"You who claim to be Salafi"

[Cush]

He is currently experiencing the Anti-Madkhali trend, in which the average Muslim criticises and belittles Saudi Arabia and other Muslim leaders for seemingly insignificant reasons. This began after the Palestine issue, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have donated billions of dollars; however, this is not evident because of tactic to support the West and Israel in their efforts to destabilise more Muslim nations, as they did in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Somalia.

Most Fall under 2nd type and Do not even know they are.

Sects of Khawarij are also classified as sitters and revolutionaries.

1>Khawarijuth-Thawriyyah is the sect who revolt and fight against.
2>Khawariju’l-Qa’diyyah (sitters) is a sect of Khawarij who are a revolutionary movement; prefer sitting and provoking common-folks against the ruler without actually revolting themselves.

The definition of the Qa’diyyah in the Arabic language comes from al-qu’ood (to sit) with a damma, and al-maq’ad with a fathah is something that is sat upon. Al-Qa’dah is the plural of Qaa’id, who is an instigator. (az-Zubaydi, Taju’l-Urus, 5/194; al-Azhari, Mu’jam Tadheebul-Lughah, 3/3003; al-Khaleel, al-Ayn, 3/1501)

Az-Zubaydi said: “The Qa’dah are a people from amongst the Khawarij who sat back from helping Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) and they sat back from fighting with him. And whoever holds their opinion is a Qa’di instigator. They hold the judgment to be a right, but they sit back when it comes to revolt against the people…

And the Qa’diyyah are those who do not leave for the fighting. So it is the name of the group and the Haruriyah (a sect among Khawarij) are named Qa’diyyah.

And the Shurat (a sect among Khawarij) are those who try to gain the rule but do not go into battle; they are also named Qa’diyyah.” (az-Zubaydi, Taju’l-Urus, 5/195)

Al-Azhari said: “al-Qa’d: plural of Qaa’id and the Qadee is from amongt those Khawarij who hold judgmenet to be a right, but they sit back from the revolt against the people.” (al-Azhari, Mu’jam Tadheebul-Lughah, 3/3006)

“The Qa’diyyah are those who incite the people, stir up hatred within the hearts against the rulers and issue fatawa making lawful what Allah has declared unlawful in the name of changing the evil. And they are the wickedest of the Khawarij.” (Sharr Qatlaa, 20)

Abdullah ibn Muhammad ad-Daif (ra) said: “The Qadiyyah are the wickedest of the Khawarij.” (Abu Dawud, Masailu Imam Ahmad, 271)

Ibn Hajar said: “The Khawarij of al-Qadiyyah did not hold the view of waging war. Rather, they opposed the rulers in accordance to their strength, they called to their opinion and along with that they beautified revolt and held it to be good.” (at-Tadheed 8/114)

He also said: “The Qa’diyyah: Those who beautify revolt against the rulers yet do not actually do it themselves.” (Hadyu’s-Saree, 459)

“And the Qadiyyah are, in most cases, more dangerous than the Khawarij themselves. Since, speech, inciting hatred within the hearts and provoking the common-folks against the rulers has the most profound effect upon the souls; especially when it comes from a man who is an eloquent speaker who dupes the people with his tongue and disguises it with the Sunnah.” (al-Ajwibatu’l-Mufidah, 202)

Ok good explanation
And check your dc

 

[Omar del Sur]

Ok so if it's that simple what is making them still not follow this?

That is the actual classical understanding. If you read the fataawa of the classical scholars, that is their view. I posted the fatwa of the former grand mufti of Saudi- Sheikh Ibn Baz's teacher- tech replied to that with a laughing emoji. I don't think that's any way to respond to a fatwa of such a big scholar.

Anyways, that is the actual authentic classical view. Not this new ideology that the ruler can dismantle the shariah and it's no big deal. Earlier in a reply to you, I posted a link to this thread

"Shaykh Said al Kamali responds to the Madkhalis and their likes"

go through this thread and read it if you want to know about this issue. See what Sheikh Ibn Baz said about rulers who dismantle the shariah- it's in there. I was just looking at one of Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah's fataawa on the topic and I'm not going to post it. He not only makes takfir but calls for fighting the ruler that dismantles the shariah. He said that- not me. I'm not calling for fighting, rebelling or anything like that. But I simply want people to know the actual classical understanding (that dismantling the shariah is kufr akbar) and not this fake new understanding that's being promoted nowadays for government interests.

 

[techsamatar]

That is the actual classical understanding. If you read the fataawa of the classical scholars, that is their view. I posted the fatwa of the former grand mufti of Saudi- Sheikh Ibn Baz's teacher- tech replied to that with a laughing emoji. I don't think that's any way to respond to a fatwa of such a big scholar.

