they had changed, so Allaah changed their state. One of the Salaf has remarked that the khilaafah of both Aboo Bakr and ’Uthmaan was true. He then recited this aayah, al-Baraa‘ Ibn ’Aazib has said: “This aayah was revealed whilst we were in a state of extreme fear.”
This noble aayah is similar in meaning to His statement – the Most High – :
“And remember when you were few and were reckoned weak in the land and were afraid that men might kidnap you, but He (i.e. Allaah)provided a safe place for you, and strengthened you with His help and provided you good things so that you might be grateful.” [Sooratul-Anfaal 8:26]
And the statement of Allaah – the Most High – : “As he granted that to those before them.” This aayah is similar to what Allaah said about Moosaa (’alayhis-salaam) that he said to his people:
“It may be that your Lord will destroy your enemy and make you succeed (the present rulers) upon earth, so that He may see how you act.” [Sooratul-A’raaf 7:129]
Allaah – the Most High – said:
“And We wished to confer a favour upon those who were oppressed in the land; and to make them leaders and to make them heirs; and to establish them upon earth...” [Soorah Qasas 28:5-6]
And Allaah’s statement: “And that He will change their state after the fear in which they lived to one of security and peace.” This is similar to what the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said to ’Adee Ibn Haatim when ’Adee came as a delegation to the Messenger. The Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said: “Do you know Hira?” ’Adee replied: ‘I have not seen it, but I have heard of it.” The Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) then said: “By Him in Whose Hand is my soul! Allaah will complete this matter (i.e. Islaam) until a woman will be able to travel from Hira, until she goes around the House not needing the protection of anyone. And you will surely conquer the treasure of Kisraa Ibn Hurmuz.” I (i.e. ’Adee) replied: “Kisraa Ibn Hurmuz!” The Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) replied: “Yes! Kisraa Ibn Hurmuz. Money will be spent until no one will accept it.” ’Adee Ibn Haatim said: “Now here is the woman leaving from Hira until she goes around the House. And I was from amongst those who conquered the treasure of Kisraa. And by Him in Whose Hand is my soul! The third matter will come to pass because the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) has said so.”
Ahmad reports upon ’Ubayy Ibn Ka’b who said that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) has said: “Give glad tidings to this Ummah of ease of life, exalted stature, establishment of their Religion, and victory and leaderhsip upon the earth. Whoever does acts of the Hereafter for this world, he will have no portion of the Hereafter.” [6]
And the statement of Allaah: “They worship Me alone and do not associate anything with Me.” Ahmad reports upon Mu’aadh who said: ‘I was sitting behind the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) and I except the end of his saddle. The Prophet said to me: “O Mu’aadh Ibn Jabal!” I said: “Here I am O Messenger of Allaah in your service.” The Prophet said: “Do you know what is the Right of Allaah upon His servants?” I said: “Allaah and His Messenger know best.” He said: “The Right of Allaah upon the servants is that they worship Him and do not associate anything with Him.” The Prophet continued to ride on for some time and then he said to me: “O Mu’aadh Ibn Jabal!” I said: “Here I am O Messenger of Allaah at your service.” The Prophet said: “Do you know what is the right of the servants upon Allaah if they worship Him alone?” I said: “Allaah and His Messenger know best.” He said: “The right of the servants upon Allaah is that He does not punish whomsoever does not associate anything with Him.” This narration is also narrated in the two Saheehs. [7]
And the statement of Allaah: “But whoever disbelieved after this, and they are the rebellious ones.” Meaning, whoever steps outside my obedience after that promise, has stepped outside the Command of His Lord, and sufficient is that as a sin. Since the Companions of the Prophet (radiyallaahu ’anhum) were the most upright and obedient of the people after the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) in fulfilling the commands of Allaah – the Mighty and Majestic – their victory was accordingly. The Companions of the Prophet made the Word of Allaah supreme, so Allaah Himself aided them in such a manner that He subdued for them the rest of mankind, as well as their lands.
When the people after the Prophet’s Companions fell short in adhering to some of Allaah’s Commands, their victory accordingly fell short. It is, however, affirmed in both Saheehs (i.e. al-Bukhaaree and Muslim) in many ways from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) that he said: “There shall not cease to be a group from my Ummah, victorious upon the truth, not being harmed by those who abandoned them or go against them, until Allaah’s favour comes, and they are like that.” [8] And in a narration: “Until the last of them fights the Anti-Christ (Maseehud-Dajjaal).” [9] All of these narrations are authentic and there is no contradiction between them.”
Imaam ’Abdur-Rahmaan Ibn Naasir as-Sa’dee (d.1376H) said:
“This is one of His true promises whose meaning and accomplishment has been witnessed. He promised those who came with eemaan (faith) and ’amalus-saalih (righteous and correct actions) from this Ummah, that He will cause them to be successors upon this earth, so that they are the ones in authority and in charge of the affairs. Further, that He would establish their Religion – that which He was pleased with for them, which is the Religion of Islaam, which gained ascendancy over all other religions. He was pleased with it for this Ummah, due to its excellence, nobility and favours upon it, in that He enabled them to establish it, and to establish it’s laws and prescriptions – relating both to manifest and non-manifest matters – upon themselves and upon others, so that the people of other religions and the rest of the disbelievers conquered and humbled.
And that He would change their condition of fear to one of security, since it was previously the case that one of them would not be able to manifest his Religion, and they suffered harm and injury from the disbelievers. The united body of Muslims was very small in number, in comparison to the rest of the people of the earth, who combined to attack them and hope for their downfall. However, Allaah promised them these things when the aayah was sent down, at a time when they were not witnessing ascendancy and establishment upon this earth, nor the ability to fully establish the Religion of Islaam and full security – such as would enable them to worship Allaah, not associating anything with Him – in a state of not having to fear anyone besides Allaah.
So the first and foremost of this Ummah combined eemaan and righteous and correct action to a degree surpassing everyone else, so He established them in the land and gave them authority over the people, and granted them the conquest of the east and the west. They attained full security and complete authority and establishment – and this is one of the astounding signs of Allaah. This applies until the Hour is established – that whenever the Muslims combine eemaan (faith) and righteous and correct action – then that which Allaah promises will certainly occur. Indeed Allaah only grants that they be overcome by the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and that they suffer humiliation when the Muslims neglect eemaan and righteous and correct action.” [10]
Footnotes:
[1] Saheeh: Related by Ahmad (5/134) and al-Haakim (4/311); and it was authenticated by al-Haafidh al-Mundhiree in Targheeb wat-Tarheeb (1/31).
[2] Tafseer Qur‘aanil-’Adtheem (3/311-313)
[3] Related by Muslim (8/171) and Aboo Daawood (no. 4252), from Thawbaan (radiyallaahu ’anhu).
[4] Related by al-Bukhaaree (6/416), Muslim (6/3-4) and Ahmad (5/101), the wording is from Ahmad.
[5] Saheeh: Related by Aboo Daawood (no. 4646), at-Tirmidhee (2/35) and others. It was authenticated by at-Tabaree in his I’tiqaad (p. 8), and by al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar in Fathul-Baaree (13/182).
[6] Saheeh: Related by Ahmad (4/134) and al-Haakim (4/311) and it was authenticated by al-Albaanee in Ahkaamul-Janaa‘iz (p. 52).
[7] Related by al-Bukhaaree (6/58) and Muslim (1/232)
[8] Related by Muslim (6/52-53) and at-Tirmidhee (2/36), from Thawbaan (radiyallaahu ’anhu).
[9] Saheeh: Related by Ahmad (4/492), Aboo Daawood (1/388-389) and al-Haakim (4/450), from ’Imraan Ibn Husayn (radiyallaahu ’anhu). It was authenticated by al-Albaanee in as-Saheehah (no. 1959).
[10] Tayseerul-Kareemir-Rahmaan (4/123)


and the bomb

Ibnul-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah also has said in Miftaah Daar is-Sa’aadah in (2/77)

“And reflect in His, the Most High’s wisdom in making the kings of the servants, their leaders and rulers to be of the same type as their actions (which is the actions of the servents, the common people). Rather, it is as if their actions (actions of the servants) became manifest in the appearances of the rulers and kings over them. If they remain upright, then their kings will be upright, and if the servants turn away, then the kings and rulers turn away as well from uprightness. And if they (servants) oppress (themselves and others), then their kings and rulers will oppress them, and if there appears plotting and deception from them (the servants), then the rulers of the servants will be made to do same, and if they (servants) prevent the rights of Allah that are with them, and become stingy with respect to them (withhold the rights of each other), then their rulers and kings will withhold the right that they (servants) have from them, and will also become stingy with with respect to them. And if the servants take from one who is considered weak, from that which they don’t deserve to take from him in their dealings (misappropriate from him), then the kings and rulers will take from them and will inflict them with taxes and other forms of service). And everything that they ( servants) take away from the weak person, the kings will take away from them with power and force. So the actions of the servants become manifest in the actions of the kings and rulers.

