> al-Boriqee Issue of making Takfir of Muslim Rulers

[Sampharo]

Now I understand the emptiness of this forum.

I will refer this matter to people who actually know what they are talking about and would not produce as many contradictions, and if they did they would just acknowledge them and move on rather than try to save face by mixing in nonsense.

This is advice for God and Islam. Take it and heed it, or ignore it or delete it:

Even though you seem to be trying to adhere to the path of Ahlu Sunnah, you are using vocabulary and debate tactics that are far beneath them and unworthy of righteousness.

Salaman

[salamfromrom]

Salam


Brothers, why the attacks. I was really enjoying the debate, I hope it's continued.

Peace

[Sampharo]

^ For two reasons akhee:

1- I had a legitimate question that required a straightforward answer, there was very little to debate to start with, except that misinformation and miscommunication necessitated the debate. However when contradictions were increasing and irrelevent tangents became the norm, it ceased being a useful discussion.

2- There are methods of discussion and basics of respect that are expected and they were increasingly being not held by the other side, through constant insinuations at ignorance or deliberate attempts at diluting legitimate points with irrelevent inclusions. Also there seems to be lack of acknowledgment of arguments made which means this the debate has become more for asserting status or pride than seeking knowledge.

If you like debates and discussions, you should seek legitimate discussions from those who respect both sides, as well as respect their points of view, and who speak with correct information out of knowledge, not pride. You will benefit much more from those as that should be your goal, to learn and gain correct Islamic knowledge.

Salam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salamfromrom

Salam


Brothers, why the attacks. I was really enjoying the debate, I hope it's continued.

Peace

im cool al-hamdulillah, i did nt attack him nor do i intend to do so. I take his as a tazkiyyah for myself

barakallahu feekum ikhwaan

[Yasin]

Asalamau aleykum warahmatullah.

I have read some about the difference between Tawale og Mawala regarding the eight nullifier of Islam by Imam Abdul Wahab.

But how can I respond to those whoe use this explanation from Shaikh Abdul-Azeez ibn Abdillaah Ar-Rajihe to say that Saudi rulers comes under Tawala:

"If one assists the polytheists against the Muslims this means that he has allied with the polytheists and loves them. So his allying with them is apostasy because this indicates his love for them. So if he assists the polytheists against the Muslims with money, weapons or by giving his opinion, this is proof that he loves them and loving them is apostasy. So having love (for them) is the foundation for seeking allegiance (with them). And what stems from this is supporting and aiding them with one’s views or money or weapons. So when one assists the polytheists against the Muslims, this
means that he has preferred the polytheists over the Muslims. But as for if he assists a polytheist against another polytheist, then this does not fall under this discussion."

From http://abdurrahman.org/tawheed/expla...nullifiers.pdf

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Yasin

Asalamau aleykum warahmatullah.

I have read some about the difference between Tawale og Mawala regarding the eight nullifier of Islam by Imam Abdul Wahab.

But how can I respond to those whoe use this explanation from Shaikh Abdul-Azeez ibn Abdillaah Ar-Rajihe to say that Saudi rulers comes under Tawala:

"If one assists the polytheists against the Muslims this means that he has allied with the polytheists and loves them. So his allying with them is apostasy because this indicates his love for them. So if he assists the polytheists against the Muslims with money, weapons or by giving his opinion, this is proof that he loves them and loving them is apostasy. So having love (for them) is the foundation for seeking allegiance (with them). And what stems from this is supporting and aiding them with one’s views or money or weapons. So when one assists the polytheists against the Muslims, this
means that he has preferred the polytheists over the Muslims. But as for if he assists a polytheist against another polytheist, then this does not fall under this discussion."

From http://abdurrahman.org/tawheed/expla...nullifiers.pdf

sorry for taking a long time for the response.

