Need Help answering this question

[Achmat_Samsodien]

:salam2:

Dear brothers and sister, I need some help answering a question posed by a non muslim. I'm on another forum where there are many who try and defame Islam and attack it around every corner. It really upsets me cause they say the most horrible stuff and are so blind :astag:

One person in particular shows hatred to all religions and posed this question:

How does Islam intend reining in its fundamentalists?

From my perspective as a non-Islam, moderate Islamics appear more as enablers to political religious warfare than as people really cared about peace. When you ask Islamic people about the war in the Middle East and Islam, they say its political not religious, and that it doesnt represent the true face of Islam.

Now if thats the case and the situation in the Middle East is political and not religious, why are the local Muslims talking about boycotting products like Coke and McDonalds.. because from my point of view... it looks religious and political and people are more cared about the man made borders than the God made people in those borders.

Please note: I dont wanna argue the pros and cons of the middle east conflict... thats being debated fully and the same recycled garbage comes out all the time from both sides. I dont think there are any saints in the Middle East so none of the sides need to play the victim here.. both sides are guilty and thats not what this post is about. My question to be answered is in the first line of this post.

I need suggestions in answering this person.
The link to the discussion is here: Islam Discussion
If anyone can help me I will be really greatful and I know there are many knowledgeable forumites on this forum.

May Allah bless the ummah and grant us victory Insha Allah over our enemies

Wasalaamu Alaikum

 

[ventirr]

:salam2:

brother/sister,this person is only projecting the same polarizing rhetoric that goes no where and tries to appear like self-justified intelligent debate for nothing.if you debate with them and answer every question they will go back and forth and at the END will bring you back to square one.

thank god you have a life,they 99.9% most probably dont

an "expert" on the middle east (is what theyre trying to be) wouldnt generalize and pick and choose the very highlights.middle east is tense because it has ALWAYS been either under attack,taken advantage of,messed about with foreign policies and never had a good chance to settle down since very old times.we boycott products because at least this is the very least we can do infront of ourselves and god that we are supporting each other.and if the word "consipracy theory" seems like gibberish to this person,then no bother explaining the law of gravity either :S

there is no way you can spin this without it being religious in the end. it always comes down to god's plan of how history should play out like.


:muslim_child:

 

[muthmainnah]

You should leave this forum brother, what they want is only to mock and defame Islam, they are not going to study islam, so beware of this kind of sites/forums. Allah says in one ayah of the Qur'an (I'm sorry I forget which ayat is) that we should leave some people or groups that talk bad about islam and muslims, do not sit with them and do not listening to what their talking about. Just leave them.
May Allah always guide and protect you. Amin

 

[Achmat_Samsodien]

Jazakallah for the responses.

I refrain from such questions cause shaytaan is with these people.
The thing is someone came with legitimate questions but as always there are the ones with Shaytaan that poison the rest.

I stay clear from religious and political debates on that forum cause they really out of hand all the time. I won't dignify his question with an answer because he'll just turn around and come with something else like brother.sister ventirr has said.

Jazakallah for your responses may Allah reward you in this life and the next Insha Allah!

 

[pcozzy]

:salam2:

brother/sister,this person is only projecting the same polarizing rhetoric that goes no where and tries to appear like self-justified intelligent debate for nothing.if you debate with them and answer every question they will go back and forth and at the END will bring you back to square one.

thank god you have a life,they 99.9% most probably dont

I agree with this statement completely. U know the internet has an overwhelmingly amount of evil. If you look you will even find Shaytan worshipers on it.

The question is discombobulated with the intent to create doubts. Surely a person who wishes to learn about Islam will only be guided by Allah swt.

