Treaties With Non Muslims Remain Even By Attacking Muslim Countries

[MXXXXM]

Allah said in Surat al Anfal (chapter 8) verse 72

" .........but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance......."

and in the verse we have two benefits.

first benefit

We have to aid Muslims who get attacked in other countries
as long as the attackers are non Muslim and the attacked are Muslim

and this obligation is proven by the verse in the saying
" it is your duty to help them "

but this obligation is not open and we exclude two situations which are

situation one
if the Muslim is one who started the attack (war)
meaning that the Jihad is offensive Jihad
we don't aid those Muslims

and the evidence on that is

Evidence A

Allah's saying " seek your aid "

which is more abvious in arabic
howcome?????
because seeking aid is done by
someone who is being attacked (defensive Jihad situation)
and not attacking (offensive Jihad situation)

and someone who is attacking of course wouldn't seek aid
and Allah wouldn't have used such expression.

Evidence B

the Prophet peace be upon Him didn't aid
Abu Baseer and Abu Jandal
may Allah be pleased with them
when they attacked Quraish and the treaty (Sulh al Hudaibiah)
between Quraish and the Prophet peace be upon Him was still valid

and their attck was offensive Jihad
and they were the ones attcking
and asked for help and no one helped them from Madinah
since the treaty was still going

situation two

if we have a treaty or an agreement
with the non Muslims who are attacking some Muslims
we are not obligated to help the attacked Muslims

and the evidence on that is

Evidence A

" except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance "

Evidence B

the Prophet peace be upon Him
didn't help the Muslims who remained in Mecca
after the treaty with Quraish ( Sulh al Hudaibiayyah)
even though the Meccans tortured them and attcked those Muslims
but due to the treaty
the Prophet peace be upon Him had with Quraish
He peace be upon Him didn't defend them nor aided them

Second Benefit

the treaty with a non Muslim remains valid
even if this non Muslim attacks another Muslim
who is not under the treaty and is not part of it

and the evidence on that is

Evidence A

" except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance "

because if the treaty becomes invalid by this attack
Allah wouldn't have used this exception in the verse
and wouldn't have mentioned the treaty nor talked about it
but since it remains valid even by this attack
Allah mentioned this exception and mentions the treaty

Evidence B

even though the Muslims were attacked by non Muslims in Mecca
and they were tortured and some ever tried to migrate to Madenah
but the Prophet peace be upon Him didn't help them
nor attcked Quraish for that
nor broke the treaty with the Meccans


so.....

bottom line is

if a Muslim country has a treaty with a non Muslim country and this non Muslim country attacks another Muslim country which didn't participate in the treaty or wasn't part of it, the first Muslim country which is part of the treaty is not obligated to aid the attcked Muslim country against the non Muslim country which they had the treaty with.


so not helping them wouldn't be considered a sin.

unless this Muslim country which had the treaty is able to help and the goverment wants to do so, then they have to tell the non Muslim country that the treaty is invalid anymore and they are willing to attack them.


Assalam Alicom
MXXXXM

[MXXXXM]

may allah protect every Muslim country from being attacked

[Gangster No.1]

As muslims we should help brothers and sisters all over the world, affected by the war, and those who ar fighting in the war.

A perfect example would be Iraq, Palestine, Afganistan........coming up Iran.
:bangbang:

[MXXXXM]

coming up Iran.

insha'Allah not.....
fear Allah Akhi......

as for what you said.......

As muslims we should help brothers and sisters all over the world, affected by the war, and those who ar fighting in the war.

1- there is a difference between obligation and reccomendation and prohibition.
2- what you said...... no one argues about it.
3- i'm talking about countries which have treaties with non Muslim countries like the US and UK......
they are not obligated to help

[Le Croyant]

Treaties with invading Kuffars are more important that our responsibility to fellow Muslim neighbor.

[Le Croyant]

btw, MXXXXM i have posted a thread for u, hope u can answer my Q.

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124629

[al faqeer]

btw, MXXXXM i have posted a thread for u, hope u can answer my Q.

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124629

Yeah why did ya brothers Kill French people wearing I7raam ? :rolleyes:


Could it be that they changed their brain cells to SNOT ! ?

:D

[Le Croyant]

Yeah why did ya brothers Kill French people wearing I7raam ? :rolleyes:


Could it be that they changed their brain cells to SNOT ! ?

:D

I think they should be punished to full extent... a.k.a death penalty. And that has nothing to do with thread.

[Le Croyant]

btw, Al faqeer, thisi s for u too. I have genuine Q for u. May b the rite answer can pull me into ur camp. :D

btw, MXXXXM i have posted a thread for u, hope u can answer my Q.

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124629

[Al-Fateh]

back to the topic here . i wanna see where this will go

[Al-Nasser]

Allah said in Surat al Anfal (chapter 8) verse 72

" .........but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance......."

and in the verse we have two benefits.

first benefit

We have to aid Muslims who get attacked in other countries
as long as the attackers are non Muslim and the attacked are Muslim

and this obligation is proven by the verse in the saying
" it is your duty to help them "

but this obligation is not open and we exclude two situations which are

situation one
if the Muslim is one who started the attack (war)
meaning that the Jihad is offensive Jihad
we don't aid those Muslims

and the evidence on that is

Evidence A

Allah's saying " seek your aid "

which is more abvious in arabic
howcome?????
because seeking aid is done by
someone who is being attacked (defensive Jihad situation)
and not attacking (offensive Jihad situation)

and someone who is attacking of course wouldn't seek aid
and Allah wouldn't have used such expression.

Evidence B

the Prophet peace be upon Him didn't aid
Abu Baseer and Abu Jandal
may Allah be pleased with them
when they attacked Quraish and the treaty (Sulh al Hudaibiah)
between Quraish and the Prophet peace be upon Him was still valid

and their attck was offensive Jihad
and they were the ones attcking
and asked for help and no one helped them from Madinah
since the treaty was still going

situation two

if we have a treaty or an agreement
with the non Muslims who are attacking some Muslims
we are not obligated to help the attacked Muslims

and the evidence on that is

Evidence A

" except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance "

Evidence B

the Prophet peace be upon Him
didn't help the Muslims who remained in Mecca
after the treaty with Quraish ( Sulh al Hudaibiayyah)
even though the Meccans tortured them and attcked those Muslims
but due to the treaty
the Prophet peace be upon Him had with Quraish
He peace be upon Him didn't defend them nor aided them

Second Benefit

the treaty with a non Muslim remains valid
even if this non Muslim attacks another Muslim
who is not under the treaty and is not part of it

and the evidence on that is

Evidence A

" except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance "

because if the treaty becomes invalid by this attack
Allah wouldn't have used this exception in the verse
and wouldn't have mentioned the treaty nor talked about it
but since it remains valid even by this attack
Allah mentioned this exception and mentions the treaty

Evidence B

even though the Muslims were attacked by non Muslims in Mecca
and they were tortured and some ever tried to migrate to Madenah
but the Prophet peace be upon Him didn't help them
nor attcked Quraish for that
nor broke the treaty with the Meccans


so.....

bottom line is

if a Muslim country has a treaty with a non Muslim country and this non Muslim country attacks another Muslim country which didn't participate in the treaty or wasn't part of it, the first Muslim country which is part of the treaty is not obligated to aid the attcked Muslim country against the non Muslim country which they had the treaty with.


so not helping them wouldn't be considered a sin.

unless this Muslim country which had the treaty is able to help and the goverment wants to do so, then they have to tell the non Muslim country that the treaty is invalid anymore and they are willing to attack them.


