Who are the Muslim Moderates (Neo-Mods) ?

[sahal]

This contradiction is a Tip of the iceberg of contradictions of this Cult.

 

These contradictions include that they refused other muslims to have their own name, leader enz. while they are not only have their own name and leader but also are very proud to them.

their claim that they follow the SALAF but the reality is that they follow KHALAF.

Their claim that SALAF were slaves to the oppresive rulers while the reality was totally different from their claim.

their claim that Muslims should leave from Kufr countries while most of them live in EU, US and Canada etc.

their claims that it's forbidden to establish communities in the western countries while they have their own communities in these countries.

and last but not least their claim that the photograph is forbidden and not allowed muslims to have or to use any kind of photograph (including passaport photograph) and

[OG_Girl]

***********DELETED*************

 

 

I shouldnt have interfered between you. I let you battle out cause neither have good intentions.

 

 

Salam

[Paragon]

Salafi_online,

 

Thank you very much for answering my question sxb. Ramadaan Kariim

[sahal]

Og-girl the only one who knows the intentions is ALLAH.

 

For me, my purpose was to expose the contradictions and decieves of this cult and i did ALXAMDULILAH. I hope that everyone is clear now about this group, where they come from who funded and their purpose etc.

[OG_Girl]

sahal,brother, I know this group whatever name they call them selves doesn't matter to me . And I don't even read for them..lol

 

I know them well believe me , Hope you let our brother Salafi sink with some thing he doesn't understand.

 

Salam

[AYOUB]

Salafi online:

Brother I wish you would follow the salaf and shun your opinions! Allah order this ummah to follow the Salaf, The messenger ordered this ummah to follows and adher to the methodology of the salaf!

Brother I did not say I reject everything you say, I just disagree with some or your way of presenting it. Even if I say I am one, i'm sure there will be things we disagree upon. I do respect and read books by Salafi scholars as well scholars who do/did not consider themselves Salafis and that's where we part.

 

BTW- I've deleted the bottom Hadith and thanks for the correction.

[Rahima]

This is an act of kufr! But this does not necessarily mean the person who is doing this kufr is a kafir! Prior to ousting the one in authority, you must apply the conditions of takfir! And once they are labelled a kafir by the people of knowledge, deposing them would become permissible! (as long as the good outweighs the evil of course!)

So allow me to clarify, are you saying that unless complete kufr is established (that takes one out of the fold of Islam) the leader of Muslims must not be deposed? Are you saying that regardless of what the leader of Muslims does (be it commit massacres or steal the wealth of the Muslims) he needs to be kept in place even if there is no fear of a greater fitna if he is deposed? If so, what is your daleel? Furthermore are you saying that the Saudi government has not aided the kuffaar against their fellow Muslims- mind you aiding can be in many forms.

 

Also, what do you make of the acceptance speech of Abu bakr when he was chosen as the prophet’s successor?

 

Finally, is it appropriate that we go to seek the opinion of a scholar regarding for example the mechanics of an automobile or rather an engineer? We can ask the scholar for example what is the islamic ruling regarding a leader who aids the non-Muslims, but it it appropriate we ask him whether or not that leader is in fact aiding the non-Muslims. It is not clear from recent world events the stance of the royal family? Even to use the aid of the kuffar to find Usama, does this not constitute as using the help of the non-Muslims against a fellow Muslims (considering we have established that irrespective of his sins he is still a Muslim)?

 

Please excuse me for my many questions, just trying to work out where you stand on the issue.

 

JZK and ramadaan kariim.

[Salafi_Online]

I went on a little frenzy

 

Everyone Except Rahima, i would only go to the last post! its the juice of my understanding of this deen via way of the Salaf!

hope you like reading the works of the real scholars of islam! Ahlul Ilm!

 

this is my favourite quote

 

 

Zaa’idah ibn Qudaamah who said, “I said to Mansoor ibn ah-Mu’tamir,

When I am fasting can I revile the Ruler (Sultaan)?’ He said, ‘No.’ I then said, ‘Then

can I revile the People of Desires (i.e. Innovators)?’ He said, ‘Yes.†[Al-Hilyah of Aboo

Nu’aym, 5/41-42 and As-Samt wa Aadaabil-Lisaan of Ibn Abee Dunyaa, p. 145]

 

Rahima dont you just love the Salaf

im sure one of these days you will be true to your words and start quoting them!

 

Music to my ears!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Are you saying that regardless of what the leader of Muslims does (be it commit massacres or steal the wealth of the Muslims) he needs to be kept in place even if there is no fear of a greater fitna if he is deposed?

Bismillah alhamdulillah;

I believe there will be a time when we will have oppressive rulers! perhaps this is the time! but i shall stick to the hadith of the messenger of Allah and obey them, even if they beat my back or steal my wealth! Others on the hand wish to contradict the messenger(saw)! their account is with Allah!

