Question Wajdi Akari's interpretation of Hadith

Discussion in 'Identity, Activism and Unity' started by Die for Allah, May 3, 2012.

  1. Die for Allah

    Die for Allah TIOCFAIDH AR LA

    He interprets the hadith in such a way that it means one would need to see i.e witness clear open major kufr before he can be certain the ruler is a disbeliever and as such be permitted to fight and remove him.The wording in the hadith is "you see" but does that mean that only that literal interpretation is correct or would the interpretation "if you come to know with certainty" be correct.

    It seems to me that this is a classic example of Salafis adopting a Dahiri approach to hadith in order for it to fit their agenda/desires.Please note I'm not saying Abu Musab is following desires as I'm sure as a student he has been taught this and he is only parroting what his teachers have told him.

    Watch first couple of minutes to listen to his interpretation of the hadith.

    [video=youtube;K91t0L1CDG8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K91t0L1CDG8&feature=player_embedded[/video]
     
  2. al-Qanun

    al-Qanun أمريكي

    i don't see anything wrong with what he said because seeing with your own eyes is the most obvious proof that you could have with Allah. however, with youtube, documentaries and news broadcasts we can see all their kufr openly. just like we can say Wajdi Akkari said such and such because we saw it on a youtube channel even if we were not physically present.

    many of these leaders openly admit to their kufr without shame. the problem is some 'ulema disguise this kufr and make a distinction between their speech and intentions. so leaders admit to ruling his nation as a socialist state without any desire to rule with shari'ah but he will say he's muslim to prevent rebellion.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2012
  3. Die for Allah

    Die for Allah TIOCFAIDH AR LA

    What about in a time where such mediums did not exist, would it have been necessary for each and every one of those who rebelled to have witnessed the kufr for themselves?

    If the interpretation is that "you see" and no other interpretation is valid then that would necessitate that each and every person seeking to remove a ruler would need to be a witness, would it not?
     
  4. al-Qanun

    al-Qanun أمريكي

    yes. i would imagine so. due to the gravity of the situation one should be certain and what other way is there to have certainty? since there is no wahi everything is based on what is apparent and this means we have to see it.

    what people are showing us is what we judge them by. otherwise are you saying that if some claim the ruler has shown kufr we should believe them and aid them? it may be that what they see is not necessarily kufr or they may have ulterior motives.
     
  5. Die for Allah

    Die for Allah TIOCFAIDH AR LA

    Mutawatir reports from believing men and women, the word of a trustworthy scholar,the word of a trust worthy amir etc.


    Not necessarily, for example I have come to know that the sharia is not being applied in many Muslim countries yet I have not witnessed this myself.I know that there are places where you can purchase alcohol,and night clubs etc in Muslim countries and these places are legal by the law of that land yet I have not seen them for myself.



    Yes if the people are trustworthy and the reports are numerous, I did not witness any kufr from Gadafi yet I came to know of his kufr with certainty.
     
  6. al-Qanun

    al-Qanun أمريكي

    ok i see, you do have a point there. perhaps then the ones leading the rebellion have to have seen it with their own eyes first hand.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2012
  7. Layth

    Layth Abu Shawarma

    Akhi I don't think it is wise to have more than one thread dealing with this particular brother. Even in the other thread, people bombarded him from all sides asking him to clarify one thing after the other instead of just keeping the discussion to what it was originally about. Even with regard to the original topic of the thread, there were three or four people debating him at once. Obviously the brother was overwhelmed by all this and took things personally and therefore he stopped posting. Allahu A'lam.
     
  8. Die for Allah

    Die for Allah TIOCFAIDH AR LA

    Yes akh, but my question is addressed more at the brothers here who might know the correct sharh of the hadith rather than him personally.

    I dont think the brother would want to engage in any kind of discussion regardless of how many people wanted to question him as can be seen from the Isbal thread, and that is his choice.
     
    Layth likes this.
  9. A.H

    A.H Ali Harfouch

    His point is irrelevant. Our debate over the declaring takfir over the "Arab-Muslim" rulers has also been largely futile as it ignores the true nature of the issue. Is the state-apparatus neutral, or does it have its own distinct ideological foundations? And the act of legislation - is it carried out by the “Ruler” or by a complete legislative branch of the government and the implementation of which is carried out by another wide branch of the state apparatus? And hence the taghout is the regime and/or state apparatus in its totality and entirety. The status of those individuals within the apparatus then becomes a secondary and jurisprudential debate. And hence rebellion against the system becomes obligatory regardless of whether or not the “ruler” is a disbeliever or not, as does a complete disassociation with the regime.
     
    Abu Kamel and Layth like this.

Share This Page