Anyways, that is the actual authentic classical view. Not this new ideology that the ruler can dismantle the shariah and it's no big deal. Earlier in a reply to you, I posted a link to this thread

"Shaykh Said al Kamali responds to the Madkhalis and their likes"

go through this thread and read it if you want to know about this issue. See what Sheikh Ibn Baz said about rulers who dismantle the shariah- it's in there. I was just looking at one of Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah's fataawa on the topic and I'm not going to post it. He not only makes takfir but calls for fighting the ruler that dismantles the shariah. He said that- not me. I'm not calling for fighting, rebelling or anything like that. But I simply want people to know the actual classical understanding (that dismantling the shariah is kufr akbar) and not this fake new understanding that's being promoted nowadays for government interests.

Okay Did MBS dismantle the Shariah? Stop trying to twist those fatwas to serve your extremist 100% policy, Sharia law is still part of the constitution. If he comes out openly and Separates the Religion from the state and believes Man made laws are above Shariah then that is Clear open Kufr.

 

[Cush]

That is the actual classical understanding. If you read the fataawa of the classical scholars, that is their view. I posted the fatwa of the former grand mufti of Saudi- Sheikh Ibn Baz's teacher- tech replied to that with a laughing emoji. I don't think that's any way to respond to a fatwa of such a big scholar.

Anyways, that is the actual authentic classical view. Not this new ideology that the ruler can dismantle the shariah and it's no big deal. Earlier in a reply to you, I posted a link to this thread

"Shaykh Said al Kamali responds to the Madkhalis and their likes"

go through this thread and read it if you want to know about this issue. See what Sheikh Ibn Baz said about rulers who dismantle the shariah- it's in there. I was just looking at one of Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah's fataawa on the topic and I'm not going to post it. He not only makes takfir but calls for fighting the ruler that dismantles the shariah. He said that- not me. I'm not calling for fighting, rebelling or anything like that. But I simply want people to know the actual classical understanding (that dismantling the shariah is kufr akbar) and not this fake new understanding that's being promoted nowadays for government interests.

@techsamatar He makes a very good point here

 

[Omar del Sur]

He is currently experiencing the Anti-Madkhali trend, in which the average Muslim criticises and belittles Saudi Arabia and other Muslim leaders for seemingly insignificant reasons. This began after the Palestine issue, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have donated billions of dollars; however, this is not evident because of tactic to support the West and Israel in their efforts to destabilise more Muslim nations, as they did in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Somalia.

Most Fall under 2nd type and Do not even know they are.

Sects of Khawarij are also classified as sitters and revolutionaries.

1>Khawarijuth-Thawriyyah is the sect who revolt and fight against.
2>Khawariju’l-Qa’diyyah (sitters) is a sect of Khawarij who are a revolutionary movement; prefer sitting and provoking common-folks against the ruler without actually revolting themselves.

The definition of the Qa’diyyah in the Arabic language comes from al-qu’ood (to sit) with a damma, and al-maq’ad with a fathah is something that is sat upon. Al-Qa’dah is the plural of Qaa’id, who is an instigator. (az-Zubaydi, Taju’l-Urus, 5/194; al-Azhari, Mu’jam Tadheebul-Lughah, 3/3003; al-Khaleel, al-Ayn, 3/1501)

Az-Zubaydi said: “The Qa’dah are a people from amongst the Khawarij who sat back from helping Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) and they sat back from fighting with him. And whoever holds their opinion is a Qa’di instigator. They hold the judgment to be a right, but they sit back when it comes to revolt against the people…

And the Qa’diyyah are those who do not leave for the fighting. So it is the name of the group and the Haruriyah (a sect among Khawarij) are named Qa’diyyah.

And the Shurat (a sect among Khawarij) are those who try to gain the rule but do not go into battle; they are also named Qa’diyyah.” (az-Zubaydi, Taju’l-Urus, 5/195)

Al-Azhari said: “al-Qa’d: plural of Qaa’id and the Qadee is from amongt those Khawarij who hold judgmenet to be a right, but they sit back from the revolt against the people.” (al-Azhari, Mu’jam Tadheebul-Lughah, 3/3006)

“The Qa’diyyah are those who incite the people, stir up hatred within the hearts against the rulers and issue fatawa making lawful what Allah has declared unlawful in the name of changing the evil. And they are the wickedest of the Khawarij.” (Sharr Qatlaa, 20)

Abdullah ibn Muhammad ad-Daif (ra) said: “The Qadiyyah are the wickedest of the Khawarij.” (Abu Dawud, Masailu Imam Ahmad, 271)