 

Are you saying that regardless of what the leader of Muslims does (be it commit massacres or steal the wealth of the Muslims) he needs to be kept in place even if there is no fear of a greater fitna if he is deposed?

What do u mean? If a ruler has the power to commit massacre and steal, the only way to depose is through combat! So lets assume he has greater manpower, it will inevitably generate greater fitnah! However if your manpower is equal or greater then his, in such case he wouldn’t dare commit massacres or steal your wealth, that’s simply rubbish and illogical!

 

what kind of question is this, after all we went through? I posted what Shaykh Fawzan said about the gov of Saudiyah also Muqbil and Alanjari! Do you think they’re lying or being deceptive? If you know something we dont, please share!

 

‘There will be, after me, leaders that will not seek guidance from my

guidance, nor will they follow my Sunnah. There will be among them men with hearts

of devils in the bodies of people. ‘

I said, ‘What should I do, oh Messenger of Allaah, if I reach that time?’

He said: ‘Listen to and obey your leader even if he beats your back and your wealth is

taken – listen and obey.’†[Reported by Bukhaaree, Muslim, Ibn Majah, al-Bayhaaqee]

 

The Prophet said: ‘‘The person must obey in whatever he loves, and in whatever he hates, in ease and in hardship, in willingness and un-willingness; except if he is commanded to disobey Allaah. So if he is commanded to disobey Allaah, then he should not listen, not should he obey.’’ Related by al-Bukhaaree (4/203)

 

 

Rahima Please read the following carefully!

 

 

The Shaykh and Imaam, ’Abdul-Lateef Ibn ’Abdur-Rahmaan Ibn Hasan aalush-Shaykh - may Allaah have mercy upon them all - said,

 

in powerful words that uncover the confusing doubts in this topic and that refute the one who spreads them from amongst the ignoramuses: "… And those people - those who are under trial - do not know that with the exception of ’Umar Ibn ’Abdul-’Azeez and whoever Allaah willed from among the Banee Umayyah - great mishaps, insolence, taking up arms [against the people] and corruption occurred from most of those in charge [wullaat] of the people of Islaam from the time of Yazeed Ibn Mu’aawiyah [till the present]. But along with that, the manner and behaviour of the notable scholars and mighty leaders with the rulers is well-known and renowned - they do not raise a hand against giving obedience in that which Allaah and His Messenger have commanded from among the legislated actions and obligatory duties of Islaam.

 

And I will give you an example - that of al-Hajjaaj Ibn Yoosuf ath-Thaqafee, and his affair is well known in the ummah - that of oppression, repression, excessiveness in spilling the blood [of the Muslims], desecration of the Sanctities of Allaah, the killing of whomever he killed amongst the notables of the ummah such as Sa’eed bin Jubair, the besieging of Ibn az-Zubair even though he had sought refuge in the Haram, and making lawful the sacred and sanctified, the killing of Ibn az-Zubair - even though Ibn az-Zubair had given obedience to him and the people of Makkah, Madeenah, Yemen, and most of 'Iraaq had given the pledge of allegiance to him [ibn az-Zubair] and al-Hajjaaj was only a deputy of Marwaan, and then of his son 'Abdul-Maalik and none of the khulafaa’ (successors) had given Marwaan a pledge and none of the influential people, those with power had given the pledge of allegiance to him. And along with all of this none of the People of Knowledge hesitated in obeying him and complying with him in that in which obedience is permissible from amongst the pillars of Islaam and its obligations.

 

And Ibn ‘Umar and whoever met al-Hajjaaj were from amongst the Companions of Allaah’s Messenger , and they never contested with him and nor did they prevent obedience to him in that by which Islaam is established and by which eemaan (faith) is perfected. And it is likewise for those who were also in the era of al-Hajjaaj from among the taab’ieen such as Ibn al-Musayyib, al-Hasan al-Basree, Ibn Seereen, Ibraaheem at-Taymee and those like them from among the leaders of the ummah.

And the affair continued like this between the leading scholars of the ummah - they would enjoin obedience to Allaah and His Messenger and making jihaad in His path along with every leader [imaam] whether righteous or sinful, as is well known in the books of the fundamental principles and beliefs of the religion.

 

And similarly, Banoo al-‘Abbaas, they conquered the lands of the Muslims forcefully, with the sword - and not one of the People of Knowledge and Religion aided them in that - and they killed hordes of people and many of the creation from among the Banoo 'Umayyah, their leaders and their deputies. And they killed Ibn Hubayrah, the ameer of 'Iraaq and they also killed Marwaan, the khaleefah - and it was reported that the murderers killed around eighty people from the Banoo 'Umayyah in a single day - and then they placed their blankets above the corpses, sat upon them and then called for food and drink.

