What is there proof?

[Break The Cross]

Salaam

There are a uninformed group of peoplewho say that Jihad cant take place today because of the absent of an Imam or scholars havent declared it blah blah blah. Does anyone know what is their proof* for this false belief? I cant seem to find it on the rotten salafis website.


Also another people say that the hudood cant be implemented without a Khalif, does anyone know what is their proof* also?

*By proof I mean Qur'an and Sunnah and not opinions of people.

[SAINT GEORGE OF ARABIA]

*By proof I mean Qur'an and Sunnah and not opinions of people.

i assumed you've never had argument with a neo-con salafi
proof here is from scholars and you cannot argue with a scholar

khalas!!!

['Abd al-Kareem]

Assalamu 'alaikum

This is complete and utter garbage. This excuse is used by the masses for various reasons:
1. They are ignorant on the subject and are just talking
2. Might be a coward trying to find excuses
3. Might actually know the truth but is concealing it purposely
4. Is ignorant, and even worse than that, believes all the propoganda crap about Islam.
5. Genuinely thinks he/she is right and speaking Islamically. But this is ignorance as well. Usually this type of brother/sister can be convinced of the truth when provided with enough evidence.

As you can see, all the excuses aren't good except for the last one which is a reasonable person that can be shown the truth.
As for the masses...when will they wake up?

[Break The Cross]

Ok so I couldnt find the "evidences" these people used behind their innovation except for the saying of al Albani and that wasnt all that strong either. I wanted to write something about it but there is nothing to refute :(

[mujahida3001]

Can we fight jihad while we haven't an Amir?

Yes we fight, and we haven't an Amir. None has said that the absence of a
community of Muslims under an Amir cancels the Fard of jihad. In fact we have seen
Muslims at the time of the Crusades and during the Tar-tar invasions fighting with
different Amir's. In Halab (in Syria) there was an Amir, in Damascus there was an Amir,
and in Egypt there was more than one Amir. Some of these even asked help from
Christians against their brother Amir, as what happened when Shawar asked help from
Christians against another Amir , Dar Gham, in Egypt.
Not one of the scholars has said that such a situation and such corruption cancels
the obligation of jihad for the defense of the Muslim lands. On the contrary it multiplies
their duty. The same thing happened in Andalusia, as the poets said:
"They were divided into sects, each in their places,
Each place an Amir and each its pulpit"
And another wrote,
"That which made me dispair of Andalusia, were the king's titles,
Great titles of which they were not worthy,
Like the cat who mimics the lion by puffing himself up"
Not one of the scholars has said that there is no jihad under these conditions, in
fact, the scholars were themselves in the front lines of Andalusia.
The battle may be void of a legitimate commander appointed by the Amir. As it
was on the Day of Mu'tah. Khalid Bin Walid stood up and raised the flag, that by him,
Allah saved the Muslim army. And, for this he was commended by the Prophet (saw).
Maybe the Imam or the Amir al Mu'mineen is not present, this does not annul the
obligation of fighting and the defense of the Muslim lands. We do not wait for the
Caliphate to be restored. Because, the Caliphate does not return through abstract theories,
amassed knowledge and studying. Rather, jihad is the right way to reform the divided
authorities to the ultimate authority of the Caliphate.
The mujahideen choose their Amir for jihad from amongst themselves. He
organizes them and unifies their efforts and makes the strong support the weak. In a sahih
hadith from Uqbah Bin Amar, who was amongst the to-be-mentioned party, said: "The
Prophet (saw) sent out a party and he chose from amongst them a swordsman (leader).
When he returned he said, "I have not seen the like of when the Prophet (saw) blamed us.
He said, "are you unable that if I send a man and he fails to apply my order to replace him
with one who applies my order." 
The Messenger of Allah (saw) encouraged them to change the Amir of the party
even if he was given the flag by the noble hand of the Prophet himself. So how is it if
there is no Amir from the beginning? Of the most critical situations requiring an Amir is
that of wartime.
Ibn Qadama said in Al Mughni 8/253: "The absence of an Imam does not postpone
the jihad because much is lost in its postponement".
If the people choose an Amir, he must be obeyed. As mentioned in Fath al Ali al
Malik 1/253.
The Sheikh Miyara stated that if there is an absence of an Amir, and the people are
agreed to appoint a great one in this time, to pave their ways, to make the strong support
the weak, and he exerts his effort to achieve this to the best of his ability, it is evident
that to stand against him is not permitted. Who opposes him seeking to create sedition,
disobeys Islam and disrupts the Jamat. In Sahih Muslim: "Surely it will be predicaments
and predicaments and who wants to disrupt the order of this Ummah while they are a
whole, kill him whoever he is". And: "Who came to you while you are united under one
man, and wants to disrupt your Jamat kill him".

DEFENSE OF THE MUSLIM LANDS
By Dr. Abdullah Azzam
(May Allah accept him as Shaheed)

[Um Abdullah M.]