Thats because misinterpret actions that someone may do AS an act of aiding the mushrikeen against the Muslims. We have a direct story oin the time of rasulullah alayhi salatu salam in which it was later in the Madina era where the Muslims were preparing to invade Makkah. One of the companions, I believe his name of Haatib, went to Makkah and informed his family about what the muslims were doing, and his family were mushriks.

later on before the Muslims prepared to go to Makkah, it was found out that the mushriks of Makkah found out about the plan (due to the leak of information from the sahaabi Hatib radhiyallahu anhu). What happened was that the companions who came to get him wanted to kill him so they brought him to the messenger of Allah alayhi salatu salam and so he was asked by the Messenger as to why he did it. So he told him that he did not leak the info to foil the plan of the Muslims or to allow the mushriks to have an upper hand against the Muslims, rather he said he did it because he wanted his family safe from the attack.
On this basis he was freed by the messenger of Allah and his deen was exonerated.

The point here is that tied with the action of helping the kuffar against the Muslims, there has to be a lack of a qareena i.e. a lack of some necessitated implication to the action.

So, for example in todays world, the rulers of the Muslims world are not rulers per se. They don't have power. The geo-political framework that has been the basis of the American hegemony for the past few decades has been the direct control of entire countries INDIRECTLY through corporations and mega monopolies of resource giants.

So for example, in Saudi Arabia, in 73, after the oil embargo, the Americans set up a deal with the saudi family with regards to the energy structure of the country, basically signing their country off to the Americans. If anyone knows how we as Americans work, then the way we work is that if we take no for an answer, then the one who said no to us will wake up one day with his privates cut out and put in his mouth or his entire family disappears or we dies in a "accidental" plane explosion and we set up the framework for the next willing contender of power to assume the post and bribe him to the deal. Thats the way it works and has been so since 1953 when we were able to form a revolution in Iran thereby overthrowing the popularly elected Mossedeg from power.

I say all that in order to say that in todays world, the people who are put in front of our eyes as the "leaders" are not really leaders to begin with and thus their power is pretty much quarantined to only enforce policies favorable to the established world power structure and they don;t have much of a choice to go otherwise. That is because the two options are
1. do as we say
or
2. do whatever you like and then either
a. you will be assasinated along with your family
b. we will cause a revolution your country thereby overthrowing you
c. we will wipe you off the map like we did with others when we went in their countries

In most cases, the so called ruler opts for the first because he knows the other option will ruin the country even further than what it is from that moment he assumes the office of power.

We did it to every single country that our corporations or government coveted something of theres.

We did the same in Libya were we aided and helped Gaddafi to remain in power for 4 decades and supplied him with the military might to crush anyone who opposed him. However, when he decided to buck the plan, and one major aspect of a policy that he had which would in effect buck the kuffar and actually help the Muslims and to the people of Africa in general was to free all of Africa from the American monetary system and switch Africa onto a gold monetary system. That was when he cross the line for the elites in the western world and thus the people in his own country who are labeled as "rebels" sided WITH the kuffar and aided the kuffar in forming a joint coalition force to topple Gaddafi. That was the only way that Gaddafi met his fate, because the kuffar allowed it to happen and as well joined in the effort, of course within the plan of Allah.

Moreover, Usaamah bin Laden and everyone who allied themselves to his cause, which was ultimately the cause of the CIA, has effectively aided the Kuffar in the greatest possible way that no ruler in history was able to aid the kuffar. Due to the infidelity of Bin Laden, we have virtually handed over the entire Muslims world to the kuffar in a silver platter and have made our blood as free game for them. Even Kamaal Ataturk, who comes after Bin laden in the magnitude of how he aided the mushrikeen, does not even reach Bin Laden in how phenomenal Bin Laden's help was to them.

So my question here is that lets say that bin laden was sincere in his mission, do we consider his aid of the kuffar to be one which takfeer is warranted for him. Im sure that if anyone views that he was sincere, then I don;t think that anyone would view that he intended to help and aide the kuffar against the Muslims, EVEN THOUGH the direct repercussions of his ideas resulted in just that i.e. the greatest aid to the kuffar that anyone within the ummah of Muhamamd has given to the kuffar and the greatest disservice to the Muslim ummah that no one in the ummah of Muhammad was ever able to harm the muslims in such a fashion.