It is not from the Divine Wisdom that the evil-doers and the sinners are made to be ruled over by anyone except by the one who is of their like.

And when the very fist group (in Islam) was the best of the generations, and the most pious of them, then their rulers were likewise. And when they became tarnished (corrupted), the rulers were made corrupted over them. Thus, the wisdom of Allah refuses that the likes of Mu’aawiyah, and Umar Ibn Abdul-Azeez rahimahumullah are put in authority over us in the likes of these times (note: this is the time of Ibnul-Qayyim, In our times the people are worse in respect to falling into kufr and bida), Let alone the likes of Abu Bakr and Umar radhiyallahu anhum. Rather, our rulers are in accordance with our nature and the rulers of those before us were in accordance with their nature. And both of the two matters necessitates wisom and what it requires.

And the one who has deep rooted intelligence, when he moves his thought around in this subject will see the divine wisdom that runs through al-qadaa wal qaadr (Ordainment and the pre-decree good and bad), externally and internally, just as it runs through al-khalq wal-amr (the creation and the command). SO BEWARE FROM HINKING WITH YOUR CORRUPT THOUGHT THAT ANYTHING OF HIS ORDAINMENTS AND DECREES ARE DEVOID OF THE FAR REACHING WISDOM. Rather, all of His, the Most High’s ordainments and decrees take place from the most perfect angles of correctness and wisdom. However, the weak intellects are veiled, by way of their weakness, from ever perceiving these aspects of wisdom, just like the eyes suffering day-blindness are veiled, by way of their weakness from the light of the sun.


Some words of reflection. Oh Muslim, think. Did not our messenger, the one who has the best of hidayaah tell us and inform us that “their will be rulers over us at the end of time, “Having the hearts of devils in the bodies of men” who “do not guide by his guidance nor traverse upon his sunnah” and that “they (the rulers) will beat your backs and confiscate your wealth” and after all of this fitnah and evil from them then the command of our messenger, yes the command as Allah says in al-kitaabul-kareem (4:65) “But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make you (oh Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission” the command of our messenger was none other then that he said to us that we should say “we hear and obey”.

Subhanallah. Is our Prophet, our Naby salallahu alaihi wa salam commanding us to go against the rule and the hikma. La, far from it. Rather he is enjoining us to follow his guidance. Should we accept or should we oppose by opposing them and doing opposite of this reminder.

Again the Imaam Ibnul-Qayyim states in “I’laam ul-Muwaqqi’een an-Raabbil-Alamin” regarding this very same topic he says “This is a great topic, containing much benefit and due to ignorance of this topic a great mistake has fallen upon the shari’ah..” and then he said, after mentioning that the basis of the shair’ah is built upon the welfare and benefits of the servants “The prophet sallallahu alaihi wa salam legislated for his ummah, the obligation of rejecting the evil so that by its rejection, the goodness that Allah and His messenger love is attained. And when rejecting the evil leads to what is more evil and more hated by Allah and His messenger then it is not allowed to reject it- even if Allah hates it and detests those who perform the evil. And this is like rejection (inkaar) against the kings, and the ones in authority by coming out against them (with arms to fight them) for verily, that is the basis and foundation of every evil (sharr) and every fitan till the end of time”

And how truthful Ibn S’ad spoke when he related to us in “Tabaqaat ul-Kubraa (7/163-165) “A group of Muslims came to al-Hasan al-Basree seeking a verdict to rebel against al-Hajjaj bin Yousef (the tyrant ruler in which some of the tabi’een considered him to be a kaafir although the majority did not and their position seems to be of more correctness). So these people said ‘Oh Abu Sa’eed! What do you say about fighting this oppressor who has unlawfully spilt blood and unlawfully taken wealth and did this and that? So al-Hasan said ‘I hold that he should not be fought. If this is a punishment of Allah, then you will not be able to remove it with your swords (in our times weapons). If this is a trial from Allah, then be patient until Allah’s judgment comes, and He is the best of judges.’ So they left al-Hasan, disagreed with him and rebelled against al-Hajjaj, so al-Hajjaj killed them all. Al-Hasan used to say, ‘If the people has patience when they are being tested by their unjust ruler, it will not be long before Allah will give them a way out. However, THEY ALWAYS RUSH FOR THEIR SWORDS (WEAPONS), SO THEY ARE LEFT WITH THEIR SWORDS. By Allah! Not even for a single day did they (hose who rebel) did they bring about any good”

And this is a result from all those who rebel against the rule with no clear guidance and enough power to be able to remove them. This is the characteristic of all of those who took on the methodologies of these people who took rebellion as a key to enforce what is good, but in actuality caused more harm than benefit

It is clear that the methodology of the salaf in these affairs is that they understood the calamities that befell the ummah to be from the sins and disobedience from amongst this include shirk, kufr, and bida, since the worst is shirk the second is kufr and the third is bida and these are worse then mere sins and transgressions. Unfortunately, this methodology of the salaf, which is the only and correct way, has been identified by those who have left the guidance of the salaf in these issues as the beliefs of the murjiah

[gag order]

is king fahd a ruler who carries the banner of tawhid? :lol: :lol:

have you not seen that fat kafir waering a cross of christianity? he even shaves his beard and has a goatee so much for bieng the amir of salafis and champion of tawhid :lol:

so taliban and alqaida are khawarij? abu hatim do you support bush in his war against mujahideen?

i think the aim of the mujahideen is to make the kafir military leave the holy land but the al saud insists on protecting the freemasonic dajjalworshipping US marines then so be it die with the kuffar!

i do not follow khawarij the saudi salafis or fahdis or MADkhalis they are the real khawarij, rough with the muslims but caring towards kuffar

ibn taymiyyahs words or his descision to revolt was based on sunnah therefore i did not use his words over the rasool (saw) use some common sense!

syrian government occupy land that is not considered "holy" no point wasting time there they will be killed in due time by mujahideen

"false jihad" what are you an askeNAZI orientalist journalist? its like reading the headline of a dirty racist tabloid paper !!!

fassad and ignorance? i refer that back to you

go on do jihad? you sound exactly like the hypocrites described in quran who said why should we kill ourselves you go and do jihad we will stay at home, cross referrence the word hypocrite and read all the ayats about them - time for you to go and learn your deen as well

the points i made in my previus post still stand just bcos you are unable to refute them doesnt mean i mislead people thats loser talk!

for the record i am not a "jihadi" after many years of opposing their views i now agree with them but i am not of them or from them.

[Abu Hatim]

Let me make this short. I along with the other brother have refuted every single one of your statement's. Also I never said I like Fahd and I never said he was a leader that carried the banner or Tawhid. I said Saudi is a country of Tawhid, big difference. He is not the "emir of the salafee's" and no one ever made this claim. Also are you implying somehow that Sheikh Rab'ee is a puppet or not a scholar? It would be good if you clarified that, this is a very serious matter.
My whole argument since day one is that we should'nt waste our time fighting the leader's when there is a Jihad going on in other places against Kuffar. I can't believe you sit there and deny that this is not a characteristic of the Khawarij. It is simply impossble to have knowledge about the Khawarij and still deny that.
Also real quick, I never said Taliban were Khawarij. NEVER. Some of them are I'm sure but I can't sit here and say all of them are. Most of them are either Sufi's or Hannafi's but as long as they don't do anything that clearly is a action of the Khawarij I can't make that claim.
Sheikh Rab'ee actually said that we should support them as long as they uphold Islam because they are far better then the Northern alliance which is a mix of all kind of Kufr group's and sects.
Anyway this argument has went on for tooo long now and this thread needs to DIE.

[ali]

It was said

have you not seen that fat kafir waering a cross of christianity? he even shaves his beard and has a goatee so much for bieng the amir of salafis and champion of tawhid

So this means that when i see u oh gag order not raising ur garments above ur ankle (which u probably dont raise them) then I should make takfeer of u.
And when u dont wear a kufi then i should say u a kafir

and when you take a manhaj that opposses the manhaj of the salaf (example: ur takfeer of the muslims) then I should say that u a kaafir after the FACT that our nabi salallahu alaihi wa salam has said inour terms if they ain't then u are.