Assalam Alicom
MXXXXM










a load of crap which smell like Al-Saud and their propaganda

the corrupt stinking Al-Saud and their dogs are twisting the deen to meet their masochist ideology desires and to secure their supplies of Whiskey and western strippers

the verse is speaking about a very special situation.....the Muslims who didn't make hijrah from Makka to Madinah while it was obligatory......and this situation is no more in our days.....case closed

[MXXXXM]

our brother/sister Le may Allah forgive Him/Her said......

Treaties with invading Kuffars are more important that our responsibility to fellow Muslim neighbor.

yes it can be.......
honesty and being up to the word you give to others.....
Muslims don't say something and when they turn there backs they something else.
anyway......

the verses of Allah and what the Prophet peace be upon Him did and said is above everything. respond to the evidence and we are done.

[MXXXXM]

our brother Al Nasser may Allah forgive Him said.....

a load of crap which smell like Al-Saud and their propaganda

the corrupt stinking Al-Saud and their dogs are twisting the deen to meet their masochist ideology desires and to secure their supplies of Whiskey and western strippers

Akhi don't you fear Allah.......
it's funny how the same mouth utters words like Allah and Quran.
talk like a Muslim Akhi.......

anyway.....
in regards to this....

the verse is speaking about a very special situation.....the Muslims who didn't make hijrah from Makka to Madinah while it was obligatory......and this situation is no more in our days.....case closed

this great mistake implies.....

since the situation is no more in our days as you are saying, and the verse is talking about this very special situation, then this certain verse is invalid for today and so the verse is worthless and no need for it in the Quran today and so why don't we just delete it, and this shakes the core fundamintals of Islam.

now.....
you also said that.....
the verse refers to....

" the Muslims who didn't make hijrah from Makka to Madinah while it was obligatory "

which means according to your interpretation.
the verse means....

"....... if they (the people who didn't migrate) seek your aid in religion ( against the Meccans ) , it is your duty to help them ( the Muslis who didn't migrate), except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance ( the Meccans)....... "

and this means....

you are not obligated (it's not your duty) to help any Muslim who is attacked and is seeking your aid unless this Muslim is still in Mecca and didn't migrate. which is even worse than what i'm saying, if i what i said is wrong in the first place.

why?????

because since you said that the treaty part (second part) of the verse refers to the people who didn't migrate from Mecca when it was obligatory, then you are obligated to say that the first part of the verse which is talking about aiding Muslim people who are attacked that this part refers to those people as well......

which means.....

you don't aid any Muslims unless they are still in Mecca and didn't migrate.
which is totally wrong and against the fundamintals of Jihad.

and why is that ?????

because you can't seperate the verse and use one part and leave the other if they are all in the same context.;)
and this is rule in Tafseer.

simple......your case is closed.:up:

please keep you contrubtions clean and Islamic Akhi.......

and don't think that you're always right.

[al faqeer]

a load of crap which smell like Al-Saud and their propaganda

the corrupt stinking Al-Saud and their dogs are twisting the deen to meet their masochist ideology desires and to secure their supplies of Whiskey and western strippers

the verse is speaking about a very special situation.....the Muslims who didn't make hijrah from Makka to Madinah while it was obligatory......and this situation is no more in our days.....case closed

Inshallah the Takfeeris will be eridicated Ameen and sent where they belong down under :)

and i am not talking about australia .

[Le Croyant]

our brother/sister Le may Allah forgive Him/Her said......



yes it can be.......
honesty and being up to the word you give to others.....
Muslims don't say something and when they turn there backs they something else.
anyway......

the verses of Allah and what the Prophet peace be upon Him did and said is above everything. respond to the evidence and we are done.

So, when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Why did Saudi help Kuwait & call upon US to get rid of Iraq from Kuwait. Saudi had treaties with Iraq, why break them?

And don't say Saddam was goin to attack Saudi as I didn't do that till American launched the attack on Iraq to get rid of them from Kuwait.

I think Saudi did the right thing by helping Kuwait, protect them & help fight the occupiers and breaking the treaties with Iraq on the way. But oh! same can't b done when US is the occupier, that smells of hypocrisy to me.

[MXXXXM]

our sister/brother Le may allah forgive Her/Him said......

Why did Saudi help Kuwait & call upon US to get rid of Iraq from Kuwait. Saudi had treaties with Iraq, why break them?

1- how did you know that there are treaties between Iraq and Saudi and those treaties say don't start a war ???????

2- if you read the original topic properly......
here is what i said at the end.

unless this Muslim country which had the treaty is able to help and the goverment wants to do so, then they have to tell the non Muslim country that the treaty is invalid anymore and they are willing to attack them.

and Saudi used the US and some other countries.... and so it was able to respond back.

our main topic is about countries which can't help, or even can but have treaties and then the aid would be liked but not obligatory.

but if you can aid and want to, break the treaties and help.

and by the way......

And don't say Saddam was goin to attack Saudi as I didn't do that till American launched the attack on Iraq to get rid of them from Kuwait.

Saddam wasn't going to attack Saudi.....

Saddam attacked Saudi.... and crossed the Saudi borders and entered many KM's into the Saudi lands this is well known. and that's why Saudi asked for the help of the US because Saddam was willing to do that and indicated that.

But oh! same can't b done when US is the occupier, that smells of hypocrisy to me.

of course it can't be done here.....

1- there might be treaties.
2- Saudi nor any other Muslim or even non Muslim country on the face of have the power to stand against the US and its power, and help any other country against it.

and that's why Saudi and others can't do anything to Iraq or any other country. these are facts and we put ourselves in those situations by leaveing Quran and Sunnah.

so bottom line is......

1- they might have treaties, and even if they want to break it they don't have enough power to aid.
2- even if they don't have treaties, they are unable to help.

[Le Croyant]

Saddam wasn't going to attack Saudi.....

Saddam attacked Saudi.... and crossed the Saudi borders and entered many KM's into the Saudi lands this is well known. and that's why Saudi asked for the help of the US because Saddam was willing to do that and indicated that.

I live pretty close to where the war started from, we didn't get shelled till Jan 17th. NO Iraqi troop entered Saudi even after that. Only scud were fired. Pls get ur facts right, next time.



of course it can't be done here.....

1- there might be treaties.
2- Saudi nor any other Muslim or even non Muslim country on the face of have the power to stand against the US and its power, and help any other country against it.

and that's why Saudi and others can't do anything to Iraq or any other country. these are facts and we put ourselves in those situations by leaveing Quran and Sunnah.

so bottom line is......

1- they might have treaties, and even if they want to break it they don't have enough power to aid.
2- even if they don't have treaties, they are unable to help.

So, ur logic on why we should not resist is coz we not as strong as US. We will mite never be, so we should just be gettin occupied & getting killed?

If we don't help our neighbors fight the occupation, should we help the kuffar in invading & occupying our Muslim neighbors? That's exactly what we did in the Iraq war, is that what the Quran & Sunnah tells us do, help the kuffar invade our Muslim brothers? i doubt it.