Ibn Hajar said: “The Khawarij of al-Qadiyyah did not hold the view of waging war. Rather, they opposed the rulers in accordance to their strength, they called to their opinion and along with that they beautified revolt and held it to be good.” (at-Tadheed 8/114)

He also said: “The Qa’diyyah: Those who beautify revolt against the rulers yet do not actually do it themselves.” (Hadyu’s-Saree, 459)

“And the Qadiyyah are, in most cases, more dangerous than the Khawarij themselves. Since, speech, inciting hatred within the hearts and provoking the common-folks against the rulers has the most profound effect upon the souls; especially when it comes from a man who is an eloquent speaker who dupes the people with his tongue and disguises it with the Sunnah.” (al-Ajwibatu’l-Mufidah, 202)

so if Sheikh Uthaymeen or Albani or Sheikh Rabee say something about rulers, you don't label them as being from the sitting khawarij mentioned in this you copied and pasted, but if I say the exact same thing, you'll accuse me of being from the sitting khawarij. very interesting methodology.

 

[Cush]

Okay Did MBS dismantle the Shariah? Stop trying to twist those fatwas to serve your extremist 100% policy, Sharia law is still part of the constitution. If he comes out openly and Separates the Religion from the state and believes Man made laws are above Shariah then that is Clear open Kufr.

Yes but it's not complete Shariah 100% and they allow night clubs allowing some questionable individuals to do concerts, that's clearly against the Shariah

 

[Omar del Sur]

Okay Did MBS dismantle the Shariah? Stop trying to twist those fatwas to serve your extremist 100% policy, Sharia law is still part of the constitution. If he comes out openly and Separates the Religion from the state and believes Man made laws are above Shariah then that is Clear open Kufr.

quit strawmanning me. I haven't said any 100% thing. I simply follow the same view as held by the Saudi Grand Mufti, by Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah, by Ibn Kathir and by the classical scholars.

as for whether Saudi is ruling by the shariah... in my opinion, it isn't. I don't think Saudi is ruling by the shariah.

 

[techsamatar]

Yes but it's not complete Shariah 100% and they allow night clubs allowing some questionable individuals to do concerts, that's clearly against the Shariah

Yes rulers can have shortcomings your commanded to remain patient and to not draw no swords nor incite hatred against them, they still implement sharia whether its 60% or 90% Tawhid and Sunnah is still is what the people are upon and the rulers rule by - So until MBS comes out and seprates religion from the state and declares Man made law is better then Shariah like in Tunisia then these Khariji can Cope.

 

[Cush]

quit strawmanning me. I haven't said any 100% thing. I simply follow the same view as held by the Saudi Grand Mufti, by Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah, by Ibn Kathir and by the classical scholars.

as for whether Saudi is ruling by the shariah... in my opinion, it isn't. I don't think Saudi is ruling by the shariah.

So do you believe all rulers who do not follow Shariah are kuffar?

 

[Cush]

Yes rulers can have shortcomings your commanded to remain patient and to not draw no swords nor incite hatred against them, they still implement sharia whether its 60% or 90% Tawhid and Sunnah is still is what the people are upon and the rulers rule by - So until MBS comes out and seprates religion from the state and declares Man made law is better then Shariah like in Tunisia then these Khariji can Cope.

Ok Saudi has some Shariah, but other countries do not have it completely so according to this wouldn't they be considered kuffar @Omar del Sur

 

[techsamatar]

quit strawmanning me. I haven't said any 100% thing. I simply follow the same view as held by the Saudi Grand Mufti, by Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah, by Ibn Kathir and by the classical scholars.

as for whether Saudi is ruling by the shariah... in my opinion, it isn't. I don't think Saudi is ruling by the shariah.

"as for whether Saudi is ruling by the shariah... in my opinion, it isn't. I don't think Saudi is ruling by the shariah."

Saudi is without a doubt the only land Ruling by Shariah and the most out of any land on earth, so my friend if you do not believe they are ruling upon shariah then you must believe they are Kafir and MBS is upon Kufr.

@Cush You see how he confuses people he made that statement so without a doubt he believes they are upon Kufr since a ruler who does not rule by Shariah not even partly must be overthrown.

Wallahi Your a Khariji that statement sealed it now please be upfront about how you really feel instead of cosplaying and backtracking.

 

[Cush]

"as for whether Saudi is ruling by the shariah... in my opinion, it isn't. I don't think Saudi is ruling by the shariah."