And when i see u wearing some kuffaric type pants like slacks or that jacket that goes with it or even thec casual close or something like that then i should say u a kaafir since i wear thowbs and izaars.

If i see u wearing gold are u a kaafir.

amir of the muslim siuts his title not what u gave him just to justify your revilement of ahlu-sunnah.

then u said this

so taliban and alqaida are khawarij? abu hatim do you support bush in his war against mujahideen?

Well the muslim is the one who fights the kuffar. So i dont know what fights the muslim and the only way that we fight muslims is through their innovative kalaam and practices that is the reason why the ummah is in the state their in because they incurred the displeasure of Allah when holding beleifs not from Islaam (ex. takfeer out of sheer jahiliyyah not ilm)

who supports bush.

just as you mistakenly believed thru our kalaam that we support this kaafir then this is how ur mistakenly interpreting the deen from this aspect which censorship is long overdue on our level.

u said

i think the aim of the mujahideen is to make the kafir military leave the holy land but the al saud insists on protecting the freemasonic dajjalworshipping US marines then so be it die with the kuffar!

u call these false claiment to jihaad mujahideen. la hawla wa lakuwata ila billah. I bet in a real jihaad when me and abu hatim is out there waiting for the qadr to be established (the death) and waiting to chop off some kaffir heads, these masakeen fake mujahideen will run away just like the ones whom Allah describes in His book. the aim of these false carriers of jihaad is to take power and control just like every unjust person lust for


u say u dont follow the khawaarij but every thing that ahlul-hadeeth warned about concerning the manhaj of the khawaarij then u have fell into that. So what are u.

Oh it is a false jihaad. A real jihaad is with the kuffar. So the jihaad performed against muslims is what.? Jihaadul-Kharajiyyah not salafiyyah

so now im a munaafeeq. So make takfeer of me. We'll see on the battle field who are the ones that will run aka false claiments to jihaad.

then u say u aint jihaadi and yet u agree with them. Just because u dont associate with a people doesnt mean ur with them in manhaj. If you hold their views then by default ur a jihaadi POINT BLANK.

Alos the reason you dont likethe flag carrier of Jarh wa T'adeel is because he exposed your evil khariji cronies long ago for their deceptive baatil. trying to decieve the muslims into thinking that they are salafees ahlusunnah with ikhwaanee in ,manhaj. Know if you beleieve that u can make takfeer of MULIM rulers than your beleif is opposed to the salaf hence ur deviant in aqeedah too.

and so should i say u a kaafir for u being a deviant.

asalamu alaikum

[ali]

i meant amir of the muslims in saudia not any where else so dont misconcept that like the manhaj that was already misconcepted

[abuyusuf]

It was said

have you not seen that fat kafir waering a cross of christianity? he even shaves his beard and has a goatee so much for bieng the amir of salafis and champion of tawhid

So this means that when i see u oh gag order not raising ur garments above ur ankle (which u probably dont raise them) then I should make takfeer of u.
And when u dont wear a kufi then i should say u a kafir

and when you take a manhaj that opposses the manhaj of the salaf (example: ur takfeer of the muslims) then I should say that u a kaafir after the FACT that our nabi salallahu alaihi wa salam has said inour terms if they ain't then u are.

And when i see u wearing some kuffaric type pants like slacks or that jacket that goes with it or even thec casual close or something like that then i should say u a kaafir since i wear thowbs and izaars.

If i see u wearing gold are u a kaafir.

Assalaamu alaikum,
What have these statements you have made got to do with anything?? He did not call him a kafir because of any of these reasons and the takfir was not made on the account of king fasiq shaving his beard. Re-read the first line a few times and then the second one!
Let me ask you.....what do you think of somebody who has a idol around his neck? An idol which even a child knows belongs to christianity? And what do you think of a leader who wishes to make peace with the kufar? Not a temporary peace but an everlasting peace (see The Saudi constitution)? And what about making the kufar as your judge (the united nations)? And what about alliance with the apostates (The arab summits)? And what about a leader who establishes a base in muslim land for the kufar to attack the Muslims? And what about the continuation of sales of oil to the kufar? You cannot use the issue of Saddam no more, he is gone and the Muslims in Fallujah and other parts of Iraq are still suffering because of these strategic sales to the Americans. This is clear alliance with the kufar and there are many other factors which can be used for this takfeer. What the heck you want???? What are the invalidators of Iman according to you!?!
One more thing....why the vulture culture of seeking the brothers mistakes and assuming he does not wear his garments above the ankle?



u call these false claiment to jihaad mujahideen. la hawla wa lakuwata ila billah. I bet in a real jihaad when me and abu hatim is out there waiting for the qadr to be established (the death) and waiting to chop off some kaffir heads, these masakeen fake mujahideen will run away just like the ones whom Allah describes in His book. the aim of these false carriers of jihaad is to take power and control just like every unjust person lust for
[/qoute]
You wish to call everything false, bida'a, khawarij but you haven't told us how you define jihad?

[qoute]
u say u dont follow the khawaarij but every thing that ahlul-hadeeth warned about concerning the manhaj of the khawaarij then u have fell into that. So what are u.

Oh it is a false jihaad. A real jihaad is with the kuffar. So the jihaad performed against muslims is what.? Jihaadul-Kharajiyyah not salafiyyah

so now im a munaafeeq. So make takfeer of me. We'll see on the battle field who are the ones that will run aka false claiments to jihaad.

then u say u aint jihaadi and yet u agree with them. Just because u dont associate with a people doesnt mean ur with them in manhaj. If you hold their views then by default ur a jihaadi POINT BLANK.

Alos the reason you dont likethe flag carrier of Jarh wa T'adeel is because he exposed your evil khariji cronies long ago for their deceptive baatil. trying to decieve the muslims into thinking that they are salafees ahlusunnah with ikhwaanee in ,manhaj. Know if you beleieve that u can make takfeer of MULIM rulers than your beleif is opposed to the salaf hence ur deviant in aqeedah too.

and so should i say u a kaafir for u being a deviant.

asalamu alaikum
I wished to say something here but really and truely you are acting like a child and name calling so I don't wish to even go there. Just one last question for you.....who are the muslim rulers and who are the kafir rulers? Perhaps you can give us a list since you seem so educated in these matters and then that will clear up the confusion and we can fight the ones that are really kafir! I mean it is soo confusing these days with all the fitnah (more than one leader, nobody implementing shariah, kufar attacking us at every angle, Government scholars) Ermmm....I know the list will take long since there are soo many rulers who claim to be muslim but I'm hoping you can do this for us otherwise you will not have done your duty and would have kept us deviant!

[ali]

I really didn't are for replying to this topic but I guess I should.

There is no difference between us in what is kufr and eman concerning ruling by allah or other then Him.

Where there may occur a difference is when all the conditions and usool from the salaf were not practiced in this regard concerning the present day rulers under the pretext of "there is no khilaafa now". So This was what was first fused into the misunderstanding that Imam al-Albanee had irj'aa which was of course only said by those with no knowledge as stated by Shaykh Uthaymeen (the so called non governmetn scholar) "Whoever says this does not know Al-Albanee or he does not know irj'aa.

This issue arouse because there were ikhtilaaf in the issues of certain actions that would nessecitate the making of takfeer upon an individual whatever the case may be. The other opinion regarding this is that that is not absolute unless this is also met with other factors concerning the beleif of the heart. Unfortunately, for thos in whose hearts conceal this type of methodology resembling their ancestors, then they called this balance path AND ikhtilaaf amongst ahlu-sunnah as irj'aa and what is even worse is that they categorize what Imaam al-Albanee and his students as being from the ghulaatul-murji'aa (the most extreme of the murji'a). These individuals consider this Imaam, Mujadid, as having a case of Irj'aa worse than Jahm Ibn Safwaan, the one who the salaf agreed that his irjaa was the worst since he considered emaan only to be negated if the person did not know about Allah meaning that they were ignorant about Him. So once a person knew then they were considered the mumineen according to Jahm so this automaically includes the ahli-kitaab wa magoos and any of the mushirkeen who knew about the presence or existance of Allah by statement. So these people with diseases in their hearts consider this group of people of ahlu-sunnah to be or have irj'aa on a level that is greater in deviance and stray going than Jahm ibn Safwaan which through this action in of itself shows how much rancor and revilemetn they have towards the correct madhaab of the salaf in dealing with these issues.