[al faqeer]

I live pretty close to where the war started from, we didn't get shelled till Jan 17th. NO Iraqi troop entered Saudi even after that. Only scud were fired. Pls get ur facts right, next time.




So, ur logic on why we should not resist is coz we not as strong as US. We will mite never be, so we should just be gettin occupied & getting killed?

If we don't help our neighbors fight the occupation, should we help the kuffar in invading & occupying our Muslim neighbors? That's exactly what we did in the Iraq war, is that what the Quran & Sunnah tells us do, help the kuffar invade our Muslim brothers? i doubt it.

Brains me Boy ! brains ?

If you help your neighbours you will be occupied .

Dont propagate Takfeerism please !

[Le Croyant]

Brains me Boy ! brains ?

If you help your neighbours you will be occupied .

Dont propagate Takfeerism please !

Takfeerism? r u illiterate? when did I do takfeer?

if we can't help our neighbors coz we r too scared, does that mean we should help in the invasion of our neighbors?

[al faqeer]

Takfeerism? r u illiterate? when did I do takfeer?

if we can't help our neighbors coz we r too scared, does that mean we should help in the invasion of our neighbors?

Look You educated You your God Given mind please use it , How can Wullaat Al Ummur make Decisions that will affest an entire nation of Muslim which has to take care of Hujaaj and the 7aramain ?

Think b4 you speak .

Hezbollah went Against Israel What happened to Lebanon ?

[MXXXXM]

first.....
our brother/sister Le may Allah forgive Him/Her...

did you check your private brother/sister for the answer......?????

you said.....
I live pretty close to where the war started from, we didn't get shelled till Jan 17th. NO Iraqi troop entered Saudi even after that. Only scud were fired. Pls get ur facts right, next time.

it's one of two......

1- you live on the Iraqi/Saudi borders and then you know what are you talking about, but i doubt, because you told me before that you live next to an american base in Saudi Arabia so can you please make up your mind.

2- you know the unknown (Ilm Al Ghaib) and so you knew that the Iraqi's never stepped into the Saudi land.

and please remember that the Iraqi's entered for few KM's into the Saudi land.

so living 100 KM's from the borders is not enough to witness it.

anyway..........

wether this happened or not......
this is what Saddam intented to do, and this is well known and no one can deny it.

then you said......

So, ur logic on why we should not resist is coz we not as strong as US. We will mite never be, so we should just be gettin occupied & getting killed?

If we don't help our neighbors fight the occupation, should we help the kuffar in invading & occupying our Muslim neighbors? That's exactly what we did in the Iraq war, is that what the Quran & Sunnah tells us do, help the kuffar invade our Muslim brothers? i doubt it.

this is a very greive mistake brother/sister.....

why?????

because you want scholars to change the Fatwa according to what's happening. not change what's happening to suite the Fatwa.

sister/brother may Allah guide you.......

no matter what's going on, we have to stick to the rules and regulations of Islam. without questioning it. commit to the rules and then ask or try to know why.

if you think what's said up there is wrong.

respond to the evidence and refute it, and not just that, prove it by another evidence. don't come to me and present emotional words like our sisters are dying and our children are being killed. this doesn't work with me.

if Allah or the Prophet peace be upon Him say something.....

i'll stick to it even if the whole world is eleminated.

because i know for sure that sticking to those rules and orders is the way out of the problem.

and i hope you learn a lesson from Ghazwat Uhud and what happened to the Muslims when they disobeyed the Prophet peace be upon Him.

[Le Croyant]

first.....
1- you live on the Iraqi/Saudi borders and then you know what are you talking about, but i doubt, because you told me before that you live next to an american base in Saudi Arabia so can you please make up your mind.

2- you know the unknown (Ilm Al Ghaib) and so you knew that the Iraqi's never stepped into the Saudi land.

and please remember that the Iraqi's entered for few KM's into the Saudi land.

Actually, i lived near an American base. I don't see the soldiers any more 7 signs have been taken off.


Actually, Saddam did enter Saudi but that in the end of January, after Iraq war started not before. It was in retaliation to war Saudi had waged on it...

btw, I think Saddam got what he deserved & SAUDI did the right thing at time by helping Kuwait... one should help ur neighbour when attacked by any one, one can't sit by idly when ur neighbour is occupied.

[Le Croyant]

change the Fatwa?

at one point u talk abt rules & regulations of Islam... then u have no problem when rulers ignore the basic right of a Muslim to b protected by other Muslims when attacked?

No one here is saying disobey the Prophet (PBUH).

I m not saying ppl should join Jihadi groups... I m asking how should Muslims govts. react & help our occupied neighbors? u have not given any answer.

Does the Fatwa say that we should help the kuffar occupier attack our muslim neighbours? Does that break the any law of Islam? Pls answer this Q.

btw, i read ur pm. i will post it the thread as it belongs there.



because you want scholars to change the Fatwa according to what's happening. not change what's happening to suite the Fatwa.

sister/brother may Allah guide you.......

no matter what's going on, we have to stick to the rules and regulations of Islam. without questioning it. commit to the rules and then ask or try to know why.

if you think what's said up there is wrong.

respond to the evidence and refute it, and not just that, prove it by another evidence. don't come to me and present emotional words like our sisters are dying and our children are being killed. this doesn't work with me.

if Allah or the Prophet peace be upon Him say something.....

i'll stick to it even if the whole world is eleminated.

because i know for sure that sticking to those rules and orders is the way out of the problem.

and i hope you learn a lesson from Ghazwat Uhud and what happened to the Muslims when they disobeyed the Prophet peace be upon Him.

[Abu Mus'ab]

a load of crap which smell like Al-Saud and their propaganda

the corrupt stinking Al-Saud and their dogs are twisting the deen to meet their masochist ideology desires and to secure their supplies of Whiskey and western strippers

the verse is speaking about a very special situation.....the Muslims who didn't make hijrah from Makka to Madinah while it was obligatory......and this situation is no more in our days.....case closed
Because that's all it is, a pile of nonsense from a talafi.

[MXXXXM]

Actually, i lived near an American base. I don't see the soldiers any more 7 signs have been taken off.

so....
you admit that there are no US soldiers in Saudi ??????

and a second thing is.......

still i didn't know....
dio you live next to the borders or do you live next to an American base.?????

i would like to know please so that i know how to disscuss the issue with you.

anyway.....
i think that since you agree that Iraqi's entered Saudi, i don't see what's you point of the whole disscussion, so can you please explain it.

Actually, Saddam did enter Saudi but that in the end of January, after Iraq war started not before. It was in retaliation to war Saudi had waged on it...


before or after.....

this was going to happen and the Saudi knew it.
how ?????

i don't really work with them.
but i don't see what's your base for your arguement.????

so please clear it out.


one should help ur neighbour when attacked by any one, one can't sit by idly when ur neighbour is occupied.

yes it is obligatory.....
but
to add to that.......

as long as there is nothing that restrains you.

exmaple.....
treaties, unability.....ect

then it becomes recommended or even allowed sometimes.......

as for the rest.....

sister/brother......

give me a single Fatwa or a single word which i said.... and i changed it according to what rulers want.

Im asking how should Muslims govts. react & help our occupied neighbors? u have not given any answer.

they should help and aid.... as much as they can.
and this is an obligation upon them.

no arguement about that.

this was given at the top of the thread in the first few lines.