Of course, if he was really true in his intent, then takfer would not be warranted on this basis because this was not something he desired for. Of course my personal view is that he did desire the aid of the kuffar against the Muslims because his actions directly express this.

[Yasin]

Jazakallahu khayran for the answer.

1. If a ruler aids the Kuffar against Muslims because he is forced or under extreme pressure, shouldn't we still regard him as an apostate since we don't know that he is forced? Only Allah SWT knows his Niyyah and he may be excused in the Akhirah because he was forced, but should we not judge him as an apostate based upon what is apparent to us?

2. Some people say that the incident with Hatib ibn abi Balta'ah doesn't prove the point because he was already forgive due to his participation in Badr and therefore forgiven. They can say that Umar wanted to kill because of apostacy, but since he was forgiven becuase of Badr, this was only a exception. What is the answer to this?

3. Could you please explain what you mean by Usaamah bin Laden aiding the Kuffar against Muslim? Muslims normally think that Usaamah fought the Kuffar, isn't this true?

4. How do we answer those who claim that Sh. Bin Baaz aided the Kuffar against Muslims because of the Fatwa regarding American troops.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Yasin

Jazakallahu khayran for the answer.

1. If a ruler aids the Kuffar against Muslims because he is forced or under extreme pressure, shouldn't we still regard him as an apostate since we don't know that he is forced? Only Allah SWT knows his Niyyah and he may be excused in the Akhirah because he was forced, but should we not judge him as an apostate based upon what is apparent to us?

A. It is true that we can only judge based on the apparent actions. However with regards to the concept of "aiding the kuffar against the Muslims" I noticed that many of us have a really warped understanding of what this entails and because of this, we easily have the ability to pass off any action that someone does AS an act which constitutes aiding the kuffar against the muslims. Some of this may be demonstrated in my response to the fourth question bi idhnillah.

However, allow me to give you one understandable tangent that I think you can easily grasp and relate to. I think both of us know and understand the full scope of heresy (bid'a) and its people (ahlul-bida) and particularly what the Imaams of the salaf have said about them and their behavioral patterns. They spoke so much on the topic that one of the general and recurring themes that has become known about the ahlul-bid'a is that eventually, due to their hatred for the sunnah and its people, they will eventually SIDE WITH the kuffar against the people of the sunnah.

The point here is that noting this fact, does it become correct to say that the ahlul-bid'a are all apostates because they aid the kuffar against the people of the sunnah (who are the actual Muslims, haqqan).

B. Furthermore, we have further issues in the religion that the Imaams have talked about with regards to interpreting the actions of the Muslims when a specific action has reached kufr.

A resulting side issue stemming from the above topic of interpretation of actions or statement is the common modern day phenomenon that we have been infected with. This phenomenon is the "Islam for us, and kufr for the rulers" manhaj. What I mean by this phrase is that when your brother on the street, or even better yet, you yourself has done an action which can be considered kufr or on the verge of kufr. The most expectant thing that you would want is for your brethren to make excuse for you. You or anyone else wouldn't take lightly if someone reviewed a mistake you did which could be understood to imply apostasy, and then goes around and marks you as a murtadd for it.

However, when it comes to the one in power, all of a sudden the Islamic regulations for offering excuse is altered from its basis and now the rules and regulations of Islam in this topic do not apply anymore, rather his life, blood, honor, and what have you is now fair game, simply because he has some type of perceived "authority".

C. Thirdly, On the topic of takfeer, the basis for the performance of takfeer when it comes to issues NOT as clear as someone literally apostating, then the judgment lies exclusively to the people of knowledge, particularly those in a particular region or those who know the individual or customs of that region.