 

So along with all of that the conduct of the leading scholars - such as al-‘Awzaa’ee, Maalik, al-Layth ibn Sa’d, ‘Ataa Ibn Abee Rabaah - with those kings is not hidden from the one who has a share in knowledge and realization. And then next generation of the People of Knowledge such as Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Muhammad Ibn Ismaa’eel, Muhammad Ibn Idrees, Ahmad Ibn Nooh, Ishaaq Ibn Rahawayh and their brothers … their occurred in their time what occurred from the kings of the great innovations and the denial of the Sifaat (Attributes of Allaah) and they were called to [affirm] these things and were put to trial by them] and whoever was killed, was killed such as Ahmad Ibn Nasr. But along with all of this it is not known that a single one of them raised his hand against obedience [to those kings] and that he saw fit to attack them…"

 

Therefore, in light of the above it is necessary to give obedience to whomever is appointed over the Muslims!, whether this occurs by their agreement or otherwise, in all the various lands. However this obedience is conditional in that it should be upon the ma’roof, (good) since there is no obedience to the creation in disobedience to the creation. This is the companions of the earliest times!

 

 

Rahima are we to contradict the Companions, and the righteous Scholars, could it be that we understand the religion better then them?

 

 

Also, what do you make of the acceptance speech of Abu bakr when he was chosen as the prophet’s successor?

I remember reading his speech, but I do not have it with me, if memory serves me right, it had to do with fighting him if he disobeys Allah and his messenger(I understand this as not ruling by the laws of islam)! But it would be best if you’d post!

 

Finally, is it appropriate that we go to seek the opinion of a scholar regarding for example the mechanics of an automobile or rather an engineer? We can ask the scholar for example what is the islamic ruling regarding a leader who aids the non-Muslims, but it it appropriate we ask him whether or not that leader is in fact aiding the non-Muslims. It is not clear from recent world events the stance of the royal family? Even to use the aid of the kuffar to find Usama, does this not constitute as using the help of the non-Muslims against a fellow Muslims (considering we have established that irrespective of his sins he is still a Muslim)?

Im not sure I know what you mean, but why wouldnt you ask a scholar whether a leader is aiding the non muslims or not! im sure if its obvious to the people,why not him?

 

 

Osama is upon the ideology of the khawarij, the people of knowledge have differed about their status! some of the Ahlul Ilm Consider them kufar, whereas others take them as fasiqqoon, the former label carries more weight! Osama ibn laden and his cronies have waged a war on government establishments and the muslims in general! They are radicals who find no bound in fundamentalism! Thus they have become the enemies of ahlul sunnah! I remember reading the seerah of the messenger of Allah(saw) the first treaty he took with the Kufar; when something like this†we fight along side each other; and if any of our adversary fight one of us we fight them togetherâ€

 

PLUS WHERE WERE YOU WHEN OSAMA WAS BED BUDDIES WITH THE USA ADM!

 

I gather you reside in a kafir land! So what you understand of current and past event depends on what see and read from the kufar, you do not have first hand experience like Fawzan and other scholar who reside in the saudiyah and mid-east!

 

I do not understand why we keep going over the condition and affairs of the royal family (it’s really really tedious)! I was positive you took from the scholar, the people with knowledge! Didn’t I not illustrated their position! Do u know something they dont?

 

 

Few fatwah for you to consider!

 

Hijacking planes and kidnapping

*reference : www.fatwa-online.com,)

 

 

From that which is known to everyone who has the slightest bit of common sense is that hijacking airplanes and kidnapping children and the like are extremely great crimes, the world over. Their evil effects are far and wide, as is the great harm and inconvenience caused to the innocent; the total effect of which none can comprehend except Allaah.

 

Likewise, from that which is known is that these crimes are not specific to any particular country over and above another country, nor any specific group over and above another group, rather it encompasses the whole world.

 

There is no doubt about the effect of these crimes; so it is obligatory upon the governments and those responsible from amongst the scholars and other than them to afford these issues great concern, and to exert themselves as much as possible in ending this evil .

 

Shaykh Ibn Baaz

Kayfa Nu'aalij Waaqi'unaa al-Aleem - Page 108-109

 

 

Question and Answer by Bin Baaz Via Fatwaonline.com

 

Question: Is it permissible to build upon the peace treaty with the Jewish enemy by allowing them what is termed normalization of relations; and allowing them to take economic benefit from the Islaamic lands and other spheres which will give them great benefit and increase their strength and establish them further upon the Islaamic lands which they have misappropriated; and the Muslims can open their markets for them to sell their goods, and that they must open economic foundations - such as banks and businesses in which the Jews have a share along with the Muslims, and that they must likewise share the water sources such as the Nile and the Euphrates - even though they do not flow through Palestine?

 

Response: The peace between the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Jews does not necessitate what the questioner mentioned with regards to the rest of the countries. Rather, each country sees what is beneficial So if it sees that it is beneficial for the Muslims in its land to have peace with the Jews and to exchange ambassadors and to engage in trade and other dealings which are considered lawful by the pure Sharee'ah of Allaah, then this is alright.