So naturally these takfeeris took on board as ther side the ulema of saudia since they had a difference with the mashaykh of Jordan. So these people took ALL the general statements of Takfeer that they made and applied them specifically thru the certain rulers, mostly the gulf states. So when these clarifications were also brought out to the general people about what they meant refuting the false understanding of those who promoted the opposite of wat was intended by their statemens and other statements from Shaykhul-Islam ibnul-Taymiyyah and other then all of a suden the acusations started going out from these people "scholars for dollars" and "government scholars" which in reality was only a plow originating from our brother Muhammad Suroor and his boys to deter the people away from this type of though and into this "kharijyatun assriyyah" that Imaam Al-Albanee called it for the purposes of revolt.

So Akhee Im really not going to argue about naything. Actually I have been compiling and some takhreej on the isue in actually bringing both spectrums under focus along with what te salaf were upon sicne me bringing on or two statements here and there from them is not really going to alter anything. So inshallah whne i complete this project, which may take a year or more or so, then inshallah we will all take a look and find what is in it.

As for this methodology of revolt then sincerily all of this talk about establishing this and that and we got to do something then go ahead. This will never end even with the khilafa. This very manhaj leaves the adherent exactly following his predessecors, not being pleased with any ruler and therefore issuing the verdict of takfeer. "oh he has meetings with the nasaarh then he's a kaafir" all of this will keep on going and going which was what the original khawarij upon of not being pleased with something and therefore doing this very same thing.
What has preceded was based off my undersanding in the knowledeg of the shari'aah and this is not saying that i have a speck of ilm at all acually less but now i say somethign from myself sincerily just as you have
Alh-Hamdulillah Allah has blessed the muslims by not having me as their ruler (in which my intention would be to establish shari'aa completely)as khalifa cuz I would make Hajjaj bin yusif look like a Abu Bakr In the eyes of the takfeeris as they would be the first group of people I would be wiping out with fire like Ali did with the shia, knowingly that this was haraam alaikee . So Al-Hamdulillah that He the Most High Has blessed all the muslims with this manhaj by keeping me away from such a task.

asalamu alaikum

[gag order]

ali thank you for exposing your intellectual weakness by not bieng able to differentiate between the wearing of gold and garments above ankles and general clothing with wearing the cross of another religion!

let me make this REAL easy for the intellectually sick.

wearing nike trainers for instance is not committing kufr!
wearing a cross of another religion is major kufr!

i hope that isnt too difficult for you to understand i noticed you were having difficulty with it in your earlier post.
man you are so messed up to equate general clothing with religious insignia.

here it is from a different angle. king fahd wears a thobe is he kafir bcos of it NO
king fahd wears a cross is he kafir bcos of it YES
muslim wearing nike airmax III is he kafir bcos of it NO
muslim wearing star of david is he kafir bcos of it YES
am i a khawarij hell no! i dont make takfir for minor sins

would you even dare where a cross, i dont think so, even you know its kufr so why defend kafir fahd? will you still defend him if he wore a pendant with ancient arab gods on it?

you saudisalafis need to re-evaluate the difference between kufr and iman, tawhid and shirk. and truly allah has blessed us by not having you as a ruler and wiping out takfeeris he has blessed us by exposing the weakness of your arguments and the weakness of your reasoning.

last year i wrote a topic "give a shia enough rope and he will hang himself" dont make me do that to you.............................

[ali]

I guess my so called "level of intelligence" wasn't understood because my various descriptions like not raising the garment and trimming the beard or fornication or whatever was only as a pawn to prove a point. i understand the level, difference and intensity of sins. All I was saying was how some people delve base their deen soley off of the ayaah about ruling othern than what ALlah has revealed when understanding the verse other than the was the salaf understood is is actually as the salaf described as "ruling by other than what Allah had revealed". I forget whgo but the aimah of the nation who gave tafseer on this verse said that this verse applied to everyone and all (not just restricted to the rulers). The verse is general and is supposed to be applied to all muslims not matter what. So itaking this to acount and me knowing that the verse in question is understood in a way not understood or even implemented by the salaf then I have as much right and ground to say that whoever understands the verse the way some people hear understand it then that in itself is ruling that verse on people other than what Allah has revelaed and thus warrents takfeer. So whatever can be applied to the rulers big or small is also applied to the average joker like ourselves big or small.



As for this


last year i wrote a topic "give a shia enough rope and he will hang himself" dont make me do that to you.............................

Im sorry to spoil or foil your plan but I dont think your equiped in any way shape or form or ilm to even do such a thing.

asalamu alaikum

[ali]

so you said

am i a khawarij hell no! i dont make takfir for minor sins

So I guess you make takfeer for major sins. Well the salaf never said that the khawarij make takfeer for minor sins. actually the salaf said that the khawarij are known for making takfeer of major sins.

So what position are you in.

as for this ruler you mention wearing the cross. then it was said in Liqaa Baab al-Maftuh Vol. 26 #1020 It was asked "Ya Shaykh, may Allah preswerver you and take care of you, what is the meaning of the statement of Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, 'Takfeer of a specific individual requires specific evidence' ".
Shaykh Uthaymin replies "You know, may Allah bless you, that the rulings are sometimes associated with a description and sometimes associated with an individual. For example we say, 'Every beleiver is from the people of paradise'. This is a general statement which is associated with a description, every beleiver is in the paradise and every disbeleiver is in the fire. However, do we say in the case of a specific individual, so and so is from paradise? Do you say about this specific individual, so and so is from the people of the fire? Hence, there is a difference between that which is associated with a description and that which is associated with an individual. [/b]When a person utters a statement of disbeleif or commits an act of kufr, then we DO NOT declare him to be a disbeleiver until we look at what motivated him to do that. Then, we behave with him based upon what his situation demands."

So now I tell you have you looked into his affair. Do you know a statement by himself saying why he wears it or are you following your predecessors in performing unrestricted takfeer based of of an action of kufr be it major like fornication, drinking, shirk, wearing a neckless of the cross or otherwise. Do you deal with him on a personal level. Did he tell you why he wears it. Are you following Shaykh Uthaymin in how he and his predecessors from the salaf acted in following the usool of the salaf in how we judge a person to be muslim or kaafir or are you following those who opposed Uthaymin and the salaf he followed in these matters of the fundamentals of eman and kufr.

[ali]

so you said

am i a khawarij hell no! i dont make takfir for minor sins

So I guess you make takfeer for major sins. Well the salaf never said that the khawarij make takfeer for minor sins. actually the salaf said that the khawarij are known for making takfeer of major sins.

So what position are you in.

as for this ruler you mention wearing the cross. then it was said in Liqaa Baab al-Maftuh Vol. 26 #1020 It was asked "Ya Shaykh, may Allah preswerver you and take care of you, what is the meaning of the statement of Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, 'Takfeer of a specific individual requires specific evidence' ".
Shaykh Uthaymin replies "You know, may Allah bless you, that the rulings are sometimes associated with a description and sometimes associated with an individual. For example we say, 'Every beleiver is from the people of paradise'. This is a general statement which is associated with a description, every beleiver is in the paradise and every disbeleiver is in the fire. However, do we say in the case of a specific individual, so and so is from paradise? Do you say about this specific individual, so and so is from the people of the fire? Hence, there is a difference between that which is associated with a description and that which is associated with an individual. [/b]When a person utters a statement of disbeleif or commits an act of kufr, then we DO NOT declare him to be a disbeleiver until we look at what motivated him to do that. Then, we behave with him based upon what his situation demands."

So now I tell you have you looked into his affair. Do you know a statement by himself saying why he wears it or are you following your predecessors in performing unrestricted takfeer based of of an action of kufr be it major like fornication, drinking, shirk, wearing a neckless of the cross or otherwise. Do you deal with him on a personal level. Did he tell you why he wears it. Are you following Shaykh Uthaymin in how he and his predecessors from the salaf acted in following the usool of the salaf in how we judge a person to be muslim or kaafir or are you following those who opposed Uthaymin and the salaf he followed in these matters of the fundamentals of eman and kufr.