Does the Fatwa say that we should help the kuffar occupier attack our muslim neighbours?

should..... no of course not.
and so far.....
i never touched on this topic.

but are we allowed????????????
this is a very complex and mature topic which i'm not going to disscuss on a public forum, i can talk to you on MSN if you want.


btw, i read ur pm. i will post it the thread as it belongs there.

if i wanted people to read what i said.....
i would've posted it on the thread itself, but anyway......

it's alright.

[MXXXXM]

Abu Mus'ab....

may Allah guide you and grant you Heaven Akhi.....
the only one who is harmed by such posts is you.

if you want to benefit yourself and others.....

disscuss it as a student of knowledge.

[AbuMubarak]

Allah said in Surat al Anfal (chapter 8) verse 72

" .........but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance......."




that fatwa is from shaytan

i have never ever heard that we are supposed to adhere to supporting people who are killing muslims

that is exactly what started the conquest of makkah

where do you guys find this stuff?

[AbuMubarak]

that was the fatwa that the europeans showed the muslims of andalusia

[Abu Mus'ab]

Abu Mus'ab....

may Allah guide you and grant you Heaven Akhi.....
the only one who is harmed by such posts is you.

if you want to benefit yourself and others.....

disscuss it as a student of knowledge.
Why don't you go become a "student of knowledge" instead of posting this rubbish?

[MXXXXM]

brother.......

that fatwa is from shaytan

that Fatwa is from Shiekh Bin Baz may Allah shower His with mercy.

and many Olama' even before Him approve it.

but i didn't want to mention names so that people won't insults those Olama'

[MXXXXM]

Why don't you go become a "student of knowledge" instead of posting this rubbish?

Akhi i'm trying to.....

if you think that what i'm saying is wrong prove it.

simple.....

La Illaha Illa Allah.

[AbuMubarak]

yeah thats it'

post rubbish and then have muslims spend time refuting it

then when they refute it, post some more

you can do that all day long

[MXXXXM]

Akhi......

do you still believe that it's from Shaytan ??????

if not can you please edit your post.

and by the way.....
if you refute what's said.....

i'll delete the whole thread and never come back to the topic again.

and this is a promise.

[AbuMubarak]

i will not edit my post, but i will delete this thread if need be

[MXXXXM]

i will not edit my post, but i will delete this thread if need be

up to you Akhi......

but this would be unfair.

[AbuMubarak]

anyone who brings disunity to the muslims is a shaytan, for anyone to say that because a muslim has some agreement with a kafir and that same kafir attacks muslims, so the other muslims do not have to support him is dead wrong

do i have to bring ayaat and hadith to support that to you? is this not the most basic tenet of islam

or is it because you say binbaz said it, we have to contradict 1400 years of islam?

[MXXXXM]

and also Akhi.....

i don't see that there is any preach of any of the forums regulations.

[AbuMubarak]

unfair is you posting that rubbish on a public forum

thats unfair

so you think it was well within islam that american troops are in saudi?

unless you give me clear cut ayaat and hadith that say this obvious contradiction to everything within islam, then i stand by my words

i love scholars, but they can be wrong, and its the followers who usually make more out of their statements than what the statement was worth

[AbuMubarak]

and also Akhi.....

i don't see that there is any preach of any of the forums regulations.

i am not a moderator, i am a porter, i just clean up garbage around here

admin stuff goes to the moderators

[Le Croyant]

so....
you admit that there are no US soldiers in Saudi ??????

and a second thing is.......

still i didn't know....
dio you live next to the borders or do you live next to an American base.?????

i would like to know please so that i know how to disscuss the issue with you.

There r no bases any more, are there US soldiers in Saudi.. yes but not as a battalion, they moved to the new base in Qatar. They do keep in for refueling their jets.

I LIVED next to the US base, sorry if said LIVE. must b a typo. My dad had business in Khafji, hence I used to go the border town with him to take care of business.



anyway.....
i think that since you agree that Iraqi's entered Saudi, i don't see what's you point of the whole disscussion, so can you please explain it.

before or after.....

this was going to happen and the Saudi knew it.
how ?????

i don't really work with them.

Iraqi army entered Khafji after US forces started attacking Iraq. the point of the argument, the Iraqi forces would not have come down if they were not attacked by Saudi, it was in retaliation for the attack.

[MXXXXM]

anyone who brings disunity to the muslims is a shaytan, for anyone to say that because a muslim has some agreement with a kafir and that same kafir attacks muslims, so the other muslims do not have to support him is dead wrong

do i have to bring ayaat and hadith to support that to you? is this not the most basic tenet of islam

or is it because you say binbaz said it, we have to contradict 1400 years of islam?

good.....

Akhi not because Bin Baz said it, and that's why i posted the evidence.
otherwise i would have posted the Fatwa without any evidence and said that this is what Shiekh Bin Baz said.

but i posted the evidence.

there is no need to bring any more evidence.

explain the meaning of the verse posted.
and we'll start from there insha'Allah.

and it would be an honor for me Akhi to disscuss it with you.

[MXXXXM]

i am not a moderator, i am a porter, i just clean up garbage around here

admin stuff goes to the moderators

and i ask Allah to make you a moderator.

but can you please prove that this is garbage.


There r no bases any more, are there US soldiers in Saudi.. yes but not as a battalion, they moved to the new base in Qatar. They do keep in for refueling their jets.

good then you can't use the arguement that Saudi is a Kafir goverment because they help in the war.......

the point of the argument, the Iraqi forces would not have come down if they were not attacked by Saudi, it was in retaliation for the attack.

Akhi/Ukhti......

Saddam's aim wasn't Kuwait only......
it was the whole gulf and especially Saudi.

this is well known.....

anyway let's stick to the topic insha'Allah.

[Le Croyant]

so....
Does the Fatwa say that we should help the kuffar occupier attack our muslim neighbours?

should..... no of course not.
and so far.....
i never touched on this topic.

but are we allowed????????????
this is a very complex and mature topic which i'm not going to disscuss on a public forum, i can talk to you on MSN if you want.

Bro/Sis... ppl here r mature & it can only ppl learn.

u say of course not but that's exactly what we muslim nations did in this new war against Iraq. What's the justification for that from Quran & Sunnah?

[AbuMubarak]

an honor to talk to me?

i aint nobody

anyway, listen akhi, sometimes we get so caught up in words and intelligensia, we overlook the basics

in islam, as you know, we have this thing called brotherhood, NOTHING goes against that

no matter who says what, if there are muslims being attacked, the prophet said we are like one body, when one hurts the whole body hurts

how can we justify watching the kuffar kill muslims, and leave it be because binbaz or some INTERPRETATION of islam says its ok?

Allah annihilated the treaty with the kuffar, Allah allowed the prophet to cut trees, even haroon allowed the kuffar to fall into shirk, all in the spirit of brotherhood and not allowing fitna between the ranks, no piece of paper justifies allowing the kuffar to kill muslims and other muslims sit by and watch

i dont need binbaz or anyone else to say otherwise, because it contradicts everyting we practice in islam

intellectually, a brother told me that shaytan is muslim, because he submitted to the will of Allah by disobeying

this is the type of logical reasoning that the prophet said was magic

[Le Croyant]

Saddam's aim wasn't Kuwait only......
it was the whole gulf and especially Saudi.

this is well known.....

anyway let's stick to the topic insha'Allah.