 

However, if it sees that the benefit for it and its people lies in cutting-off from the Jews, then it should act as the Sharee'ah requires and benefit necessitates Likewise, with regard to all the rest of the kaafir lands - their ruling being the same as the Jews in this matter.

 

So what is obligatory upon everyone who is in charge of the affairs of the Muslims -whether he is a king, and Ameer or a President of a Republic: - is that he takes care of what is beneficial to his people and allows what will be beneficial to them, from those matters which Allaah has not forbidden in His pure Sharee'ah, and that he prevents other than that with any kaafir state, acting upon the saying of Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic:

 

{Indeed, Allaah does command you to render back the trusts to those to whom they are due}, [soorah al-Maa.idah, Aayah 58]

 

{So if they incline to peace, then you too incline to peace}, [soorah al-Anfaal, Aayah 61]

 

And following also the example of the (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) in the peace treaties he made with the people of Makkah, and the Jews in Madeenah and in Khaybar. And he (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) said in an authentic hadeeth:

 

((Each one of you is a responsible guardian and each one of you will be asked about those he is responsible for. So the ruler over the people is a responsible guardian and will be questioned concerning those he is responsible for; and the man is the responsible guardian over the people of his house and will be questioned about those he is responsible for, and the woman is the responsible guardian in the house of her husband and will be questioned about those she is responsible for; and the slave is a responsible guardian over the wealth of his owner and will be questioned about his responsibility. Indeed, each of you is a responsible guardian and will be questioned about what he is responsible for)), [al-Bukhaaree (13/100) and Muslim (no.1829]]

[Salafi_Online]

This might help inshallah

 

By Shaykh Fawzan via fatwaonline.com

 

 

AT-TAFJEERAAT WA TAHLEELAAT AL-MUNAAFIQEEN

All praise is due to Allaah, the Lord of all the Worlds, and salaat and salaam be upon the trustworthy Prophet, our Prophet Muhammad, upon his family, his companions and [all] those following them in goodness, until the Day of Judgement. To proceed:

 

Verily, when the shocking event occurred, the event of the bombings in the city of Riyaadh undertaken by the violent and barbarious (savage) hands, in the capital of the land of tawheed, they turned upon the religion, and upon humanity (by way of this act of theirs), and the Kuffaar have taken them as riding animal in order to attack Islaam and the Muslims. And this action of their was a result of their ignorance, their being deceived and their evil nurturing, and their breaking off from the society and their turning away from learning the beneficial knowledge, and taking it from those who (truly) possess it, and also restricting themselves to their own faulty understandings and their stagnant views.

 

And their affair in this matter, is the affair of the Khawaarij Renegades, those who killed the two Rightly Guided Caliphs, Uthmaan and Alee (radhi-yallaahu 'anhumaa), and also their concern with killing Mu`aawiyah and `Amr bin al-Aas (radhi-yallaahu 'anhumaa), and killing others from the leaders of the Muslims.

 

I say that when this repugnant action occurred in these days of ours, the Hypocrites took a deep breath and made a sigh, and they carried the responsibility of this action upon the religion, and that it (i.e. Islaam) was the reason for their transgression (i.e. that of the Khawaarij), upon the Muslims and upon humanity as a whole. And they said, may Allaah make them ugly, that this action of theirs (i.e. of those Khawaarij) was due to their embracement of the views of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and Shaykh ul-Islaam Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhaab, and other than them both from amongst the Scholars of Islaam.

 

This is how they lie in wait with pessimism and ascription of evil to Islaam and for the Scholars of Islaam, just like Aal Fir`awn, those about whom Allaah said:

 

{And if evil afflicted them, they ascribed it to evil omens connected with Mûsa (Moses) and those with him} (Soorah Al-A'raf, Aayah 131).

 

And just like the Mushriks, they also ascribed the occurrence of evil to Muhammad (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam), just as Allaah said about them:

 

{...But if some evil befalls them, they say, “This is from youâ€} (Soorah An-Nisa, Aayah 78)

 

...and just as the Hypocrites said in the expedition of the confederates (al-ahzaab), when the Muslims were afflicted with whatever afflicted them of hardship and severity, just as Allaah said about them:

 

{And when the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease (of doubts) said: “Allaah and His Messenger promised us nothing but delusions!} (Soorah Al-Ahzab, Aayah 12)

 

...and just as they said on the day of (the battle of) al-Badr, concerning the Muslims:

 

{These people (Muslims) are deceived by their religion} (Soorah Al-Anfal, Aayah 49)

 

...and they also said, on the day of Uhud:

 

{If we had anything to do with the affair, none of us would have been killed here} (Soorah Aali Imran, Aayah 154).