Saudi is without a doubt the only land Ruling by Shariah and the most out of any land on earth, so my friend if you do not believe they are ruling upon shariah then you must believe they are Kafir and MBS is upon Kufr.

@Cush You see how he confuses people he made that statement so without a doubt he believes they are upon Kufr since a ruler who does not rule by Shariah not even partly must be overthrown.

Wallahi Your a Khariji that statement sealed it now please be upfront about how you really feel instead of cosplaying and backtracking.

Do you believe the nations which follow no Shariah are lead by kuffar, Ibn Taymiyyah said this

 

[techsamatar]

Do you believe the nations which follow no Shariah are lead by kuffar, Ibn Taymiyyah said this

Tunisia Leader is perfect example he publicly separated religion from the state - which is clear declaration that he Believes Man Made Laws are above Shariah completely so he is Upon Kufr.

 

[Cush]

Tunisia Leader is perfect example he publicly separated religion from the state - which is clear declaration that he Believes Man Made Laws are above Shariah completely so he is Upon Kufr.

What about other states like Morroco Algeria and Egypt none of which have Shariah

 

[techsamatar]

What about other states like Morroco Algeria and Egypt none of which have Shariah

Is Islam not part of the constitution in those countries.

 

[Cush]

Is Islam not part of the constitution in those countries.

But they do not Shariah and according to Ibn Taymiyyah that is kufr

 

[Omar del Sur]

So do you believe all rulers who do not follow Shariah are kuffar?

I believe in the fatwa of the Saudi Grand Mufti that I posted. What that fatwa says, that is my view.

I want to give an example. There was an incident where they were legalizing alcohol in the UAE. I simply posted what Sheikh Uthaymeen said. According to Sheikh Uthaymeen, legalizing alcohol is kufr. I didn't even make takfir of the UAE gov, I simply showed what Sheikh Uthaymeen said. And tech of course came with this thing of calling me a khariji.

Of course we have to not fall into the extreme of the khawarij- but there's also the opposite extreme of the murji'ah.

If the ruler generally rules by the shariah and there's an incident here and there where he's not ruling one hundred percent by the shariah- I say kufr duna kufr.

But this ideology being pushed that the ruler can basically be Ataturk, do away with the shariah, and as long as he doesn't openly announce that he doesn't believe in the shariah- that he remains a legitimate Muslim ruler... that is not true and that's actually sort of an opposite extreme.

This saying "kufr duna kufr" comes from when Ibn Abbas debated the khawarij. The khawarij made takfir on Ali because he allegedly didn't rule by what Allah revealed in a particular incident. That is where this "kufr duna kufr" saying comes from.

Now- does it make sense to take that and apply it to some modern day Ataturk type? Ali allegedly didn't rule by what Allah revealed in a specific incident. It's not as though he was some Ataturk of ancient times. If the ruler is some Ataturk type, he dismantles the shariah- he is not a legitimate Muslim ruler.

I really recommend trying to find a copy of this book

وجوب الانقياد للشريعة و الالتزام بالدين وكفر المستغنين عنها​

yes, they have a huge army of people out there to go and call you a khariji if you tell the truth about this topic. the classical view in this matter is an obstacle for the forces of secularization and westernization. but when I researched this matter and it became clear to me, I concluded I had to openly tell the truth and not hide the knowledge. I don't want to be guilty before Allah of hiding the truth about this.

anyways, I really recommend looking for this book:

وجوب الانقياد للشريعة و الالتزام بالدين وكفر المستغنين عنها​

that book has tons of fataawa from classical scholars on this and you can see. the Saudi Grand Mufti wasn't just making up something new. that is the actual authentic view of the classical scholars and which is being hidden from the people for political reasons.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Ok Saudi has some Shariah, but other countries do not have it completely so according to this wouldn't they be considered kuffar @Omar del Sur

I want to mention this. According to Sheikh Ibn Baz, there are two conditions for rebellion. And I'm simply laying out his view, this is not mine.

1- the ruler has fallen into clear kufr

2- you have the means to replace the ruler without it leading to a greater harm to the Muslims.

so... if you are living under, say, Ataturk... and no question Ataturk was a kaffir.... or say Bashar Al-Assad, also definitely a kaffir.... if you have the means to remove them without it leading to greater harm- definitely. but if you don't then I believe as was Sheikh Ibn Baz's view that you should not rebel. so if the ruler has fallen into kufr, it's very clear.... even so.... I don't support rising up against them unless one has met the conditions laid out by Sheikh Ibn Baz. that's as much as I'd like to say.

 

[Cush]

@techsamatar He makes good points here

 

[Omar del Sur]

@techsamatar you can have the last word. I'm not looking to keep going back and forth.