Any source other than US admin? u can pm me the sources if u want.

[Le Croyant]

good then you can't use the arguement that Saudi is a Kafir goverment because they help in the war.......

are u saying that if they help the kuffar in the war, the Saudi govt are kaffirs?

Yes, they have helped in the war. Three air bases were used during the war for refueling jets which bombed Muslim Iraqis.

[AbuMubarak]

all of those scholars should be telling those idiot leaders that they need a khalifa and stop this petty dictatorshiips that is not part of islam

but the scholars cant do that

now akhi, please tell me the hadith about the scholars who sit under tyrants, what does it say about such people of knowledge

think about all of our classical scholars and what they endured, tell me these scholars today are following the way of the salaf

[MXXXXM]

Bro/Sis

i'm a brother.....

ppl here r mature & it can only ppl learn.

some are....
but the disscussion is open for everyone and so the comments can be so nasty which is something i don't want if you want to dissucss it in private, i'm happy about it, if not, let's stick to the topic.

an honor to talk to me?

i aint nobody

Akhi this is used by students when they talk to each other out of respect....
may Allah increase us in knowledge.

anyway, listen akhi, sometimes we get so caught up in words and intelligensia, we overlook the basics

in islam, as you know, we have this thing called brotherhood, NOTHING goes against that

no matter who says what, if there are muslims being attacked, the prophet said we are like one body, when one hurts the whole body hurts

how can we justify watching the kuffar kill muslims, and leave it be because binbaz or some INTERPRETATION of islam says its ok?

Allah annihilated the treaty with the kuffar, Allah allowed the prophet to cut trees, even haroon allowed the kuffar to fall into shirk, all in the spirit of brotherhood and not allowing fitna between the ranks, no piece of paper justifies allowing the kuffar to kill muslims and other muslims sit by and watch

this is something i don't disagree with you on.
and no Muslims does.

but.....

today....
we have people who say.

our goverments are Kuffar, or at least sinfull because they didn't help Iraqis or Afghanis.....

now.....

i'm not saying that all goverments are Muslims.
i'm not that they are all perfectly Muslims.
and i'm not justifying the attacks on Muslim lands.

all that i want to prove for you and the rest is a rule in Islam.

which is......

if a Muslim country is attacked, we are obligated to help. but if a Muslim country has a treaty with the non Muslim attacking country, this obligation falls.

evidence is in Quran.
in Sunnah.
and sayings of Olama'

simple......

if you believe that this is wrong, and the rule is wrong you have to.....

1- explain the evidence provided in a way that supports your arguement.
2- provide another evidence which disproves it.
3- support this by sayings of Olama' unless you yourself is an Alim or a Shiekh.

and insha'allah i'll be waiting for your response.

again Akhi.....

i'm not saying don't aid or that it's prohibited.

but i'm responding to those who say that aiding an attacked Muslim country is an obligation upon every single Muslim country no matter what situation this country is in, and wether the conitions of aiding apply or not.

Any source other than US admin? u can pm me the sources if u want.

again Akhi/ukhti....

this is off topic.

[MXXXXM]

are u saying that if they help the kuffar in the war, the Saudi govt are kaffirs?

i told you before that this is so complex and i'm not going through it on public.
want to talk about it, MSN or private.

Yes, they have helped in the war. Three air bases were used during the war for refueling jets which bombed Muslim Iraqis.

open up a new thread and post an evidence on that there.

sister/brother....

may Allah cover your soul with mercy.....
please stick to the topic.

if you have any topics which you want to disscuss with me.

i can give you my MSN and we'll talk about it there.


all of those scholars should be telling those idiot leaders that they need a khalifa and stop this petty dictatorshiips that is not part of islam

but the scholars cant do that

now akhi, please tell me the hadith about the scholars who sit under tyrants, what does it say about such people of knowledge

think about all of our classical scholars and what they endured, tell me these scholars today are following the way of the salaf

Akhi fear Allah and leave those scholars.....

you don't want to stand in front of them on the day of judgement for insulting them. trust me Akhi.......

let's stick to the topic Insha'Allah.

[Le Croyant]

How this not related to the topic, I m talking abt helping Kuffar attack Muslim countries?

[AbuMubarak]

akhi, scholars are people who lead, not who sit and justify wrong

leading is not sitting in an ivory tower, no matter how many books you have read, graduated or written

i want a scholar like abu bakr, umar, uthman, ali, umar ibn abdul aziz, people who fought and stood up for right

not sitting with tyrants justifying their evil

[MXXXXM]

How this not related to the topic, I m talking abt helping Kuffar attack Muslim countries?

and i'm talking about Kuffar whom we have treaties with attacking a Muslim country.

two seperate topics ;)


akhi, scholars are people who lead, not who sit and justify wrong

leading is not sitting in an ivory tower, no matter how many books you have read, graduated or written

i want a scholar like abu bakr, umar, uthman, ali, umar ibn abdul aziz, people who fought and stood up for right

not sitting with tyrants justifying their evil

La Illah Illa Allah.....

Akhi......

1- i don't look to the name of the scholar who said it, i look to the evidence.
the Shiekh provided an evidence on his arguement and that's why i took.

if you have another explaination for the evidence or another evidence, please provide it so i might take it if it right.

2- if you want to talk and insult those scholars, start a thread and leave this by itself.

and if you want to talk about this topic and disscuss it, please do.

and who knows
may Allah guide me on your hands, if i'm the misguided..... which is a great reward you don't wanna miss

or Allah guide you on my hands if, if you are the misguided.......which is a great reward which i don't wanna miss.

[Az-Zukhruf]

so..... bottom line is

if a Muslim country has a treaty with a non Muslim country and this non Muslim country attacks another Muslim country which didn't participate in the treaty or wasn't part of it, the first Muslim country which is part of the treaty is not obligated to aid the attcked Muslim country against the non Muslim country which they had the treaty with.


so not helping them wouldn't be considered a sin.

unless this Muslim country which had the treaty is able to help and the goverment wants to do so, then they have to tell the non Muslim country that the treaty is invalid anymore and they are willing to attack them.




Though the countries are inhabited by Muslims, hence referred to as Muslim countries, they are not Islamic in the sense that they Implement Shariah and cater for needs of the Muslims based on that, the leaders have disbelieved in more ways then one, and generally rule Kuffr in all aspects, and permit Shirk. So their covenants as a nation with the other Kuffar nations are worthless, as they are illigitmate Kuffr regimes, that look after interests of their western masters more then Islam and Muslims. You seem to have forgotten this fact in your conclusions, would be interesting to know which Aalims conclusions it is you are putting forward.

For arguments sake say their covenants as a nation where legitimate (which they are not), that does not stop Muslims as individuals from those countries going and helping the oppressed Muslims abroad, but even that is considered a crime via those Countries, which you are locked away for.

However the evidences you mentioned apply correctly on Muslim minorities living under the authority of the Non-Muslims in the west etc, i.e. USA & UK, they are given security so the Muslims should respect and be loyal to that, though those very same nations they are living under are killing Muslims abroad.

and Allah (swt) knows best.