[gag order]

what i meant was i would make takfir for invalidators of faith. even though you knew what i meant u are determined to label me a khawarij.

fornication is not kufr!
drinking and gambling is not kufr!
eating KFC is not kufr!
these are major sins but not invalidators!

these are major sins and we are agreed on this and the people u accuse of bieng khawaij are also agreed on this we are together on this. so why the accusation of kharijee?

xample the tartars did not implement the sharia in its entirety just like the house of saud. imam ibn taymiyyah made takfir of them and led a jihad against the muslim rulers for not implementing sharia!

likewise,

alqaida is justified in making takfir against the house of saud and to lead a jihad against them for not implementing sharia in its entirety! they are only following the example of ibn taymiyyah who never made excuses for the muslim government of his time who claimed to be "champions of islam" but were kicked out by a group whom by your definition would be classed as a "jihadi/takfeeri/khawarij" group, the mamelukes.


the mamelukes punished the crusaders the tartars and their mongol cousins and the shias too, they were the real ahl us sunnah of their time as are the mujahideen of today. the mamelukes made takfir on and killed all those who supported the secularist monarchy of the tartars. so what of the secularist monarchy of al-saud?

so you think i am not "equipped" to be your hang man that i dont have enough ilm :lol: hmmmm lets see;

previously you said :"Alh-Hamdulillah Allah has blessed the muslims by not having me as their ruler (in which my intention would be to establish shari'aa completely)as khalifa cuz I would make Hajjaj bin yusif look like a Abu Bakr In the eyes of the takfeeris as they would be the first group of people I would be wiping out with fire like Ali did with the shia, knowingly that this was haraam alaikee . So Al-Hamdulillah that He the Most High Has blessed all the muslims with this manhaj by keeping me away from such a task" :lol: :lol: :lol:

such delusions of grandeur! and a bit naive too. a ruler who implements sharia in its entirety is what the takfeeris want in the first place i refer you to the taliban example they recruited all the takfeeris that went to them didnt burn them at all!

and these same takfeeris are going to defeat the american war machine ali say ameen!

[ali]

u said
what i meant was i would make takfir for invalidators of faith. even though you knew what i meant u are determined to label me a khawarij.


Im not calling you a khariji since the original are gone. What i say is that sometimes people can fall into takfeer of the rulers and revolt against them which EVERY imaam all the way to the sahaba saidthat it is these that arewith the khawarij.

It is these two concepts that if not performed right leads to kharijiyyah. and excessive ghuloo in that just laike any area in islam by which a certain group falls into ghuloo in that field.


u say that fornicvation is not kufr. The prophet salallahu alaihi wa salam said that a person is a kaafir while commiting the act.

So if you mean invalidators then I did not see the issue of "not ruling by the rule of Allah" as an invalidator and most surely Shaykhul-Islam Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab was much more knowledgable than you on that unless it is major kufr.

u said
imam ibn taymiyyah made takfir of them and led a jihad against the muslim rulers for not implementing sharia!

Are you crazy. Where on earth did you ehar this narration. Shaykhul-Islam did not perform takfeer of them nor did he rebel against him and I will look into that along with what Ibn Katheer in that issue with the mongols as well inshallah

actually to be honest now that I remember a little something the tartars where kuffar for their negation or I should say disbelief in Islam or aspects of it which is an invalidator (not that they implemented a part of the shariah) of eman. Thats like sadam and saud. Sadom negated whatever claim he had not just by not implementing shariah but his actual disbelief i think kufr al-juhood and another aspect of it which lead to him being a kaafir vs saud who did not met the conditions of major kufr for takfeer to be warrented on him.


u said
such delusions of grandeur! and a bit naive too. a ruler who implements sharia in its entirety is what the takfeeris want in the first place i refer you to the taliban example they recruited all the takfeeris that went to them didnt burn them at all!

and these same takfeeris are going to defeat the american war machine ali say ameen!

I admit it was too offset cuz i was kind off bugged by certa9n statements made by people.

Actually like I said those who fall into ghuloo on an issue fall pray to bida concepts and like the issue of takfeer the adherent falls pray to kharijiyyah. So saying that the takfeeris would be pleased with a complete shariah implementing ruler is not only incorrect but false. If that was the case then they would have never question the authority of Ali, nor Uthman. They will never be pleased. If I slip as a khaleef (if I were) I know as history bears witness that one slip or understanding, statement or action that opposses their usool or understanding then I would have to worry about them as a thorn on my side to further better Islam, the ummah, and protect it, so tyherefore eliminating a matter is better than dealing with it so when Saud took all those takfeeri revolutionaries into his land that that was his biggest mistake. I guess he let his "caring for his muslim brothers" cloud his judgement by not realizing why they got thrown out of Misr. Im not saying this t o defend saud but just saying generally that every ruler has some type of natural practice of protecting their territory.

oh and yes. AMEEN! although you should have had husn adhan for doubting my wala wal baraa
asalamu alaikum

[gag order]

look the takfeeris and kharijee of a 1000 years ago are not the same so called takfeeri and kharijee of today!

there are no takfeeri or kahrijee today, these are just labels used by the deviant kafirloving saudisalafis to slander the people who make righteaous educated and accurate takfir.

when someone commits fornication his eman leaves his body and hangs over his head until he stops the act and his eman returns therfore it does not mean one becomes a murtaad i hope that is understood when i said "fornication is not kufr"

about the tartars, they implemented "al-yaasiq" otherwise known as secularism. ie islamic laws have no place in government.

[ali]

u said
look the takfeeris and kharijee of a 1000 years ago are not the same so called takfeeri and kharijee of today!

Shoukld I beleive you or our nabi salallahu alaihi wa salam when he said that they "the khawarij" will last till the hour fighting along side the yahood.

Khawarij as the original people has ended. That does not mean that their concepts and bida has ended. The original muatazilaah has ended. that does not mean that people nowadays are not infected and cannot be infected with logic and re4asoning affecting their judgement in the religion therefore making their aql superior to the texts.


u said

there are no takfeeri or kahrijee today, these are just labels used by the deviant kafirloving saudisalafis to slander the people who make righteaous educated and accurate takfir.


unrestricted takfeer and takfeer with no tafseel is by no means near or close or even in the sdame ballpark as "educated or accurate takfeer".


So u said

about the tartars, they implemented "al-yaasiq" otherwise known as secularism. ie islamic laws have no place in government.

So al-Yaasiq is secularism right. So how is saudia a secularist society. I dont care if you said that about Turkey or Iraaq (before) since they abolished shariah completely.
Even the words of the kibaaru-Ulema the ones that the so called "takfeeris" and qutbiyyah loyalists defend like Shaykh Ibn Jibreen, Shaykh Bakr Aboo Zayd say that the actual ruling of takfeer and excomunnication from Islam on behalf of the rulers is when they (the ryulers) abolish the shariah completely "from head to toe" So tell me with full out honesty and swear by Allah that the country which implements shariah the MOST of all the countries in the world TODAY which is the same county that you hate most has abandoned the shariah completely from head to toe.

It is strange thaat a people who wish for the rulers to implement shariah and wish to perform jihaad against the kuffar would fight and revolt a country that implements more of the shariah than any other country on Allah's planet nowadays and instead of jihaad against the kuffar rather against the muslimeen. this is a true irony

asalamu alaikum

[gag order]

saudi implements more of the sharia than others ?

i think it picks and chooses what to implement from their evil evil desires and that much is evident!

jihad against the suadi armed forces is a real jihad because the saudi armed forces are fighting to protect US/zionist military presence in the holy land while the real muslimeen are fighting kuffar as well as the spiritual descendants of medinite hypocrites!

one can argue that alsaud came to power killing fellow muslimeen by force of arms ejecting the uthmanis in numerous battles. by force of arms they came then by force of arms they shall leave - becos whtaever goes around comes around!

bieng a harsh critic of the monarchy doesnt mean i hate the country and its people. its important we discuss with al wala wal bara in mind. agreed?

now we all know qaddafi was labelled a kafir but even he still implements a little sharia so isnt that a contradiction since he hasnt abandoned the sharia from "head to toe" as you say by this definition is he now back in the fold our brother muslim?

if saudi really does implement the MOST sharia how come it hasnt joined in the many jihads around the world?

its trained and equipped for war think about it?

if untrained civilian irregulars aka the jihadis can stalemate the russians, soviets, indians, isrealis, and all the NATO armies think what the saudis could have done with that extensive array of weapons they have. jihadis will sell their boots to get hold of what the saudis have locked away. when these weapons could be earning them reward for jihad.

heres the real irony: civilian irregulars - al qaida are doing all the fighting to eject the US military in saudi while the "islamic sharia state of saudi arabia" does nothing to check the kafir presence!

NOW THATS IRONIC!

[ali]

here you go again acting like a muftee in this
jihad against the suadi armed forces is a real jihad because

u said
bieng a harsh critic of the monarchy doesnt mean i hate the country and its people. its important we discuss with al wala wal bara in mind. agreed?

if that is the case then that can be talked about after you intake walaa for the sunnah and millah of the sahaabaa and the salaf because the way that the salaf practiced is total opposite of your understanding of these issues. So you need to develop walaa for what the salaf were upon and baraa from that which they did not implement and understand regarding the texts. Once that is established then we can talk about wala wal baraa in regards to the deen and its people. That is because in plain in simple terms no one can go to colledge without finishing highscholl or graduating so first thing is first.