 

So the saying of these Hypocrites (in our times) concerning these events is nothing but the statement of their predecessors in the events that occurred previously, and every nation has an inheritor.

 

Certainly, the religion of Islaam prohibits transgression in all of its types and its manifestations, Allaah, (Subhaanahu wa Ta'aala) said:

 

{And transgress not. Verily, Allaah does not like the transgressor} (Soorah Al-Ma'idah, Aayah 87)

 

...and He said:

 

{And let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allaah} (Soorah Al-Ma'idah, Aayah 8).

 

And those subverters, vandals, they took their destructive ideology from the ideology of the Khawaarij Renegades before them who unleashed it upon Islaam, and they took it from the callers of misguidance, those whom the Messenger (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) described as

 

((Callers at the gates of Hellfire, whoever obeys them, they will throw him into it)), so it is was said, ((Describe them to us O Messenger of Allaah)), he said:

 

((They are a people of our skin (i.e. lineage) and they will speak with our tongue...)).

 

And these Hypocrites have requested the abolition of the necessary allegiance (al-walaa) and enmity, disavowal (al-baraa), both of which are from the strongest handholds of Islaam, and they requested the abolition of the commandment to good and forbiddence of evil, both of which comprise the guarantee of the maintanenance and lasting of the Islamic society, and they also requested the abolition of jihaad in the path of Allaah, which is the peak of the matter of Islaam, and they also requested that the methodologies (of Islaam) be purified from any resemblances of loving necessitated by the Sharee'ah, and they called to allegiance (i.e. loving) of the Disbelievers and the Pagans, and to the absence of differentiating between them and the Muslims. So what means of deliverance then have they left for the Muslims?

 

Indeed, they did not say these repugnant sayings except because they are restricted and confined by Islaam and its people, and when the chance became available to them, they began to reveal the enmity and jealousy they had towards Islaam and the Muslims, just as Allaah said concerning them:

 

{But surely, you will know them by the tone of their speech! And Allaah knows all your deeds} (Soorah Muhammad, Aayah 30).

 

However, their affair will be just like the affair of their predecessors, that of humiliation, lowliness, and they do not harm except themselves:

 

{Say: “perish in your rage. Certainly, Allaah knows what is in the breasts (all the secrets)} (Soorah Aali Imran, Aayah 119).

 

And certainly, the severe hardships and afflictions do not increase the Muslims except in steadfastness in their religion, and following their Prophet and their Scholars, the Imaams of Guidance, and the Illuminators of the darkness, such as Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and Shaykh ul-Islaam Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhaab, both whom those Hypocrites have made as examples of extremism and exaggeration, and in such a way because of their blindness, they considered the sources of good and guidance to be sources of evil and beguilement, just like their predecessors were pessimistic towards the Prophets (ascribing evil outcomes to them), and to their followers.

 

And say [those of] sore eyes,

the sun has eyes also,

you see them when it disappears and when it rises

And pardon those eyes whose light Allaah has taken away

So they do not contract and they do not comprehend…

 

And indeed, it is from the blindness of insight (i.e. intellect and understanding) that person believe falsehood to be truth and truth to be falsehood, and we invite these people to repent and return to their guidance and to withhold their tongues, otherwise they will not be harming except themselves, and Islaam has a Lord that will protect it and the Scholars have a Lord that will aid them:

 

{They had nothing against them, except that they believed in Allaah, the All-Mighty, Worthy of all Praise! Who, to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth! And Allaah is Witness over everything} (Soorah Al-Buruj, Aayaat 8- 9).

 

And it is not a departure – O noble reader – that there should be found some coarseness in my speech, for verily the speech of those people is more coarse, and the author (of those words) is more unjust, and Allaah is sufficient for us, and how excellent a one is He to place trust in.

 

And indeed from that which expands the chest and gives satisfaction and rest to the heart is the answer given by the esteemed Ministor of the Interior (Hafitha-hullaah) to one of these people, when this person suggested that the Committee for the enjoinment of good and forbiddence of evil be abolished, so he (Hafitha-hullaah) replied that commanding of the good and forbiddence of the evil shall remain in his land as long as Islaam remains, and he (Hafitha-hullaah) gave an upright, straight answer and was correct and successful in this definitive answer. For verily this state was built upon Islaam and its foundations, and amongst them is the commanding of good and forbiddence of evil, and there is no continuance for this state except with thecontinuance of its foundations that it is built upon.

 

O Allaah protect for us our religion and our security, and our firm establishment in our lands, and do not empower over us due to our sins those who do not fear you and who will not show mercy to us, and save us from the evil of the tribulations, those which are apparent and those that are hidden, and protect those in authority over us, and grant them success in that in which their rectitude lies, and the rectitude of Islaam and the Muslims. O Allaah, whoever intends evil for us, and for Islaam and for the Muslims, then occupy him with his own self and throw his plot back at him, indeed you are powerful over everything, and salaat and salaam be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family and companions.