Here are few ayahs to consider:

​

وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنْ ذُكِّرَ بِآيَاتِ رَبِّهِ فَأَعْرَضَ عَنْهَا وَنَسِيَ مَا قَدَّمَتْ يَدَاهُ ۚ إِنَّا جَعَلْنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَنْ يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا ۖ وَإِنْ تَدْعُهُمْ إِلَى الْهُدَىٰ فَلَنْ يَهْتَدُوا إِذًا أَبَدًا ​

[Hilali-Khan] And who does more wrong than he who is reminded of the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of his Lord, but turns away from them forgetting what (deeds) his hands have sent forth. Truly, We have set veils over their hearts lest they should understand this (the Qur'ân), and in their ears, deafness. And if you (O Muhammad) call them to guidance, even then they will never be guided.[18:57]

وَمَا جَعَلْنَا أَصْحَابَ النَّارِ إِلَّا مَلَائِكَةً ۙ وَمَا جَعَلْنَا عِدَّتَهُمْ إِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لِيَسْتَيْقِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ وَيَزْدَادَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِيمَانًا ۙ وَلَا يَرْتَابَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ ۙ وَلِيَقُولَ الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ مَرَضٌ وَالْكَافِرُونَ مَاذَا أَرَادَ اللَّهُ بِهَٰذَا مَثَلًا ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ يُضِلُّ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي مَنْ يَشَاءُ ۚ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ جُنُودَ رَبِّكَ إِلَّا هُوَ ۚ وَمَا هِيَ إِلَّا ذِكْرَىٰ لِلْبَشَرِ​

[Hilali-Khan] And We have set none but angels as guardians of the Fire, and We have fixed their number (19) only as a trial for the disbelievers, in order that the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) may arrive at a certainty [that this Qur'ân is the truth as it agrees with their Books i.e. their number (19) is written in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] and the believers may increase in Faith (as this Qur'ân is the truth) and that no doubts may be left for the people of the Scripture and the believers, and that those in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy) and the disbelievers may say: "What God intends by this (curious) example ?" Thus God leads astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And none can know the hosts of your Lord but He. And this (Hell) is nothing else than a (warning) reminder to mankind.[74:31]

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنْذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنْذِرْهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ *
خَتَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ وَعَلَىٰ سَمْعِهِمْ ۖ وَعَلَىٰ أَبْصَارِهِمْ غِشَاوَةٌ ۖ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
​

[Hilali-Khan] Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. God has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting God's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment. [2:6-7]



Having stated that it would be wise to suggest to those inquiring about Islam with a sincere heart that they come to this forum.

by the way he said Islam is not defined by political boundry, but Islam also teaches us to correct a wrong by hand, then mouth, then heart; to the extent that we are able to. So yes, no nationalism, but killing innocent humans is a not acceptable.

مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَنْ قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا ۚ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنْهُمْ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فِي الْأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ

​

[Hilali-Khan] Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land -- it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by God by committing the major sins) in the land!.[5:32]

 

[slaveofAllah88]

aslam o alikum
brother i visited that forum and those people are stupid they have no one wat they are talking about i would recomment you dont waste ur time there and spend time praying to Allah (sw)

 

[xSharingan01x]

:salam2:

Insha'Allah I will give you my insight to the question you posed. Yes I'm aware the words that I have quoted are not yours, but it is easier for me to respond this way.

How does Islam intend reining in its fundamentalists?

From my perspective as a non-Islam, moderate Islamics appear more as enablers to political religious warfare than as people really cared about peace. When you ask Islamic people about the war in the Middle East and Islam, they say its political not religious, and that it doesnt represent the true face of Islam.

Do you mean 'moderate Muslims' instead of 'islamics'? Technically it's 'islamist' which is the term associated with Muslims related to different groups with the aim of establishing Islamic state, where as 'moderate Muslims' are used to refereed to vast majority of the Muslims and sometimes specifically the secular leaning Muslims.

Which wars are you referring to? War in Iraq? War in Palestine? Past Arab Israeli war? Nearly all of these wars begin as "nationalistic secular wars". The people who were responsible for conducting and managing these wars were secularist. I suggest you read upon Middle Eastern history

http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Midd...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232481539&sr=1-3
Excellent introductory book if you're curious to know more.*

The Palestinian Resistance did not take a religious tone until the late 80s, even so it was limited mostly to the Hamas movement where as PLO and now Fatah are secularist, they fight for nationalistic cause not a religious one (with the exception of Hamas and few smaller groups).