The head to toe issue is just a factor upon others. If kadaafi abolished it from head to toe and beleived then this would make him kaafir by default as viewed by many of the ulema and even then I think there is khilaaf in this. If he proves through inqiaad in disbelieving Islam regardless of implementing the sharia then he is kaafir by default. This is because him implementing the shariah is only a sign or manifestation of his emaan but not the total absolution or negation of eman. If this was the case then every khaleef after Ali radhiyallahu anhu (excluding Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz) wouldnt even be muslim for ruling by other than what Allah revealed in many matters.
So if you were khaleef and disbeleived in Islam and its tenents and implemented the shariah then I would not accept your testimony because of your expresswed beleif of your disbeleif. If their is no sign of that then by default Im obligated on accepting your shahada. This is because many of the Imaams act upon the established usool that "anything established with certainty can only be removed with certainty" You are certainly muslim to all of us unless their is clear and undeniable proof (examples like your expressed disbeleif or abolishment of shairah head to toe) that proves to us here on this forum that your not a muslim. If that is not clear then that means that I or someone else is messing with their own emaan since our nabi said that whoever has the statement of takfeer pronounced then it will go to the one whom it was said upon and if he is not a kaafir then that pronouncement goes back to the one who said it, and by this one can negate his own eman which should be reason and proof enough that we should take this ussue from those who did not deviate in this field and who are known for having knowledge of the authentic sunnah in this field because in deep honesty through ignorance one can remove himself from the fold of eman just off of taking from the wrong people concerning this issue.

gotta go
asalamu alaikum

[gag order]

first of all do you actually read what i have written or just skim through it?

esteemed shaike ali in your last paragraph did you imply that one of us is a kafir? :shock:

and you gave an example saying something like: my expressed disbelief or abolishment of sharia head to toe that proves you are not a muslim is undeniable proof ???

you better not be saying what i think you are saying. :x

your last paragraph needs more comas and full stops, you read it and see how out of breath you get!

knocking the saudi monarchy is all it took to reveal your true self? yes i made takfir on king fahd for clear cut kufr for wearing a the dajjal cross the cross of mithra. your acting like i implied takfir on you :shock:

and you said elsewhere your not a fahdi but obviously your slightly miffed about it.

is it cos you is a fahdi? nah that cant be can it? cmon drop the act is you or aint you a fahdi? bcos if you are it will undermine your credibility undermine your ikhlas e niyyah undermine your al wala wal bara and a whole lot of other things.

let me recommend a tape that was recommended to me "the devils deception of the saudisalafi"

please do not confuse suadisalafi (fahdi) with genuine salafi.

[Abu Hatim]

Gag order you need to understand a very important point Ali and myself keep making. We are not fans of king Fahd and we do not like him and we would defiently prefere someone better there but the Takfiris( not to be mistaken with the Ulema who have the right to make takfir) way of rebeling against Fahd is incorrect.

The Takfiris are plain stupid to think that going around Launching puny attacks on other muslims is going to acheive anything. In other words, going around blowing sht up(sorry for the language) isn't going to help there cause, it will only make the Ulema and the people hate them even more.

In the begining I had some sympathy for them, but after I saw how they only seem to kill other muslims, Allah, Alhumdulilah guided me to my senses. So NO, Im not a "fahdi" and if a person is then something is wrong with them. just like there is something serious wrong with people who support the Khawarij dajjals. Gag order, do not let your pride get to you and make you oppose the truth.

The prophet said "If a person has a atoms weight of pride, tell him to bite his fathers penis because that is where he came from"

[ali]

as for this

esteemed shaike ali in your last paragraph did you imply that one of us is a kafir?

and you gave an example saying something like: my expressed disbelief or abolishment of sharia head to toe that proves you are not a muslim is undeniable proof ???

ya gag.
Forgive me for not being clear but I only made what I said as a way of an example meaning "IF" you were a ruler "NOT" practicing the shariah. I didnt say that your a kaafir or that if you were a ruler that you won't.

as for your with me or against me manhaj the3n I must emplore you that this is baatil.

[gag order]

none of us are takfiri here, they're not involved in this discussion we are!

you can rubbish the takfiris all you want that dont bother me but if you rubbish the mujahideen i find that quite disturbing!

since the mujahideen also make takfir are you likening them unto the takfiri/kharijee group from the distant past?

the mujahideen are niether takfiri nor are they kharijee. thats alsuad propaganda to criminalise them. to make their jihad against the forces of dajjal a fake jihad!

i think that the mindset of alqaida is greatly influenced by the works of the late shaikh abdullah azzam shaheed. from the fiqh of jihad all the way to choosing a target i think they are influenced by him. that bieng the case i disagree that alqaida are the takfiri / kharijee (as defined by the salaf in their books).

as salamu alaikum to both of you

[ali]

MAy Allah aid the mujahideen (the real ones, not the ones who blow up stuff mercilessly and gets himself in the fire forever).

So if they are straight and real ahlu-sunnah wal hadeeth then May Allah accept their deeds and if they have been infected with takfeer and kharijiyyah then may Allah STILL acept their jihaad AND guide them in their fiqh. Ameen


asalamu alaikum

[slave-of-THE_ONE]

assalamu 'aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu</p>

All the rulers are kafirs and i say that with no fear, including the worst of them malik fasad, sorry malik fahad for he and his family have given themselves the title of &quot;the custodian of the two holy mosques&quot;. What an insolt that is to the house of ALLAH and the mosque of the Prophet (saw) that they should have a family based on kufr to be their custodians.*******A family that hates ALLAH and HIS Rasul so much that they invite*******the*******enemies******* of our Creator and our Messenger, pay their ticket, giving them land and put under their service the national resources and pay their wages and all of their expences and provide for them accomodation to commit zina and provide for them*******khamar (alcohol) and khanzeer (pork) and clubs where they dance and play music and vip treatment while these 'aduwwuLLAH make a mockery of our RABB 'AZZA wa JALL, our Rasul (saw) and our Deen,*******and *******they*******ask visas to the slaves of ALLAH that wish to visit HIS house and grant it to whom they please and refuse it to whom they please.</p>

The mushrikeen Quraish*******at the time of the Prophet (saw) were better to the people making Hajj then this family for the quraish used to see the offering water shelter and food to the pilgrims as an honour so much so that abdul-muttalib and later his son abu talib use to work all year round to save money for the pilgrimage season and used to serve the pilgrims themselves even they were the leaders of macca and of the most prestigious tribe in arabia.</p>

Just becouse one prints Qur'ans and builds masaajid does not make him a muslim, jews have printed the qur'an, pinguin publishers, and that does not bring them even an atom weight closed to ALLAH ta'ala</p>

if you want to judge king fasad fahad by his good deed then think about this,*******one who builds a masjid and one that builds a house for*******the orfan, which one do you think is closer to ALLAH,*******one who prints a qur'an or*******one who feeds the masakeen*******and one is malik fasad fahad and the other is mother calcutta. Both will not benefit from their work and the fire shall be their abode.</p>

Do not be deceived by such things rather judge him and the family as a hole by their relationship with ALLAH, if ALLAH says it's haram and you give a licence for it you are equalling yourself to HIM, and if ALLAH says it's halal and you are*******banning it you are comparing youself to HIM and if ALLAH made it fard and you are torturing, emprisoning and killing becouse of it then you've made your self a god beside ALLAH whom has no partners subhanahu wa ta'ala 'amma yushrikoon</p>

He ta'ala*******indeed said:</p><font face="TimesNewRoman,Bold"><p align="left">And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn. </p><p align="left"><font face="TimesNewRoman">(</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">Al-M</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1">ā</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">.idah</font><font face="TimesNewRoman">, 44)</font></p><p align="left">Ibn Taymiyyah said, &quot;And it is known by necessity in the D<font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1">ī</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">n </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">of the Muslims </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Bold">and by the agreement of all the Muslims </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">that <u>whoever permits the following of a </u></font><u><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">Shar</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1">ī'</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">ah </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">other than the </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">Shar</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1">ī'</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">ah </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">of Muhammad then he is a </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">K</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1">ā</font></u><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic"><u>fir</u> </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">and it is like the </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">Kufr </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">of the one who believes in some of the Book and disbelieves in some of the Book Like He, </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">Ta.</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1">ā</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">la </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">said:&quot;</font><font face="TimesNewRoman+1" size="4"></font> </p><p align="left"><font face="TimesNewRoman"><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="2"></font></font></p><p align="left">&quot;<span><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Verily, those who disbelieve in Allâh and His Messengers and wish to make distinction between Allâh and His Messengers (by believing in Allâh and disbelieving in His Messengers) saying, &quot;We believe in some but reject others,&quot; and wish to adopt a way in between. They are in truth disbelievers. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment&quot; . (An-Nisā., 150-151)</font></span></p><span></span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">