[MXXXXM]

our brother Abu Zukhruf may allah forgive Him said.......

Though the countries are inhabited by Muslims, hence referred to as Muslim countries, they are not Islamic in the sense that they Implement Shariah and cater for needs of the Muslims based on that, the leaders have disbelieved in more ways then one, and generally rule Kuffr in all aspects, and permit Shirk. So their covenants as a nation with the other Kuffar nations are worthless, as they are illigitmate Kuffr regimes, that look after interests of their western masters more then Islam and Muslims. You seem to have forgotten this fact in your conclusions, would be interesting to know which Aalims conclusions it is you are putting forward.

For arguments sake say their covenants as a nation where legitimate (which they are not), that does not stop Muslims as individuals from those countries going and helping the oppressed Muslims abroad, but even that is considered a crime via those Countries, which you are locked away for.

However the evidences you mentioned apply correctly on Muslim minorities living under the authority of the Non-Muslims in the west etc, i.e. USA & UK, they are given security so the Muslims should respect and be loyal to that, though those very same nations they are living under are killing Muslims abroad.

i understand from this......

1- you make Takfeer aganist every single goverment on the face of earth without any single exception which is wrong and anyway off topic and i'm more than happy to talk about it with you and disscuss it on private or even MSN if you like, just PM me.

2- that you agree with me on what's said but, disagree with me by saying the underlined. and here can you please show me how you extracted this from the evidence given, because it looks to me that you took the evidence in the opposite way.

but anyway.....

please show me how you extracted what you said from the evidence???????

because it's totally opposite to what the evidence says wether my understanding of the evidence is right or not.

may Allah reward you in advance....
i'll be waiting.

[AbuMubarak]

i would lke to know what legitimizes any of these islamic governments>

they took power, they dont govern according to the book of Allah or the sunnah, they obey the kuffar, they do not assist the muslims

so what exactly makes them in a position where we have to give them any respect?

if i steal your house, and steal your wife, and after five years, is she my wife? ten years?

50 years?

[Joha]

akhi, scholars are people who lead, not who sit and justify wrong



I doubt many justify wrong. It's just that some aren't as vociferous and open as you'd like them to be, and often that's because of something you may not be very familiar with, 7ikmah.

It makes more sense to reform and teach the people (the masses) by not being very 'loud' on things that don't make a real difference, then shout and bark about something that is unlikely to change soon.

Reformations take time, they are slow but they last a long time, revolutions on the other hand are quick to happen, appeal to the 'barkers' but don't last very long.

You need only see the example of the Prophet saw and how he reformed society gradually.

[AbuMubarak]

i wonder how many of these people of hikmah would have told the prophet to calm down his speech, to accept the offers of the quraysh, when the companions asked him to make dua to Allah and he became angry and related the story of those before who suffered greater

so from the perspective of some, its ok to NOT speak out, NOT change with their hands, cowardice is considered hikmah

when the battle of badr came, was the prophet using hikmah to fight against the odds, when many of the companions would hold fast in light of being beat and tortured, why didnt they use hikmah and keep their imaan to themselves?

how about after the death of the prophet, all of the companions told abu bakr not to send the troops out, but he went against all of them and held tight to the command of the prophet

sorry, i would rather stand up for right than sit down for wrong

it aint always easy, but it is always best

[AbuMubarak]

you call taking a bunch of camel herders and making them the best of men within ONE generation gradual?

it was radical and hasnt been repeated since

[umar7]

22 years of as a Messenger of Allah subhana wa ' tala and he did so much.

almost a century since the fall of the ottomans? you reformers aren't making me feel any better.

[MXXXXM]

our brother Abu Mubarak may Allah forgive Him said.....

they took power, they dont govern according to the book of Allah or the sunnah, they obey the kuffar, they do not assist the muslims

1- they took power.
and here we have two points....

A- taking power is a legitimate way to rule in Islam.
meaning that if someone takes power over you, and he got the full power, he is a ruler.

and the other two way....... 1- royality and 2- Shura
they are all valid in Islamic Shariah.

b- did you ask yourself Akhi.....
why those so called corrupt rulers took power and not good ones took power???????

isn't this our fault that we left religion and stayed away from Quran and Sunnah and so the whole society become corrupt and produced such so corrupt rulers.
so Akhi.....

good societies provide good rulers and bad societies provide bad rulers. becomes rulers come from between those societies.

apples trees give you apples......
they never give you oranges.

2- they don't govern by the book of Allah.

this is not an excuse to make Takfeer against them or overthrow them as people do, it's off topic so i won't go into much detail about it.

3- obeying the Kuffar.

not every obedience to the Kuffar is Kufr. and i guess you know that very well.

4- not assessting Muslims

doesn't mean that they are Kuffar.
you have to look at the situation which they are in.

maybe they are unable......
or maybe they have treaties with the enemy.....

so what exactly makes them in a position where we have to give them any respect?

being rulers.
and for some....
being Muslim rulers.

and according to Quran and Sunnah.......
Muslim rulers have to be respected and never ever overthrown or fought.
and Kuffar rulers have to be ruling until we can overthrow them.

if i steal your house, and steal your wife, and after five years, is she my wife? ten years?

50 years?

1- try always not to use such low arguements and examples.
2- never use the " what if " arguement, and this is what we learned from Islam.
3- your example doesn't support your arguement and not just that but also against you, because.....

1- you can't steal someone's wife......

there is a valid contract between her and her original husband.
and this doesn't fit a goverment situation. i don't see any similarities.

2- let's say that you still want to use this as an example.....

if you do such thing..... are you a Kafir ?????????
of course your answer is no.....

and so.....

how come a ruler who steals a goverment is a Kafir while someone who steals another's wife is not a Kafir ;) ???????

or is there two sets of rules....
one for rulers and another for me and you :)

[AbuMubarak]

akhi

wallahi, your calm demeanor has impressed me

and i dont get impressed by much

i apologize for coming across harsh, if i did, i ask your forgiveness

i see you are sincere in your quest, thus, i retreat from my previous stance

regarding this subject, akhi, when the khulafa rashidoon became khalifa, the companions all DEMANDED they deal justly and in accordance to quran and sunnah or they would face the sword

i did not make takfir against anyone, though deeds you and i and any muslim can do can be deeds of kufr, whether zinaa or going to astrologers, or judging by other than the book of Allah

and within that, there is no obedience to kufr

akhi, we are living in very confusing times, firstly, muslims are commanded to have ONE leader, thus any other leader is invalid, if there are two ameers kill the second

my point in stealing someone's wife is that at no time am i her husband, at no time does she owe me the rights as a husband, at no time should society give me any respect as her husband

these leaders gained power thru corruption, and yes, that is generally the fault of the ummah, however, if a woman's husband is a bad husband, it doesnnt give me the right to take her, even if he beats her, i cannot claim her to be my wife, no matter how i take her, i cannot take her, my authority over her will be invalid

this whole discussion reminds me of someone saying, the reason why pork is haram is because it is dirty, thus if we raise the pig in clean quarters, with the best food, we can now say this pig is halal, and then bring all types of ayaat and hadith to prove it

your premise of abandoning the rights of the muslims is the problem, thus any ayaat you bring to support that can only be a twist to support a wrong supposition

i am no scholar, so i cannot debate someone bringing ayaat and sunnah to support legalizing music, riba, pork or abandoning the muslims

but i know it is wrong, and i am confident i have the correct position on this matter, and Allah knows best

[Az-Zukhruf]

i understand from this......
1- you make Takfeer aganist every single goverment on the face of earth without any single exception which is wrong and anyway off topic and i'm more than happy to talk about it with you and disscuss it on private or even MSN if you like, just PM me.