Moreover, once the people who ought to make takfeer have identified a particular action AS an action of kufr, the application of the judgment on the individual (Takfeerul-Ayn) CANNOT be applied YET. Rather there is a further elaborative principle narrated in the shariah through the hadeeth of the messenger of Allah regarding judgment of individuals and that was that the removal of the barriers must be removed in order to actually apply the judgment. In the hadeeth, if my memory serves me correct the barriers that prevent judgment are
-intoxicated
-Coercion (which is clearly where the centralization of their actions are based upon)
and I forget the other two at the moment.

D. NOW, lets say that the removal of the barriers was performed and the ruler was truly indeed a kaafir. Now comes what are the benefits and harms (maslaha wa mafaasid) of issuing such judgment. When the declaration of takfeer is made on someone in authority, it is NOT like the declaration of takfeer upon a regular individual, rather such a declaration has consequences and depending on the nature of those consequences, could lead to simply halt the judgment due to what problems may or can occur. That is why some scholars were silent on the rulers of certain countries.

E. fifthly, We DO know that they are enforced. We have so many document-able and verifiable accounts of such instances. One of the most influential reference source works on the topic is a book called "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", and in it, it documents most of the interactions of various countries with the hitmen, all of which is documented and archived knowledge.

2. Some people say that the incident with Hatib ibn abi Balta'ah doesn't prove the point because he was already forgive due to his participation in Badr and therefore forgiven. They can say that Umar wanted to kill because of apostacy, but since he was forgiven because of Badr, this was only a exception. What is the answer to this?

Thats stupid. The hadeeth itself refutes that assumption by default of the wording. If Haatib was "already forgiven", then the Prophet of Allah would NOT have needed to interrogate him. Due to this fact, the hadeeth itself reveals the apparent judgment and the introspective judgment, pertaining to takfeer. Umar's method, radhiyallahu anhum, was to simply cast the judgment without removing the obstacles WHEREAS the Messenger of Allah clearly showed us a precedent, a method and that was to remove the barriers and removing the barriers causes the judge to find out what was the intent or the reason behind the act.

3. Could you please explain what you mean by Usaamah bin Laden aiding the Kuffar against Muslim? Muslims normally think that Usaamah fought the Kuffar, isn't this true?

What kuffar. Firstly, it was the Muslims he fought the Russians. The centrel theme of Bin ladens jihad when he arrived late on the scene in Afghanistan was to "kill the wahhabis" i.e. the real Muslims.

I have couple mujahideen friends who participated in Afghanistan. One of them informed me that when they use to fight the russians, they also had to ward off the attacks made against them by Bin laden.

Another shaykh told me how his men were responsible for killing THE Imaam, the leader of the Afghan Mujahideen, Shaykh Jameelu-Rahmaan and this has been elaborated extensively by Shaykh Muqbil in a book which can be found here
The Death of Ash-Sheikh Jameel Ar-Rahmaan

Also Shaykh Ahmad bin Yahya an-Najmee spoke of the tawheed and sunnah of this man in a longer fatwa he gave about the ikhwaaniyyah and the kharihiyyah.

Als, my shaykh who actually fought there had this to say about the Imaam

This reminds me of the way the Shaikh was killed. The Khawarij did it, and how close the events of today to those of before. The man who killed Ali Ibn Abi Talib, a man who is in Jannah Paradise as his cousin the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, promised him, was a Khawarij. The man who killed Ali stayed up by night all-night to recite Qur'an because he thought this was his best action in Islam. This ignorant Khawarij disregarded the Hadeeth that described the killer of Ali as being the most miserable man in the Ummah of Muhammad. He thought he was going to Paradise and Ali was going to Hell!
The man who killed Jameelu-r-Rahman, an Arab Khawarij, was filled with hatred for the Salafis by the group he belonged to, that acted as if they were true Mujahidun. This Khawarij man also spent the night before he committed his crime praying and reading Qur'an. Then just before Jumuah, he went to visit Sh. Jameel, who had the habit to welcome Arabs with open arms. Sh. Jameel hugged the criminal who then shot the Shaikh many times before he was himself killed.
This is what the Khawarij do, they hate the people of the Sunnah, because the people of the Sunnah are the only ones who are hoped to bring back the glory of Islam by practicing Islam the right way. May Allah grant His Mercy to Sh. Jameel. I ask Allah to make things better for Muslims.

this enemy of Allah was from the Bin Laden camp.