 

Written by Saalih bin Fowzaan al-Fowzaan

This was published in al-Madinah newspaper (of Al-Madinah an-Nabawiyyah) on its online website.

[Salafi_Online]

Shaykh Abdul-Azeez Aal ash-Shaykh: "Don’t Abuse the Concept of Jihaad"

Source: http://www.fatwa-online.com/news/0030822.htm

 

 

RIYADH, 22 August 2003 — Saudi Arabia’s highest religious authority urged Muslims yesterday to shun extremism and avoid waging unjustified jihaad as the Kingdom cracks down on militants.

 

In a lengthy statement, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh told Saudis to listen to their religious authorities and ignore fanatical interpretations of Islaam.

 

“One of the fallouts from extremism in understanding Islaam is that some people call for jihaad for the sake of God without justification,†Sheikh Abdul Aziz said.

 

“These people raise the banner of jihaad to draw the young into their ranks and not to fight for God,†he added.

 

Militants like Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden have often called for jihaad against countries they consider “infidel†such as the United States, urging his followers to target Western interests in Saudi Arabia and abroad.

 

Other militants have also used Islaam as a rallying cry, justifying attacks by saying they are doing God’s will.

 

“Young Muslims must try and better themselves and their country but not through violence, because Islaam is not a violent religion, it is a merciful religion,†he said.

 

“A Muslim must understand his religion. It is the duty of the young and the whole Muslim world to know that violence is not a way to achieve reform,†Al-Sheikh said.

 

The grand mufti emphasized that the struggle against a perceived evil should not lead to a greater evil.

 

“The Prophet (peace be upon him) told us to combat evil. But there is a general rule to look at both advantages and disadvantages. And if fighting an evil leads to a greater one, then that fight is forbidden,†he said.

 

The grand mufti said one of the reasons some people attacked and frightened others was ignorance.

 

“Ignorance is a killer disease because a person thinks that he is right when he is wrong,†he said and stressed the importance of right guidance. “One of the reasons also is mistrust of our scholars. It is people’s duty to trust their scholars and leaders,†he said.

 

Last week, the Kingdom’s highest Islaamic authority denounced terror attacks in the Kingdom, describing them as “serious criminal acts,†and pledged its full support for the government.

 

“Acts of sabotage such as bombings, murder and destruction of property are serious criminal acts and an aggression against innocent people... which warrant severe and deterrent punishment,†the Council of Senior Islaamic Scholars said in a statement.

 

The 17-member council, headed by the grand mufti, declared its support for the actions being taken by the state to track down terrorists in an effort to shield the country from their actions.

 

The Islaamic body had called on the Saudi people to “stand behind the country’s leadership and their scholars,†at these difficult times in the fight against “evildoers.â€

 

The statement dubbed “misguided and ignorant†those who claim that terrorism was part of jihaad, or holy war. It said people who provide shelter to suspected militants were committing a “grave sin.â€

[Salafi_Online]

Ibn al-Qayyim (Rahimahullaah) 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 (swallallahu 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 Allah 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 and every tribulation till the end of time. And the Companions asked

permission from the Messenger of Allaah (swallallahu 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 to bring about its end and as a

result of this, a greater evil is brought about. And the Messenger (swallallahu alaihi

wasallam) saw the greatest of evils in Makkah and he was not able to change them. In

fact even when Allaah opened up Makkah for the Muslims (i.e., gave the Muslims

victory over it) and when it became Daarul-Islaam he was resolved to changing the

Ka’bah and returning it to the foundations that ibraaheem (alaihi as-alaam) 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 occur 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 rebelling 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 ...“ [‘I’laamul-Muwaqqi‘een ‘an Rabbil-’Aabaineen]

[sahal]

I wonder why Salafi-on-line don't spend such time and effort to defend who deserve to be defended and protected?

 

 

Salafi defend who you want but keep your tongue off from our Scholars and Mujahidiin (Salaf & Khlaf).

 

If you return I will return. :rolleyes:

[AYOUB]

Originally posted by Salafi_Online:

quote:

---

I was just wondering, does a govt have to be declared "disbelievers" in order to depose them? What about IMMORALITY, SECULAR, GREED, UNHOLY ALLIANCES with the enemies of Islam, CORRUPTION, NEPOTISM, EXTRAVAGANCE etc? Are these criteria for deposing a govt and replace it with an Islamic one?

Brother Viking you asked a great Question!

 

to make a long story short

,†yesâ€

they have to be disbelievers for one to depose them! Everything you mentioned would be classed as sins which do not lead to disbelieve (kufr)! I suppose you’d agree, Or else you would not have asked the question!....................................

As for dealing with the disbelieving (kaafir) ruler,

then this differs depending upon the various situations. So if the Muslims have the power and capability to fight him, and to remove him from rule, and a Muslim ruler is present, then that is obligatory upon them, and this is from Jihaad in the Path of Allaah.