Your statement is wrong, how can you make Takfeer of a government. To say Kuffr government or entity is one thing, to say every single person within the gorevment is Kaffir is another, the second one is takfir the first one is not. The Kuffr of the rulers is a long and old topic, which i do not want to get into, however, it is the conclusion of many scholars and their evidences are very strong for that if linked correctly to the reality.

2- that you agree with me on what's said but, disagree with me by saying the underlined. and here can you please show me how you extracted this from the evidence given, because it looks to me that you took the evidence in the opposite way.

What you said is correct, the evidences are correct and prove the point that i agree on, nameley that it is possible for Muslims (not countries) to be in covenant with Kuffar at the same time those very Kuffar are fighting Muslims. My disagreement with you is that your giving the regimes in the Muslim world Islamic legitimacy upon which those evidences apply. So I guess the discussion does boil down to the legitmacy of the rulers and their Kuffr.


please show me how you extracted what you said from the evidence??????? because it's totally opposite to what the evidence says wether my understanding of the evidence is right or not.

Im just a layman and not able to extract anything from evidences, i depend on people of knowlege and simply narrating to you what they concluded.

Secondly it is not totally opposite with what the evidences you stated say, i was very happy to see you bring forth those evidences, and what the proved, but disagreed with your application upon reality. Alsoif you are not an aalim then you are not in position to start derving understandings of evidences.

[Le Croyant]

A- taking power is a legitimate way to rule in Islam.
meaning that if someone takes power over you, and he got the full power, he is a ruler.

and according to Quran and Sunnah.......
Muslim rulers have to be respected and never ever overthrown or fought.
and Kuffar rulers have to be ruling until we can overthrow them.


So taking power is the legitimate way to rule... but then u say, Muslim rulers have to be respected and never ever overthrown or fought. If u can't overthrow then how do u establish ur rule?

Didn't bait Al-Saud get rid of Ottoman rulers away from Arabia (eastern part). Why did they fight against Muslim rulers? To establish Quran & Sunnah and infact they did but sadly not for long. They have too become corrupted & useless like the Muslim rulers before them. So, why can't some pious Muslims overthrow these Muslim rulers & form their government?

Secondly, let's say XYZ group takes over Saudi tomorrow. What happens then, is the new govt the right one & should we obey them? Or does obeying depend on whether they follow the Quran & Sunnah or not?

[MXXXXM]

our brother Abu Mubarak may Allah forgive Him said.....

akhi

wallahi, your calm demeanor has impressed me

and i dont get impressed by much

i apologize for coming across harsh, if i did, i ask your forgiveness

i see you are sincere in your quest, thus, i retreat from my previous stance

Akhi i'm here to teach and learn. i'm not here to swear at people or to insult anyone. or even to defend any goverment or any organizations or any ideology, i'm here to follow the evidence and make people see it and follow it. but Subhan Allah, some people don't want that....
and are here to start wars.....
not to teach nor to learn.

anyway.....
insha'Allah no heart feelings nor any harm happened.....
and believe me what you did is nothing compared to what some people said to me before.

so may Allah grant me and you heaven.....

now.....
you said.....

regarding this subject, akhi, when the khulafa rashidoon became khalifa, the companions all DEMANDED they deal justly and in accordance to quran and sunnah or they would face the sword

and how about this evidence Akhi......
Hudhayfah b. al-Yamān asked the Prophet peace be upon Him :“O Messenger of Allah, we were living in an evil (atmosphere) and Allah brought us good (Islam) and we live in it now. Will there be evil after this good?”
The Prophet peace be upon Him said: “Yes.”
Hudhayfah b. al-Yamān said: “And any good after this evil?”
He said: “Yes.”
Hudhayfah b. al-Yamān said: “And any evil after this good?”
He said: “Yes.”
Hudhayfah said: “How will it be?”
He said: “Imams (rulers) after me who do not abide by my guidance and Sunnah. Some of their men will have Satan’s heart in a human’s body.”
Hudhayfah said: “What should I do, O Messenger of Allah, if I live to see that time?”
The Prophet peace be upon Him said: “You should listen and obey them even if the ruler smites your back and takes your wealth.”
Sahih Muslim.

so Akhi......

the companions demanding something is something......
and the Islamic rule is something else.

the second thing is.....

you said.....

or they would face the sword

and here i need an evidence from you on that.....

give me an evidence from Quran or Sunnah that....
if a ruler doesn't abide by the Sunnah and Quran, we have to hit him with a sword.
or course you might bring me what Abu Bakr or Omar said when they became Khalifa's......

but Akhi.....
this proves nothing.......

because.....

the Sahabi talking about Himself and asking people to apply something on himself doesn't mean it's a rule that we have to apply in Islam on ourselves.

example........

Anas Bin Malik in Ramadan used to gather with his family and give a Dua' for Allah after finishing the whole Quran. and from here comes the Dua' of finishing the Quran, which is not a Sunnah in the first place.....

but taking by your way of interpreting the evidence.....

we are obligated to give this Dua'.....
because this Sahabi used to do it.

and this is wrong.

so......

to prove what you said up there......

bring me an evidence from Quran and Sunnah which says something along the lines.....

if a ruler doesn't apply Quran and Sunnah....
then use the sword with Him.

or at least interpret the Hadith i mentioned.
or even this Hadith.....

The Prophet peace be upon Him said:
“There will be rulers over you. You will agree with some of what they come with and reject some of it. Whoever rejects what must be rejected will maintain his innocence and whoever hates it will maintain his innocence. However, those who accept (what should be denied) and follow the ruler will be sinners.”The Companions said: “O Messenger of Allah, shall we fight these rulers?"
He said: “No, as long as they pray.”

then you said.......

firstly, muslims are commanded to have ONE leader, thus any other leader is invalid,

well.....
that's the way it should be.....
but....
if it's not.....
you have to deal with it.

if there are two ameers kill the second

here is a little gift for my brother Abu Mubarak......

this rule Akhi applies when we have a ruler going on, and someone comes out of nowhere and makes himself a ruler.

like if someone comes in the middle of Saudi and goes.....
this village is my village and i'm its Ameer.
here we kill this guy.

but the situation now is......
we have countries..... and each has got its own borders and laws and nation.

anyway.....
from the post as a whole what i understand is......

you base your arguement on the claim that those rulers have no authority over our countries and so have no treaties in the first place.

and this brings us to the topic of Takfeer of goverments. which is a totally different topic i can disscuss it with you on private or even MSN if you like.

but now......

if you agree with me on what's being said up there......

and let's say that there is a Muslim goverment going on and has treaties with the enemy. and another Muslim country is attacked , the attack doesn't justify breaking the tearty, do you agree on that Akhi????

if no......
qoute what you disagree with me on.

and if yes.....
we'll talk about goverments and their Kufr later insha'Allah.

our brother Abu Zukhruf may Allah forgive Him said.....

