Video SYRIA Takfiri Rebels Threaten To Use Chemical Weapons On Alawite Villages

Discussion in 'New and Current Affairs' started by sclavus, Sep 17, 2013.

  1. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum

    We will wait for the time, when you will learn even more about Islam and start considering all state-less jihaadis, including Ahrar and Alnusrah as fasaadis and khawaarij.

    We will also wait for the time, when you will come to know, that democracy is an implementation of "Amruhum shura bainahum [They (the believers) settle their affairs with mutual consultation]" in our times and it is not a system of kufr.

    We will also wait for the time, when you will realize, that Khilaafah is not an islamic term and it is not a religious duty of muslims to live under one ruler, who they call Khalifah.

    Welcome to Islam and welcome to the reality of muslims.

    Wassalamu alaikum
  2. Abdul-Halim265
    Cheerful
    Offline

    Abdul-Halim265 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2013
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Ratings Received:
    +67 / 0
    1) I don't see how you can call them Kharijites. Have they done anything extremist like Da'esh, and are they not implementing shari'ah?

    2) Democracy can be a system of kufr in the sense that (in its current form) it gives the decision making over to the majority of the people, who are free to do anything they please according to the general consensus, including abolish shari'ah. Therefore the whim of the majority is what makes decisions. For the record, I'm not against the people having a say in their own affairs by any means; I'm a huge supporter of freedom. But there needs to be a line that shouldn't be crossed. Too much freedom, given over to those without understanding or education (most Muslims today sadly don't understand these concepts) can't be a good thing.

    3) I'm not saying that living under a caliphate is fardh upon us. Nor did I call for its restoration in my posts on here (regardless of my personal beliefs). However, look at history's lessons - the Muslims were secure and protected when living under a single body, united. Now we're divided and ruled over by bloodsucking leeches that profess to be "Muslim rulers", yet help the kuffar to wage war against us. That's pure riddah.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. saif
    Offline

    saif Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings Received:
    +66 / 8
    Assalamu alaikum brother Adul-Halim

    My basic objection was, they are stateless jihadis. Starting a war is no joke, which can be left on individuals or a group, which does not even represent a state, on behalf of which an important decision of starting a war could be taken.

    War involves endangering millions of lives. Those millions of people, who are endagered by the war should take full responsibility of their decisions. We cannot allow some other individuals, no matter how pious they are, to start a war on their behalf.

    The decision about a war also involves some comparison of power. Even if a state wants to help oppressed citizen of another oppressor state, they have to have at least half the power of the state they want to attack. I don't think, any such calculation was done.

    Da'esh are doing nothing, which would go against the normal and well known Salafiyyah interpretation of Islam. They always have a fatwah to quote. So when they kill Yazidis, when the enslave their women, when they kill shia and alawites, they do that according to some well known fatwas, which are not new on the horizon. Mostly, they are from the same or similar "scholars", who are declaring them to be Khawarij.

    Implementing Shari'ah is a new vocabulary to Islam. Shariah is to act upon. We should all act upon Shariah and invite others to do the same. We should act upon shariah and ask our rulers to do the same. Just like we do not do takfir of our fellow muslims for not acting on one or the other injuction of shariah, we should also not do takfir of the rulers/ruling class/ministers/parliamentarians for not acting upon one or the other injunction of Shariah. However, inviting them to do so is our right and our duty.

    Remember, majority decision is not always correct. But it is the means to resolve the conflicts, which is supported by Quran. Quran is not saying, with mutual consultation, the muslims will always reach the correct decision. What it is saying is, that muslims should resolve their conflicts by using this means.

    The resolution of conflict by using majority voting will also apply, when there is a difference of opinion in the interpretation of Shariah. It cannot be left to a head-mufti/scholar/mullah. The people should have the choice to select the one or the other interpretation.

    The beauty of this system is, that it can self-correct itself. If a nation makes a wrong decision, people like yourself can campaign against it make the minds of the people to correct their decision.

    Why would a nation not act upon shariah, if they are muslims? And even if they do reject shariah in one or the other matter, as long as you and I have the freedom to invite them to act upon shariah, we can hope to change their mind in the next elections or later.

    Why should we impose laws on people, who collectively or with a vast majority reject them? That can only mean, there is some basic work to be done.

    I would very much favour the unity of muslims as a rational decision. My point was, if somebody thinks it is our religious duty to establish a single state for muslims, then I would be very much interested to see his arguments.

    Wassalamu alaikum

Share This Page