Now if thats the case and the situation in the Middle East is political and not religious, why are the local Muslims talking about boycotting products like Coke and McDonalds.. because from my point of view... it looks religious and political and people are more cared about the man made borders than the God made people in those borders.

You should keep in mind that majority of the Muslims have a brotherly attachment to their fellow Muslims, even if it's fragile and weak time to time. It is natural and proper for them to show solidarity and support when fellow Muslims are suffering. I will assume you're an American? If so, just like it is natural for American to show solidarity and support toward the victims of Hurricane Katrina because they were fellow Americans, it is the same way for Muslims except their bond is a religious one and not a nationalistic one.

That being said, you should note that practically all government of Middle East (except to some degree Turkey and Israel) are not representative of the people and hence there is great distrust and suspicion between the rulers and the ruled. In a sense, the governments lack the 'social contract'
.
So when government carry out war you shouldn't necessarily hold the people responsible since the governments do not have a mandate from the people and exercise support through others means such as coercion and force.
This can be said about many of the issues which the people do not support yet the government does and hence they rely on various authoritarian methods to achieve their political objectives.

Also, keep in mind most of these governments are called "Pro Western" and "Pro American", supported by United States, and to some degree maintained by her [through financial and military aid].

The majority of the inhabitants of the region are witnessing a religious revival, and since the government of these regions are seen as corrupt, incompetent, and to some degree brutal [rightly so], people are finding hope in opposition groups which are mainly religious.

Since there is a lack of organized political opposition some of the inhabitants of the region fall into religious groups (Muslim Brotherhood being one).
Keep in mind that these religious groups are largely censored and marginalized [mostly kept out of the political process]. Since there is no formal channel through which political opposition can flourish and achieve power, some of these religious groups (usually they are small and are sort of like splinter groups) try to use violent means to acquire fire.
Most however has taken the approach of Muslim Brotherhood, which is to acquire power through legitimate political process.


Why is it so hard to understand that Muslims are willing to boycott different products to show their support and solidarity to Palestinians? Lack of better analogy, The vegetarians protest by boycotting meat and meat related products.

You're also forgetting many of the wars in the region were either conducted or orchestrated from behind the scene by Good old USA ["for strategic presence" as American policy makers like to say ], the defender of shining beacon of democracy and freedom throughout the world .

Let's just say Muslims don't like foreigners invading their land .

Hope this helps.

Muslims cannot "rein in on extremist' if they do not have political power in the region, as of right now they do not. By Muslims I mean the political leadership is not a religious one [mostly secular], and hence is not representative of Islam or Muslims.

 

[xSharingan01x]

wa 'ilaikas salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

I will tell to somebody who said it:

The Palestinian could have Hijrah to Sudan, because the Sudan government offered that help. The Hijrah of Muhajirin was making effect of their lost to their wealth and land, so what? after that they could take it back from the Kafirun at that time.

So many people are taking Democracy as the Moderate idea and that Islam supports Democracy. While it is only an apology for people who failed to build Daulah Islamiyyah after the Khilafah in Turki was destroyed.

The way of Islam is to make people realize that when there is a Daulah Islamiyyah, that won't be using 'Democracy,' but only Syari'at Islam, Islam is rich with all of the ingredients to establish a country, it's the Western who needs to learn from us, regarding the business of running a country. But about sciences and wordly things, then it is their expertise, however Islam already have many things to say about those as well.


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

:salam2:

I wonder if it would be considered committing Kufr or at the very least major shirk if we adopted democracy in our lands?
I'm just curious since I've seen many fatwas saying democracy is a religion and democracy is not Islamic. Which is of course true.

 

[xSharingan01x]

wa 'alaikum salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

Okay, syaikh Sa'ad bin Wahf Al Qahthani said that anyone who take Democracy as equal to syari'at Islam, he is Musyrik.

So the way to declare someone as this type, we must ask why don't they apply it.

About Kemal Attaturk, we could see people say that he was a Kafir because he was destroying Khilafah and then substituted it with Democracy.

Now if we ask people about syari'at Islam, they will say as what you have mentioned.