I think there might be a difference between jihad where u are defening ur land which does not require a khalifa or amir since all Muslims in the country have to fight for their land and defend themselves.

but it might be different in regards to jihad at-Talab, which is not the defence jihad.
which I think that it needs a khalifa or amir.

wallahu a'lam, maybe someone knowledgable can inform us about this with evidance.

[Suhaib Jobst]

Here's some more good articles which refutes their doubts:

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=5275&ln=eng&txt=Jihad
http://salafiyyah-jadeedah.tripod.com/Qital/Imam_condition.htm

Mujahida3001 - I checked out your blog and thought it was excellent. May Allah reward you in your task to call the Muslims to that which is legislated in their Religion to bring back their former glory. Ameen.

[Break The Cross]

Jazakullah khair, Alhamdulillaah I know the correct opinion, or the only opinion, is Jihad is fard no matter with a leader or without. But what I wanted to know is the arguement the other side uses in order to say that it cant be made without a Khaleef. Basically I think its their blind following thats throwing them off from the straight path and major opinions they use is al Albanis or some fake salafi scholars and neither of them have proof except a theory using the seerah.

[mujahida3001]

assalamu alikumm

i hope that was beneficiall inshallah. as for their arguments, they can come up with 1000's of baseless arguments however its important for us to know our stance on it.

i highly recommend everyone to read the book IN DEFENCE OF THE MUSLIMS by the shaheed inshallah. its very beneficial and very short too its on my site if anyone wants it inshallah

Suhaib Jobst - jazakallah khair for ur visit to my site. alhumdulliah you found it beneficial.

jazakallah khair

ma'salama

[Suhaib Jobst]

Basically I think its their blind following thats throwing them off from the straight path and major opinions they use is al Albanis or some fake salafi scholars and neither of them have proof except a theory using the seerah.

Your analysis is correct. Right now, it is Abdul-Mohsen al-Ubeikan whom they use as evidence against the Jihad. There is always someone who pops up and whom the regime (and its amen-corner among the Madkhaliah/Irjaa "Salafis") hypes up into some great scholar. When I was a Madkhali follower, Ubeikan wasn't even well known - only in the last couple of years has he arrived on the scene.

Among other things, he denied there was Jihad in Iraq and said "there must be an attempt to remove the [occupying] ruler by peaceful means which do not entail bloodshed." (Al-Riyadh, May 27, 2005).

He also defended what the Americans are doing in Iraq, claiming they only want to bring stability and restore order(!) (ibid.).

He claimed that Jihad can only be done under the banner of the Ameer, contrary to the evidence provided in this thread, and he even claimed: "The rulings of Sheikh Al-Islam ibn Taymiyya, and of all other jurisprudents, do not apply to the current situation in Iraq." (Saudi TV Ch. 1, June 19, 2005).

Anyone who debates or encounters his followers: Try quoting Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) and listen to their reaction.

Ubeikan also criticizes takfeer (by default, this promotes its opposite - Irjaa; is not takfeer a part of the Deen?), criticizes how scholars have concentrated on the sciences of Hadeeth instead of Fiqh (why not strike a balance between the two?), has labeled Zarqawi and others with the now-famous label of "Kharijee", and has used harsh words against Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (fakallahu asrah).

As for Shaykh Albanee (rahimahullah), the Madkhalees' using his fataawa as evidence is highly selective. Did he not say the following?:

"…and know that Jihād is of two types:

"The first: Fardh 'Ayn (an individual obligation), and this is fighting the enemy who has attacked the lands of the Muslims, such as the Jews who have occupied Palestine: so every single Muslim is in a state of sin until they (the Jews) are expelled from it.

"The other: Fardh Kifāyah (a communal obligation), if a group fulfills the obligation, then the responsibility falls from everyone else. And (this type) is a struggle to carry the Islāmic Da'wah to the other lands until they are ruled by Islām. So, whoever submits, then he is left alone, and whoever stands in its way, then he is fought until the Word of Allāh is Most High. So, this type of Jihād is ongoing until the Day of Resurrection more so than the first type.

"And unfortunately, some of today's writers have denied this (form of Jihād). Not only that, but they have made this (supposed absence of offensive Jihād) from one of the virtuous and distinguishing characteristics of Islām! And this is not except a sign of their many signs of weakness and laziness in establishing the obligation of Jihād, and the Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) spoke the truth when he said: "If you engage in 'Īna (a form of usury), and hold onto the tails of cattle, and become pleased with agriculture, and leave Jihād in the Path of Allāh, then Allāh will put a humiliation over you that He will not remove until you return to your Dīn." (al-'Aqīdah at-Tahāwiyyah, pp. 82-83).

"And in this popular story is evidence for what is known today as 'suicide operations', which some of the youth of Islaam go about doing to the enemies of Allah, but for this act [to be permissable] are certain conditions, and from the most important of them: For this action to be solely done for the face of Allah and to give victory to the religion of Allah, not for showing off, or repuation, or bravery, or being depressed from life." (Saheeh Mawaarid ath-Thimaan, Vol. 2, p. 119).