<font face="verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRoman">&quot;Al-Fatāwa&quot;</span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRoman">, Vol. 28/524</span></font><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRoman"></span></p>

<p align="left">And Ibn Kathī<font face="TimesNewRoman">r said, &quot;So <u>whoever leaves the clear </u></font><u><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">Shar</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1">ī'</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">ah</font><font face="TimesNewRoman">, which was revealed to Muhammad Ibn 'Abdill</font><font face="TimesNewRoman+1">ā</font><font face="TimesNewRoman">h, the Seal of the Prophets, and takes the </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">Hukm </font></u><font face="TimesNewRoman"><u>to other than it</u> from the laws of </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">Kufr </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">which are abrogated, <u>he has disbelieved</u>. So what about the one who takes the </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">Hukm </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">to the &quot;</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">Y</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1">ā</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">siq&quot; </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">and puts it before it?! </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Bold">Whoever does that, </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Bold">he has disbelieved by the </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic+1">Ijm</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic">ā'</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic+1">*******</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Bold">of the Muslims*******</font><font face="TimesNewRoman">All</font><font face="TimesNewRoman+1">ā</font><font face="TimesNewRoman">h </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">Ta'</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1">ā</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">la </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">said:&quot;</font></p><p align="left">&quot;Is it the <font face="TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic+1">Hukm </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Bold">of </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic+1">Jahiliyyah </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Bold">that they seek?&quot;</font></p><p align="left">and:</p></span><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="2"><font face="TimesNewRoman"></font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Bold"><p align="left">&quot;But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission&quot;</p><p align="left"><font face="TimesNewRoman,Bold"><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic" size="2">&quot;Al-Bid</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1" size="2">ā</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic" size="2">yah Wa An-Nih</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1" size="2">ā</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic" size="2">yah</font><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="2">&quot;, Vol. 13/119</font></font></p><p align="left">And 'Umar Al-Ashqar said,*******&quot;And from this explanation it becomes clear to us that there are two types of people who have fallen into <font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">Kufr </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">about which there is no doubt. The first, <u>the ones who legislate that which All</u></font><font face="TimesNewRoman+1"><u>ā</u></font><font face="TimesNewRoman"><u>h did not reveal,</u> and those are the ones who <u>fabricate the laws that oppose the legislation of All</u></font><font face="TimesNewRoman+1"><u>ā</u></font><font face="TimesNewRoman"><u>h</u> and they <u>implement it upon the people</u> </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Bold">and <u>the </u></font><u><font face="TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic+1">Ijm</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic">ā'</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic+1">*******</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Bold">is upon their </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic+1">Kufr </font></u><font face="TimesNewRoman,Bold"><u>without doubt</u>&quot;</font><font face="TimesNewRoman">.</font></p><p align="left"><font face="TimesNewRoman"><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="2"></font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic" size="2">&quot;Ash-Shar</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1" size="2">ī</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic" size="2">.ah Al-Il</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1" size="2">ā</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic" size="2">hiyyah&quot;</font><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="2">, Pg. 179</font></font></p><p align="left"><font face="TimesNewRoman">And Bin Baz said,*******<font face="TimesNewRoman">&quot;<u>There is no </u></font><u><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1">Ī</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">m</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1">ā</font></u><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic"><u>n</u> </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">for the one who believes the laws of the people and their opinions are superior to the </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic">Hukm </font><font face="TimesNewRoman">of All</font><font face="TimesNewRoman+1">ā</font><font face="TimesNewRoman">h and His Messenger or that they are equal to it or that they resemble it or who leaves it or <u>replaces it with fabricated laws and institutions invented by people, even if he believes that the laws of All</u></font><font face="TimesNewRoman+1"><u>ā</u></font><font face="TimesNewRoman"><u>h are more encompassing and more just</u>&quot;.</font></font></p><p align="left"><font face="TimesNewRoman"><font face="TimesNewRoman"><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="2"></font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic" size="2">&quot;Ris</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1" size="2">ā</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic" size="2">lat Wuj</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1" size="2">ū</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic" size="2">b Tahk</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1" size="2">ī</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic" size="2">m Shara' All</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1" size="2">ā</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic" size="2">h Wa Nabth M</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1" size="2">ā </font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic" size="2">Kh</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic+1" size="2">ā</font><font face="TimesNewRoman,Italic" size="2">lafah&quot;,</font><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="2"> Pg. 39</font></font></font></p><p align="left">Wal Izzatu liLLHAI wa Rasulihi (saw) wal Mu'mineen</p><p align="left">ALLAHUMMA nsurnal mujaheddena yuqatil fi sabilika fi kulli makaan</p><p align="left">Wa 'aleika bil yahudi wannasara wal mushrikeena wal munafeqeena wal murtaddena wal kafireena wa 'aduwwuka wa 'aduwwuna wa 'aduwwul islama wal muslimeena ajma'een</p><p align="left">amina amina amin.</p></font></font></font>

[S.S]

Salaam,

What about the many scholars last century who have talked about khilafah for over 80 years have did and have they got anywhere?

Regarding Osama Bin Laden -he was also trained by the Americans and British kuffar (before he started oppsoing them).

And just incase anyone has missed it here OBM in LOONEY of the century.

Ws

[slave-of-THE_ONE]

assalamu 'aleikum wa rahmetullahi wa barakatu </p>

my brother s.s</p>

where is your evidence to say that Shk. Usama bin Ladin was trained by us &amp; uk forces.</p>

if it's from hearsay then you've slandered a slave of ALLAH, and if it's from your head then you've backbited*******a servant of ALLAH,</p>

my brother an advice, if you dont have proof for it, it's better for you not to say it for you might be doing one of the two above.</p>

The us governament gave financial support*******to the mujahedeen in afghanistan*******throught*******the pakistani governament which in return passed on some of it to the amirs, who later fought with each other for power,*******of the mujahedden*******and gave military training to the pakistani army who then trained the mujahedeen.*******</p>

There was no contact between the us and the mujahedeen, specially the arab mujahedeen for they hated the americans*******for their involvement in the war between the arabs and the israelis and their support*******with money and weaponry to the &quot;state*******of israel&quot;.******* </p>

You'll find this in a documentary by the kuffar about Usama bin Ladin that was shown in channel 4 late last year. Senior members of the us gov that were personally involved and in charge of the trainings and financial support were talking about their involvement in that war. My brother al-hamdulillah has a copy of that tape so if you want names of these people, insha ALLAH i will get them for you. </p>

This same story was*******supported by a mujahid that was there at that time in a lecture titled &quot;afghanistan the riturn of islam&quot;, the speaker being sheikh abu hamza al misri, may ALLAH release him. And his lecture was way before the documentary went on air as he was calling people to support and aid and even make hijra to the islamic emirates of afghanistan of the taliban which we know was not there last year.</p>

He*******could*******not have copied the story from them and it seems quait unlikely******* that they would have copied the story from him.</p>

About the khilafah: we had one up untill the 1920's when ALLAH took it away from us.</p>

Our main concern shoud now be to implement shari'ah and the first obstacle to that is these kafir regimes ruling the muslims with their whims.</p>

my brother ask ALLAH to support the mujahedeen and to make them victorious over the kuffar that are raping and buchering our mothers and sisters and do not think that your deeds are more acceptable to ALLAH******* then those of the one who left tdhe plesures that this world can offer and gave his blood to the service of ALLAH and the ummah.</p>

Does it not make you think why ALLAH is protecting such a person if all that is said about him is true?******* Why would ALLAH use such a man to bring relief in the breast of the ummah?</p>

[Abu Hatim]

I havn't visited the forum in a long time and when I did I was surprised that this discussion was still going on. I want to take back my previous statements and clarify what I now believe. I was fed outright lie's about the mujahideen from people who PRETEND to be salafees, people who I trusted and loved. I want to apologize to a number of brothers here, especially gag order who I had a deep hatred for before. After thinking it over I saw that the &quot;salafees&quot; have hatred for the mujahideen and they love the Kuffar and bend over backwards for them time after time. </p>