So now there are many Muslims realising that they are getting nowhere, by contemplating inside a parliament which based on democracy, that it could help syari'at Islam or to build Daulah Islamiyyah.

The Jihad Fi sabilillah now, is through Dakwah outside of parliament based on Democracy, this will work, because too many Dakwah activist being busied to do Dakwah through parliament, while the whole notion of Dakwah, which is clearly seen and clearly explicit, can not emerge through contemplation of that in a Kafir ideas based parliament.

Not just that, the people who support Islam based country could be numbered, so not voting for any parties is a consequence for Daulah Islamiyyah, and so too with the out of Dakwah activists from Dunya orientation which they created from entering a Dunya based parliament, while they are minority in that parliament.

Thank you sharingan, I knew that you're an Egyptian who works or has education in USA? and at vacation, goes back to Mishri. Right?

Rasululullah had forbade us to rebel against a Muslim leader, but he also had forbade us from obeying the leaders when they instruct us to do unlawful things or to be their helper in unlawful things(like Democracy).
Infact it is what Syaithan sell(freedom to make yourselves as new idols).


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

:salam2:
Thank you for explaining. There are many things that I would like to say, but I would rather not get into an argument. Once again thank you.

I don't think it's a factual or fair claim to say Kamal "Ataturk" destroyed the Khalifa. The Khalifa was already weak and was pretty much destroyed by the Allied forces after world war I, and Kamal "Ataturk" was able to muster unity and beat off the Greeks from Turkey. If he hadn't done that, Turkey would have been colonised just like most of the Muslim countries. Yes he harmed Islam in Turkey and Islamic traditions and did many unlawful acts, however most of the leaders nowdays do worst except they do it from behind the scenes while.


HAHA, I'm not Egyptian nor am I an Arab. I will let you figure that one out .

 

[Achmat_Samsodien]

:salam2:

Insha'Allah I will give you my insight to the question you posed. Yes I'm aware the words that I have quoted are not yours, but it is easier for me to respond this way.


Do you mean 'moderate Muslims' instead of 'islamics'? Technically it's 'islamist' which is the term associated with Muslims related to different groups with the aim of establishing Islamic state, where as 'moderate Muslims' are used to refereed to vast majority of the Muslims and sometimes specifically the secular leaning Muslims.

Which wars are you referring to? War in Iraq? War in Palestine? Past Arab Israeli war? Nearly all of these wars begin as "nationalistic secular wars". The people who were responsible for conducting and managing these wars were secularist. I suggest you read upon Middle Eastern history

http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Midd...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232481539&sr=1-3
Excellent introductory book if you're curious to know more.*

The Palestinian Resistance did not take a religious tone until the late 80s, even so it was limited mostly to the Hamas movement where as PLO and now Fatah are secularist, they fight for nationalistic cause not a religious one (with the exception of Hamas and few smaller groups).




You should keep in mind that majority of the Muslims have a brotherly attachment to their fellow Muslims, even if it's fragile and weak time to time. It is natural and proper for them to show solidarity and support when fellow Muslims are suffering. I will assume you're an American? If so, just like it is natural for American to show solidarity and support toward the victims of Hurricane Katrina because they were fellow Americans, it is the same way for Muslims except their bond is a religious one and not a nationalistic one.

That being said, you should note that practically all government of Middle East (except to some degree Turkey and Israel) are not representative of the people and hence there is great distrust and suspicion between the rulers and the ruled. In a sense, the governments lack the 'social contract'
.
So when government carry out war you shouldn't necessarily hold the people responsible since the governments do not have a mandate from the people and exercise support through others means such as coercion and force.
This can be said about many of the issues which the people do not support yet the government does and hence they rely on various authoritarian methods to achieve their political objectives.

Also, keep in mind most of these governments are called "Pro Western" and "Pro American", supported by United States, and to some degree maintained by her [through financial and military aid].

The majority of the inhabitants of the region are witnessing a religious revival, and since the government of these regions are seen as corrupt, incompetent, and to some degree brutal [rightly so], people are finding hope in opposition groups which are mainly religious.