As for when they are not capable of opposing him, then it is not permissible for them to instigate anything by oppression and disbelief, because this will result in harm and affliction upon the Muslims.

Salafi in short what you're saying is don't remove your leaders even if they are tyrants or just, Muslim or Kaafirs if they're more powerful than you. I've heard of Salafi who tell Palestinians to stop the Jihaad and emigrate, are you one of them?

 

Originally posted by Salafi_Online:

 

quote:

---

And lastly, do you consider the aiding of the kuffar against the Muslim to be an act of kufr? If in the affirmative, would you consider this to be a legitimate reason to depose them had there not being the fear of a greater fitnah (which is the exact reason why the scholars deem that they be kept there)?

This is an act of kufr! But this does not necessarily mean the person who is doing this kufr is a kafir! Prior to ousting the one in authority, you must apply the conditions of takfir! And once they are labelled a kafir by the people of knowledge, deposing them would become permissible! (as long as the good outweighs the evil of course!)

What you're calling 'act of kufr' was called 'a lesser evil' by some of the scholars who gave it the green light, the question is possible for an 'act of Kufr' be a 'lesser evil'?

 

Originally posted by Salafi_Online:

 

“The Prophet (peace be upon him) told us to combat evil. But there is a general rule to look at both advantages and disadvantages. And if fighting an evil leads to a greater one, then that fight is forbidden,†he said.

But if removing an unjust rulers is a greater advantage, then it is allowed, is that correct?

[NGONGE]

Apologies to the non-Arabic readers.

 

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

لامية شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية

رحمه الله تعالى

 

 

يا سَائÙلي عَنْ مَذْهَبÙÙŠ وعَقيدَتÙÙŠ رÙزÙÙ‚ÙŽ الهÙدى مَنْ Ù„ÙلْهÙداية٠يَسْأَل

اسمَعْ كَلامَ Ù…ÙحَقّÙÙ‚Ù ÙÙŠ قَـولـÙÙ‡ لا يَنْـثَني عَنـه٠ولا يَتَبَـدَّل

Ø­Ùبّ٠الصَّحابَة٠كÙلّÙÙ‡Ùمْ لي مَذْهَبٌ وَمَوَدَّة٠القÙرْبى بÙها أَتَوَسّــل

ÙˆÙŽÙ„ÙÙƒÙلّÙÙ‡Ùمْ قَـدْرٌ ÙˆÙŽÙَضْلٌ سـاطÙعٌ لكÙنَّما الصّÙديق٠مÙنْهÙمْ Ø£ÙŽÙْضَـل

وأÙÙ‚Ùـرّ٠بÙالقÙرآن٠ما جاءَتْ بÙـهً آياتÙـه٠ÙÙŽÙ‡ÙÙˆÙŽ القَديـم٠المÙنْـزَلÙ

وجميع٠آيات٠الصّÙÙات٠أÙÙ…ÙرّÙهـا حَقـاً كما نَقَـلَ الطّÙراز٠الأَوَّلÙ

وأَرÙدّ٠عÙقْبَتَـهـا إلى Ù†ÙقَّالÙهـا وأصونÙها عـن ÙƒÙلّ٠ما ÙŠÙتَخَيَّلÙ

Ù‚Ùبْحاً Ù„Ùمَنْ نَبَذَ الكّÙتابَ وراءَه٠وإذا اسْتَدَلَّ يقول٠قالَ الأخطَلÙ

والمؤمنون يَـرَوْنَ حقـاً ربَّهÙمْ وإلى السَّمـاء٠بÙغَيْر٠كَيْÙ٠يَنْزÙÙ„Ù

وأÙÙ‚Ùر٠بالميـزان٠والحَوض٠الذي أَرجـو بأنّÙÙŠ Ù…Ùنْـه٠رَيّاً أَنْهَـلÙ

وكذا الصّÙراط٠يÙمَدّ٠Ùوقَ جَهَنَّم٠ÙÙŽÙ…ÙوَحّÙدٌ نَـاج٠وآخَـرَ Ù…ÙهْمÙـلÙ

والنَّار٠يَصْلاها الشَّقيّ٠بÙØ­Ùكْمَة٠وكذا التَّقÙيّ٠إلى الجÙنَان٠سَيَدْخÙÙ„Ù

ولÙÙƒÙلّ٠حَيّ٠عاقـل٠ÙÙŠ قَبـرÙه٠عَمَلٌ ÙŠÙقارÙÙ†Ùـه٠هنـاك ÙˆÙŽÙŠÙسْـأَلÙ

هذا اعتقـاد٠الشاÙÙعيّ٠ومالك٠وأبي حنيÙـةَ ثم أحـمدَ يَنْقÙـلÙ

ÙØ¥Ùن٠اتَّبَعْتَ سبيلَهÙمْ ÙÙŽÙ…ÙوَحّÙـدٌ وإن٠ابْتَدَعْتَ Ùَما عَلَيْكَ Ù…Ùعَـوَّلًًًً

 

 

By the way, I’m not using this poem as a proof of anything, I just thought it was a nice poem and might throw a hint or two here and there.