The dude was a CIA brainchild and was their man and continued to be there man even up to 2 months before the "9-11" attacks.

So on the accusation of "fighting the kuffar", I don't see what your talking about. If your talking about 9-11, then again, how?

Do you really believe that this dude on dialysis in a hospital 8 thousand miles away and who was in this state several months prior to the attack, managed to get 19 arabs (who by the way were cleared by the CIA to continue boarding those planes according to the whistleblower former Chief Counselor Officer in Saudi Arabia) with box cutters along with military trained personal on board those planes managed to pilot 747's with a maneuver that the planes had taken which trained pilots admit to its impossibility to perform, yet they were able to do it with 6 months training in an airflight school on Florida, of course having managed to escape the most heavily guarded airspace on Earth (well, except for that day because there were 26 drills going on at once which has never happened in history of American military, and the 4 fighter jets that were in the area were deliberately sent off to an island in the Atlantic just for enough time for the "hijackers" to perform their mission).

The Americans, particularly the hard line shadow government practically executed the mission on their own. The only use for Bin Laden and his "al-Qa'eda" that they needed was simply their name, and Bin laden complied completely with the plan. They execute the mission, he takes the blame for it and they manage to convince him that if he takes the wrap for it, then he will be well received by his "own people", and him being the munafiq that he is, went head long with their plan while not being able to understand what benefit they got in the long run.

In short, Bin laden taking the wrap for their plan and execution of the whole operation meant several things

A. while it would gain him recognition among the shayateen zanaadiqa within the ummah, it will now give the kuffar unrestricted access to go into any and ALL Muslim countries and invade and kill them off and strengthen the interest of the establishment power.

B. him taking the wrap now meant that Islam, its belief system, was now fair game to everyone so they can impugn it with barbarism.

C. him taking the wrap virtually served Afghanistan, then Iraq on a silver platter to the enemies of Islam, at the cost of Muslim societies en masse.

What logic can try to alter these facts that his actions aided the kuffar in so much of their ambitions that they had for the Muslims that no one in the ummah has ever pulled off such a favor for the kuffar.

4. How do we answer those who claim that Sh. Bin Baaz aided the Kuffar against Muslims because of the Fatwa regarding American troops.

By informing them that ALL the Muslim Imaams of Islam have stated in their books of fiqh and siyaasah that it was permissible for the Muslims to seek the aid of the kuffar against another Muslim group who wrecks havoc in the land and thus to charge him with infidelity on these grounds is to as well charge the entirety of Muslims scholarship with the same.

[Yasin]

I have never heard this view regarding Bin Laden before, but I am not much into this issue. I just know that the followers of Abu Qatadah, Ahmad Jibril, al-Maqdisi, Omar Bakri etc. they love Bin Laden and treat him as a Shaheed. So the opposing view that you presented was interesting, but those who diagree with you will ask about what evidence there is for claiming that Bin Laden accually cooperated with USA for taking the blame for 9/11? have any of the Ulama specifically mentioned this?

What is your view regarding Anjam Choudry? Do you think he is owned by the governments?

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Yasin

I have never heard this view regarding Bin Laden before, but I am not much into this issue. I just know that the followers of Abu Qatadah, Ahmad Jibril, al-Maqdisi, Omar Bakri etc. they love Bin Laden and treat him as a Shaheed. So the opposing view that you presented was interesting, but those who diagree with you will ask about what evidence there is for claiming that Bin Laden accually cooperated with USA for taking the blame for 9/11? have any of the Ulama specifically mentioned this?

What is your view regarding Anjam Choudry? Do you think he is owned by the governments?

As for evidence.