Since there is a lack of organized political opposition some of the inhabitants of the region fall into religious groups (Muslim Brotherhood being one).
Keep in mind that these religious groups are largely censored and marginalized [mostly kept out of the political process]. Since there is no formal channel through which political opposition can flourish and achieve power, some of these religious groups (usually they are small and are sort of like splinter groups) try to use violent means to acquire fire.
Most however has taken the approach of Muslim Brotherhood, which is to acquire power through legitimate political process.


Why is it so hard to understand that Muslims are willing to boycott different products to show their support and solidarity to Palestinians? Lack of better analogy, The vegetarians protest by boycotting meat and meat related products.

You're also forgetting many of the wars in the region were either conducted or orchestrated from behind the scene by Good old USA ["for strategic presence" as American policy makers like to say ], the defender of shining beacon of democracy and freedom throughout the world .

Let's just say Muslims don't like foreigners invading their land .

Hope this helps.

Muslims cannot "rein in on extremist' if they do not have political power in the region, as of right now they do not. By Muslims I mean the political leadership is not a religious one [mostly secular], and hence is not representative of Islam or Muslims.

:salam2:

Jazakallah Khayran for you brother Sharingan.
Though I've ejected myself from that thread on that forum your answer is pretty much what I was looking for. The one who posed the question in the first place has also left. His just another arrogant atheist out there. Is it me or is being an atheist like a "hip" new thing, hahahaha.

Also about your Mustafa Kemal Attaturk, he killed off the ulema of the remainig Khliafah placed a statue of himself over the graves. The man was blindly arrogant and a Sheikh I study under here at home said he was an alcoholic and a child molester as well. The man was arrogant and an Opressor thus Allah Punished him here on the Doenyah and most likely in the Aagirah as well.

May Allah guide us and keep us on the straight path Insha Allah

 

[Abdul Hasib]

Brother, a good response that you can give to that kid (when he talks about "Muslims" not being peaceful in the Middle East,) is that Muslims have stopped practicing Islam; and for those that DO practice Islam, they do so in some degree.
That is why when cases happen like the Middle East, the "Muslims," start to act upon their own opinion, what they want to do themselves, without thinking about what Islam tells them to do. Because Rasulallah (SAW) taught Muslims (the Muhaajir) patience. Him and the Muhajireen were beaten and tortured for 13 years, exiled, and not allowed to live a proper life. And through all the suffering, the Muslims later on started to learn patience, respecting the Islamic rules of war (to not kill any innocent non combatant, and not to excessively kill or damage), and, fighting for only Allah Ta Alla's sake, NOT for revenge, which is happening with what Hamas is doing, firing rockets into Israel as revenge for killing the Palestinian Muslims and their soldiers, but if they REALLY had the intention to fight out of obediance and for the sake of Allah, they would've followed the Islamic rules of war (by staying patient), and would only kill the combatants, NOT the civilians.

Wa Salam.

 

[xSharingan01x]

:salam2:


Also about your Mustafa Kemal Attaturk, he killed off the ulema of the remainig Khliafah placed a statue of himself over the graves. The man was blindly arrogant and a Sheikh I study under here at home said he was an alcoholic and a child molester as well. The man was arrogant and an Opressor thus Allah Punished him here on the Doenyah and most likely in the Aagirah as well.

May Allah guide us and keep us on the straight path Insha Allah

:salam2:
I don't know anything about him being alcoholic and child molestor. Yes I'm aware he did many things to harm Islam and Muslims because of zealous passion for secularism and love of "western way", but the point is that shouldn't be the reason to dismiss him as a bad person and not recognize what good he did for his country. Rulers nowdays do much worse to harm Islam and Muslims, except they do those things behind closed door where as Kamal "Ataturk" did it openly. Get the drift? Unlike the ones today, He wasn't a sell out concerning his country.
Don't worry I'm not a fan of his, in fact I dislike his 'legacy' precisely because he harmed Islamic instutions and traditions.

 

[xSharingan01x]

:salam2:

brother/sister,this person is only projecting the same polarizing rhetoric that goes no where and tries to appear like self-justified intelligent debate for nothing.if you debate with them and answer every question they will go back and forth and at the END will bring you back to square one.