[Rahima]

im sure one of these days you will be true to your words and start quoting them!

I speak of Abu bakr, you negate his point and come with the views of people who came after him (not that I disagree with what they say, but rather your understanding of the point). Maybe one of these days the points of the sahaba shall be enough for you .

 

What do u mean? If a ruler has the power to commit massacre and steal, the only way to depose is through combat!

Who was talking about combat being the only form?

 

Anyway, whilst I thank-you for all those points and fatwas, brother the point was simple. I asked you whether or not the Muslims (namely those in authority and power) are allowed to depose a leader who is Muslim but commits acts of Kufr and sin if there is no fear of a greater fitnah. Furthermore, I tried to highlight the speech of Abu bakr as some sort of proof, which you dismissed as being against Islamic teachings. In the end, your answer was a clear no.

 

Basically you state that unless there is clear kufr which takes one out of the fold of Islam, the Muslims can never depose their leader even if there is no fear of a greater fitnah.

 

Allow me to quote you just to refresh your memory akhi:

 

to make a long story short ,†yes†they have to be disbelievers for one to depose them! Everything you mentioned would be classed as sins which do not lead to disbelieve (kufr)! I suppose you’d agree, Or else you would not have asked the question

Now, I ask you to read the following fatwa of Shaykh ibn Baz and comment. Please, for the sake of Allah don’t dismiss it as not being in accordance with Islam like you did with the statement of Abu bakr.

 

Question :

There are people who think that because some of the rulers commit acts of kufr and sin, we are obliged to rebel against them and attempt to change things even if that results in harming the Muslims in that country, at a time when there are many problems in the Muslim world. What is your opinion?

 

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.

The basic comprehensive principle of sharee’ah is that it is not permitted to remove an evil by means of a greater evil; evil must be warded off by that which will remove it or reduce it. Warding off evil by means of a greater evil is not permitted according to the scholarly consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims.

If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK.

But if rebellion would result in greater trouble and lead to chaos, oppression and the assassination of people who do not deserve to be assassinated, and other forms of major evil, then that is not permitted. Rather it is essential to be patient and to hear and obey in matters of good, and to offer sincere advice to the authorities, and to pray that they may be guided to good, and to strive to reduce evil and increase good. This is the correct way which should be followed, because that is in the general interests of the Muslims, and because it will reduce evil and increase good, and because this will keep the peace and protect the Muslims from a greater evil.

 

Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah li Samaahat al-Shaykh al-‘Allaamah ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him), vol. 8, p. 202 (

www.islam-qa.com

)

PLUS WHERE WERE YOU WHEN OSAMA WAS BED BUDDIES WITH THE USA ADM!

Osama, unlike the royal family was not fighting against fellow Muslims. I find this amusing though, the Saudi scholars (may Allah bless them), denounced the actions of the northern alliance (rightly so) for aiding the kuffaar (USA) against fellow Muslims, yet when there government did the same (aided the kufaar, again the USA against Muslims, the people of Iraq) they did not speak out. I have to say, very confusing, nevertheless it has to be for reasons of avoiding a great fitnah (regardless of what you may believe or think, i will not get into the bashing of scholars even if i disagree with their view point). I can only but imagine if they spoke out against the regime, a revolt at this time would only be beneficial to the enemies of Islam. Moroever, the royal family is only praised by the saudi scholars, you will not find any other salafi scholar outside of SA doing that. We admit that they do many good things for Islam, but they also harm Islam.

 

I do not understand why we keep going over the condition and affairs of the royal family (it’s really really tedious)! I was positive you took from the scholar, the people with knowledge! Didn’t I not illustrated their position! Do u know something they dont?

I’m not sure whether or not we are speaking the same language here akhi, you seem to be missing the point. Islam allows for the overthrow of a leader (the decision being made by the influential people of authority and power) so long as there is no greater fitnah that will come of it. You disagree with this point which is based on the teachings of our prophet s.c.w. I don’t know if its lack of knowledge on your behalf (in that you’ve never heard this before) or you sincerely believe we have to always put up with any leader even if they wipe out every single believer (because technically killing does not take one out of the fold of Islam).

 

What is tedious is that you are praising (it would be one thing if you kept silent on the matter), leaders who are tyrants.

 

If the point above (namely the fatwa of sh. ibn baz, which i know you hold in high regard) is not sufficient for you brother, then i leave it at that.

 

To be honest, i don't have the time to research and argue on matters which are clear cut. I have uni, exams, work, cibaada and not to mention afur to cook everyday .