1. Firstly, it is a known fact that the CIA allied itself with Bin laden and his men in order for them to take the recognition for USSR's downfall. everyone in the galaxy knows this

2. OBL was on dialysis for a long time prior to 9-11 and it was to the point that he was in a hospital in I believe UAE or Dubai. It was here that he received a visit from his old boys, two CIA officers just 2 months to the attacks.

On October 31, the French daily Le Figaro dropped a bombshell. While in a Dubai hospital receiving treatment for a chronic kidney infection last July, Osama bin Laden met with a top CIA official - presumably the Chief of Station. The meeting, held in bin Laden s private suite, took place at the American hospital in Dubai at a time when he was a wanted fugitive for the bombings of two U.S. embassies and this year s attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Bin Laden was eligible for execution according to a 2000 intelligence finding issued by President Bill Clinton before leaving office in January. Yet on July 14th he was allowed to leave Dubai on a private jet and there were no Navy fighters waiting to force him down.

3. However, because the nature of of international espionage, there usually is no "documentable evidence" because that would defeat the purpose of espionage and black ops to begin with. That is essentially the whole point, is total media black out, absolute evasion.

This is one of the set backs of modern western academia and as well part of Islamic academia, is that the life of its operation exists ONLY within the sphere of the "verifiable" and thus the problem, while we understand that verification and authentication is a key prime directive of our methodology in any Islamic science, since we are not speaking of science of the religion, but of current events, then a different set of parameters or method has to be employed due to the above reality mentioned. Because of this method of only existing in the realm of the documentable, then it severely restricts the vision, outlook, and any research that anyone can do to a topic of this nature or similar to it.

4. it does not matter if the any ulema have clarified the matter.

5. As for my own view of Amjem Choudry. Well, I know one thing for sure, this counterfeit is an extremely ignorant fool and he is an absolute khariji, worse than the other ideologues.

As for being owned by governments.
Here is something that people need to acquaint themselves with.

modern day government thrive on the table of extremism. They claim that they are against it, but in fact they are the direct orchestrators of it in most cases. In fact most terrorists acts that have taken place in the past half century are domestically state sponsered terrorism. Modern day government are in as much need of extremist elements as humans are in need of water.
WHY? is the question

Well, the answer to this is because todays governments are in reality forms of a technocracy and a corporataucracy. As long as they can promote the climate of fear and lack of safety, the more they can secure even further totalitarian powers to themselves and to render peoples basic right to be free from state tyranny to be diminished by the day.
Thus, there are elements in governments that partake in known acts called "provocateuring". Provocateuring is the action whereby a host government utilizes one of their own agents and goes undercover to groups of interest that the government itself finds problematic to state power. Then through these agents, they can perform actions which would provoke a state sponsored response.
In the previous world structure, alot of this was not really needed because most of the rulers were outwardly totalitarian, but because of he age where "freedom" is the concept by which nations have been formed under, in such "free" countries, concepts such as propaganda and provocateuring are things needed by the state to keep the balance of power in the control of elitist groups.

In the case of these provocateurs perpetrating as Muslims, then the benefit it serves to the establishment is that it
1. allows for the muslims to be portrayed in the light of these fanatic baffoons, thus dehumanizing us in the academic and social front.
2. it solidifies the reason for the state powers to take totalitarian causes on the citizenry, particularly the Muslims through domestic spying, rendition, etc
3. it solidifies the reason to invade Muslim countries.
4. and because the path of provocateurism on behalf of the Americans is based on the path of kharijite ideology in Islam (meaning it is the khairjite way that they benefit most in by sending in provocateuring agents to mimic this path), and since kharijism in Islam is a form of "hiraaba (i.e. vigilantism and chaos in Islamic fiqh books), then it brings further destabilization to Muslim countries throughout the world THUS ensuring that our miserable and pathetic state of affairs remains a "perpetual" state of existence.

So if he is one, I won't be surprised in the least bit, although everyone else will, because they don't understand how the power structures and their black ops and espionage work.