You put it in perfect terms. Most of the people who debate/argue on forums do it for the sake of debating instead of curiosity for knowledge, and you will hardly ever influence their existing ideas.

 

[Achmat_Samsodien]

:salam2:
I don't know anything about him being alcoholic and child molestor. Yes I'm aware he did many things to harm Islam and Muslims because of zealous passion for secularism and love of "western way", but the point is that shouldn't be the reason to dismiss him as a bad person and not recognize what good he did for his country. Rulers nowdays do much worse to harm Islam and Muslims, except they do those things behind closed door where as Kamal "Ataturk" did it openly. Get the drift? Unlike the ones today, He wasn't a sell out concerning his country.
Don't worry I'm not a fan of his, in fact I dislike his 'legacy' precisely because he harmed Islamic instutions and traditions.

I must disagree!

The fact that he murdered the last remnants of the Khilafah most certainly made him a bad person. Also the man encouraged the production of Alcohol

Despite the Islamic prohibition against alcoholic beverages, Ataturk encouraged domestic production of alcohol and established a state-owned spirits industry. He was known to have an appreciation for the national beverage, rakı, and enjoyed it in vast quantities.

This man made the Haram Halaal and that is one of the worst sins in the eyes of Allah.

 

[xSharingan01x]

I must disagree!

The fact that he murdered the last remnants of the Khilafah most certainly made him a bad person. Also the man encouraged the production of Alcohol


This man made the Haram Halaal and that is one of the worst sins in the eyes of Allah.

:salam2:

lol, I'm not arguing that he is a bad person or that he harmed Islam and Muslims...... I'm saying he did what most rulers do today but we don't judge the rulers today with the same standard (the difference being he did it openly whereas people do it under the tables ). Most rulers made what's haram halal today, but our standard surprisingly has changed. People mistakenly blame him for the 'downfall' of Ottoman caliphate when in reality the caliphate was already gone even before Kamal came to power.


If you need evidence send me a PM, I don't want this thread to be closed.

 

[xSharingan01x]

Wa 'alaikum salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

Well, at least they could established Daulah Islamiyyah, eventhough they had refused Khilafah, because Khilafah is the unity of all Daulah Islamiyyah.

So offcourse when we see that only Saudi Arabia as the only state which many of things in Syari'at Islam are established in there. We could not help but by saying "They want peace with Isra'el, until all Muslim help them to establish a Khilafah by obeying Allahu Ta'ala.

I could say that most of Muslim are not better than Saudi Arabia, but they claim that aren't themselves instead which bring all that losses to themselves, not Saudi Arabia.

If they could do better than Saudi Arabia, they would become Daulah Islamiyyah at this moment. For instance: There are people who only want the Muslims to have Millat like that of Kafirun, and they live spread into every Muslim's country.

Rasulullah Shalallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam said that the people who will fight hard and in continuance against Dajjal and his army, is from At Tamimi tribe, now I want to know, why the At Tamimi tribe which lives in Africa, Indonesia etc would be the best tribe who will fight Dajjal?
My guess is that because they follow the Mazhab of the man who lived 2 centuries ago from the At Tamimi tribe, his name is Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab At Tamimi.

If just Muslim meet Imam Mahdi's time, where there will be Daulah Islamiyyah and Khilafah. Would that mean there will be Jihad Fi Sabilillah? Ofcourse there will be. So that will happen when Muslim discard Democracy, Syirik, Khurafat, calling people with nicknames, Bid'ah. These are only for: "People who walk in this earth but their heart are on the Heaven." Their hearts are like the heart of 1 man."


assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.

:salam2:

Are referring to the descendants of the Sahaba named Tamimi who lived Palestine and was given a trust by Rasulallah ?
For those of who don't know some tribes in Palestine became Muslims during the time of Rasulallah. One of these tribe was given a trust (piece of land) by Rasulallah .

Anyone know the complete name of the Sahaba named Tamimi who was from Palestine? Much of this land is still maintained by his descendant to this day. Somewhere in Westbank.

 

[xSharingan01x]

:salam2:

B ump. Anyone know the answer to my question on the above post?