I no longer support the Taghut's in Haramain nor any other place. It has became obvious to me what there intentions are and I was glad when the biggest Taghut of all, &quot;King Fahd&quot; died over the summer. The main thing that changed my mind about the situation was the letter from the noble Shaykh, the Shaykh of the haramain, Nasir al Fahd, may Allah release him and make him sucessful. </p>



*******Jazakum Allahu Khair Wa Asalamu Alaykum</p>

[abuisaam]

salaam alaykum Ali i am a bit confused if you can clarify inshallah</p>

About the khawaarij i thought they </p>



1. done takfeer on many sahabaa</p>

2. Done takfeer on major or minor sins</p>

3. revolted against the legitmate islamic authority who implemented or tried to implement the shariah.</p>



Now you labelled the mujahideen in particular (Alqaidah Bilad al-Haramayn) as khawaarij but they </p>



- neither make takfeer on any sahaba, in fact i believe they would have strong stances of takfeer against those who do takfeer against the sahaba like the shia as its disbelief in the ayahs of Allah swt and the statements of the messenger</p>



- Neither do they make takfeer upon Major or Minor sins at all </p>

Neither did they rebel against a legitimate Islamic authority because one does not exist. </p>



- As for the state of saudi arabia, for Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamma, it is a state of kuffr, who uphold kuffr and Shirk and have friendship and alliance with Harbee Kuffar, and for that the rulers and their upholders have apostated from the deen of Islam. But this was the opposite case with that of the khawaarij. one of their signs are that:</p>



They rise against the legitimate Muslim rulers. </p>



The Khawaarij rose against the leadership of Ali (ra), one of the Ashra Mubashira bil Jannah (ten promised paradise in their lifetimes), a leading Sahabah and a member of Ahle-Bait Rasoolulah. Ali (ra) was well known to have great knowledge and was consulted upon numerous affairs by the first three Khulafah. Ali (ra) never ruled by Kufr (disbelief) nor did he perform Tahaakum (arbitration) to Taaghout (Kufr law). He was chosen legitimately chosen as an Ameer by the Ummah after the death of Uthmaan (ra) and never gave his Wala’ (allegiance) to the Kuffar forces to kill Muslims. Consequently, the Khawaarij rose and fought against a just, legitimate ruler. </p>



The Saudi Salafis want the Muslim Ummah to believe that anyone who revolts against any leader, whether that leader is a Kaafir, Murtad or Muslim then they are following the minhaj (methodolgy) of the Khawaarij. The manifest corruption seen in this comparison is clear for all to see. Does King Fahd or Prince Abdullah as personalities bear any resemblance to Ali (ra)? Does the rule and judgements of Fahd, Abdullah and the rest of the Saloolis (Saudi family) bear any resemblance to the judgement of Ali (ra)? Does the fact that the Saloolis have given the land of the Haramayn (two holy sanctuaries) as a base for the Crusading Americans to kill Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere bear any similarity to Ali’s (ra) actions and dealings towards his subjects? </p>



When Ali (ra) accepted arbitration he chose the arbitrators as being two great Sahabi who would arbitrate based on Qur’an and Sunnah and not the law of Kufr. However, Saudi Arabia is a member state of the United Nations, a Kufr body which enacts the right to legislate based on their own Hawaa (desires). </p>

Obviously, there is no comparison and consequently, the application of the title Khaariji by the Scholars for Dollars amongst the ranks of the Saudi Salafis upon the sincere Mujahideen in Afghanistan , Chechnya , Iraq and Saudi Arabia is false, baseless and rejected. </p>





But even then the mujahideen did not go out their way to fight them as obliged to from a sharee perspective, rather they made is clear in the badr al riyad tape, that their goal was to expel the foreign harbee enemy forces from the jazeerah of muhammed (saw) but if the tawagheets get in their way then they will fight them, and allah swt says in the quran in surah nisa that, those who beieve fight for the sake of allah swt and those who disbelieve fight for the sake of taghout.</p>

</p>

So im sorry im confused on what basis then do you call them khwaarij ??? please substantiate any claims attributed to the mujahideen with verifiable evidence from the source themselves, not what saudi salafis or the kuffr state say about them. If you cannot then i believe you should retract your statements inshallah. </p>



You mentioned about aknowleding that the state has problems, but fighting them would cause severe harm, i dont think u would fight them unless you do takfeer first, even then i think the following statement from shaykh abu baseer from his fatwa on the saudi regime, who i believe studied under shaykh al-baani clarifies this issue.</p>



*******So if it is said: Does the Kufr of the regime necessitate going out (Khuruj) against it? (i.e. fighting it and overthrowing it)

I say: Yes, from the Shar'i perspective it is Wajib (obligatory) to go out against it, however from the practical perspective, this has certain conditions, stages, and necessary preparations, and I do not see that it should be done before the fulfillment of these conditions, stages and necessary preparations. And one of them is that the idea of going out against the Kufr regimes should be the dominant idea among the majority of the Muslims.

And until the time that these are fulfilled, there is no objection according to the Shari'ah – if you find the ability and are safe from a greater evil occurring – to acting on this, by eliminating – on an individual basis – those whose Fitnah is threatening the lands and the people, from among the ruling Tawagheet of Kufr and injustice, and putting the people and the land to rest from them... for eliminating one of the ruling Tawagheet of Kufr and injustice and removing him from the path of the people is easier than effecting a rebellion and overthrowing the entire regime along with all of its special organisations!
</p>

The whole fatwa is very beneficial Ali if you can read it, it would be excellent its not that long, and inshallah if you disagree with it, you can put foward your disagreements with proof inshallah, and if they are stronger i will accept.</p>



http://members.lycos.co.uk/tibyan/article25b5.html?id=1020</p>



Wasalaam Alaykum Warakhmatullaa for now</p>

[McMusafir]

aassalamu alaikum, </p>

(1) None has answered whether sheikh Albanee, sheikh Bin Baaz or, sheikh Uthaymeen have ever wrote any article or book or had given any lecture about how to bring back khilafah ?</p>

Or, They just ignored and*******left duty*******of trying the*******establishment of khilafah? </p>



(2) These three sheikhs had vast knowledge but where is their implementations? They never spoke truth infront of a tyrant ruler ( which is the best jihad ) [ i don't mean to revolt but speaking truth infront of them ]. Also our previous rightly guided scholars always spoken truth infront of rulers and maximum of them were tortured or, put into jail or, were looked in narrow eyes by the rulers. I never seen these three sheikhs adopt their previous salafs on this methodology !! </p>



Like as they adopted and followed some hadeeth and left rest of the hadeeths.</p>

[Ibn_uzair]

Originally Posted by Abu Hatim</p>

I havn't visited the forum in a long time and when I did I was surprised that this discussion was still going on. I want to take back my previous statements and clarify what I now believe. I was fed outright lie's about the mujahideen from people who PRETEND to be salafees, people who I trusted and loved. I want to apologize to a number of brothers here, especially gag order who I had a deep hatred for before. After thinking it over I saw that the &quot;salafees&quot; have hatred for the mujahideen and they love the Kuffar and bend over backwards for them time after time. </p>

I no longer support the Taghut's in Haramain nor any other place. It has became obvious to me what there intentions are and I was glad when the biggest Taghut of all, &quot;King Fahd&quot; died over the summer. The main thing that changed my mind about the situation was the letter from the noble Shaykh, the Shaykh of the haramain, Nasir al Fahd, may Allah release him and make him sucessful. </p>



*******Jazakum Allahu Khair Wa Asalamu Alaykum</p>

</p>





Its been a vey long time since I last visited this forum until tday!</p>



Maashallah. May Allah reward u akhi Abu Hatim. I'm really glad. After reading this post of urs..i wanted to make takbir..but i'm at work...so cant express my joy that u've found the haq!</p>



Allahu Akbar!</p>

[gag order]

&quot;<u>These three sheikhs had vast knowledge but where is their implementations?</u> <u>They never spoke truth infront of a tyrant ruler</u> ( which is the best jihad ) [ i don't mean to revolt but speaking truth infront of them ]. Also our previous rightly guided scholars always spoken truth infront of rulers and maximum of them were tortured or, put into jail or, were looked in narrow eyes by the rulers. <u>I never seen these three sheikhs adopt their previous salafs on this methodology&quot;</u> *******</p>



sadly the position of these sheikhs appears to be indefensible which is unfortunate. </p>

[Mansoor Ali]

They <u>never</u> spoke truth infront of a tyrant ruler </p>

How does he know?</p>

[McMusafir]

Originally Posted by Mansoor Ali</p>

They <u>never</u> spoke truth infront of a tyrant ruler </p>

How does he know?</p>

<