Your statement is wrong, how can you make Takfeer of a government. To say Kuffr government or entity is one thing, to say every single person within the gorevment is Kaffir is another, the second one is takfir the first one is not. The Kuffr of the rulers is a long and old topic, which i do not want to get into, however, it is the conclusion of many scholars and their evidences are very strong for that if linked correctly to the reality.

1- Akhi you said before......
as they are illigitmate Kuffr regimes
which means in other words if i'm not wrong.
illigitmate Kuffr goverments....

regimes = goverments

so when i said......

1 - you make Takfeer aganist every single goverment on the face of earth without any single exception which is wrong


i don't see what's wrong with this.

remember Akhi.......

in Islamic studies......
we can't deal with the ruler and the goverment seperately......

when we say ruler or goverment.....
we mean the people who legistlate or in other words people who rule the country, whom by their words, the country is run, when they say do this it's done and when they say don't we don't.

you can't say......

this ruler is Kafir and this while this goverment is a Muslim.

this is Takfeer Al Mu'aiyyen (Takfeer of an individual) which is something me and you can't do it's for great scholars and Olama'.

so bottom line is.......

according to what i understood from your words......

you don't believe that there is a Muslim goverment, and all goverments are Kufr goverments, even though there are some Muslims who work in it.

and if this is what you mean......

can you please how can a Muslim be working in a non Muslim goverment ?????
examples i mean.....

nameley that it is possible for Muslims (not countries) to be in covenant with Kuffar at the same time those very Kuffar are fighting Muslims.

1- i need an evidence that the verse is restricted to individuals and doesn't apply to countries/goverments. (i guess you mean goverments by saying countries)

2- Akhi......
how can individuals have treaties with Kuffar without their goverments and rulers having it ??????
this is like saying......

i have a treaty with george bush, but my goverment (Egypt for example) doesn't have it.

how can this be possible Akhi ??????


My disagreement with you is that your giving the regimes in the Muslim world Islamic legitimacy upon which those evidences apply

to explain what i'm saying Akhi.....
here is an example.....

let's say that the Saudi goverment had a treaty with the US that says that Saudi wouldn't fight the US and the US wouldn't fight Saudi.
and let's say that you believe that Saudi is a Muslim goverment and country.

US goes and attacks Iraq which is a Muslim country.

is Saudi obligated to defend Iraq and aid the Iraqi's against the US ??????

yes...... then you hav to respond to the evidence posted.
no....... we are done.


Alsoif you are not an aalim then you are not in position to start derving understandings of evidences.

these are not my words......
many Olama' said this Akhi.

the wording is mine maybe....
but the rule is not.
and i'm not the one who extracted it.

anyway......

if you have a saying of someone who contradicts this.

please post it so we can look at it and disscuss it.

our brother/sister Le may Allah forgive Him/Her said.....


If u can't overthrow then how do u establish ur rule?

1- if there is no ruler in the first place
2- if the ruler is a Kafir and we meet the conditions of overthrowing Him then it becomes obligatory upon us to do it.

also.....
Didn't bait Al-Saud get rid of Ottoman rulers away from Arabia (eastern part). Why did they fight against Muslim rulers?

Akhi/Ukhti....

didn't you start a thread about this and i answered this on private.
and you said you got it.

so i don't know why you are asking this again ????????

sister/brother......

if you are going to ask questions and when i answer them reject them if you don't like the answer and take if if you like it......

then please don't waste my time and yours
this is called " 'Abath "
(playing around).

and we would be turning in circles forever.....
and i really don't like doing that.

So, why can't some pious Muslims overthrow these Muslim rulers & form their government?

sister/brother.......

you yourself said Muslim rulers
and so......
here is a gift.

it's agreed between Olama' through out history that a Muslim ruler can't be overthrown or fought no matter what.

as long as he is labelled a Muslim we have to stick to His rule even if he was bad and a tyrant.


What happens then, is the new govt the right one & should we obey them

1- the " what if " arguements have no place in Islamic studies.
2- to answer you question.......
their heads must be chopped off. because they overthrew and fought against a Muslim goverment and a Muslim ruler, unless they have more power and we can't do that nor respond to them then we have to stick to their rules.

unless you consider Saudi a Kafir goverment and ruler then it's a different issue.


Or does obeying depend on whether they follow the Quran & Sunnah or not?

obey as long as they don't ask you to disobey wether they are Muslim or Kafir.
and if they ask you to disobey Allah......

you disobey the order.....
but don't oevrthrow them or fight them unless they are Kuffar and you meet the conditions.

[Le Croyant]

but the situation now is.... we have countries..... and each has got its own borders and laws and nation.

bro, empires also had boundaries & laws.. it's not that came abt in 20th century.


didn't you start a thread about this and i answered this on private.
and you said you got it.

so i don't know why you are asking this again ????????

sister/brother......

if you are going to ask questions and when i answer them reject them if you don't like the answer and take if if you like it......

I got the PM, i didn't say that i agree with u. U claim that there was no Ottoman empire in Saudi, that's true for Najd but not the eastern part of the country.

I do agree on the reason that it was the right thing to do at that time as the rulers were not following Quran & Sunnah. But are the rulers of our time not guilty for the same thing. How is valid for bait-al saud to attack a regime but no one else has the right to attack bait al-saud for ignoring Quran & Sunnah. I don't get that logic...



it's agreed between Olama' through out history that a Muslim ruler can't be overthrown or fought no matter what.

as long as he is labelled a Muslim we have to stick to His rule even if he was bad and a tyrant.

And then u go abt saying that bait al-saud was right in attacking Muslim rulers... according to this sentence of urs they should not have attacked Ottoman empire presence in Jazeera or the various tiny Muslim countries that were ruled by MUSLIM rulers.


2- to answer you question.......
their heads must be chopped off. because they overthrew and fought against a Muslim goverment and a Muslim ruler, unless they have more power and we can't do that nor respond to them then we have to stick to their rules.

The ruler's head? Don't tell u advocate the same for father of Saudi & Sheik Abdul-Wahhab. They fought against Muslim leaders but they bought the rule Quran & Sunnah. Do they deserve that punishment?


obey as long as they don't ask you to disobey wether they are Muslim or Kafir. and if they ask you to disobey Allah.....

you disobey the order.....
but don't oevrthrow them or fight them unless they are Kuffar and you meet the conditions.

by ur logic, the same basis for establishing the kingdom of Saudi is unislamic. Did u get u right?

[Le Croyant]

Bro MXXXM, there would not b reason for ppl to ask u the same Q over & over again, only if u answered them without twisting & turning every answer & contradicting urself all the time.

Btw, Whr do u live?

[MXXXXM]

La Illaha Illa Allah.......

Akhi/Ukhti......

1- you said that you didn't accept or agree with my answer to your question.
this is ok.....
but why would you bring it here and start disscussing it here ????????

why don't you do that on pirvate or in the thread which you started.

2- you are asking me as if i'm from Al Sa'ood, or the son of the king or that i'm a lawer for them.

3- you are discussing a certain situation and leaving the evidence.
meaning that......

you left the evidence which says never ever overthrow a Muslim ruler.
and you didn't respond to it, you never discussed it.

and you come and bring up the arguement of the Saudi regime.

so.......

choose one of them....

you are either against the evidence which i posted and don't agree on what all the Olama' of Islam or at least the Salafi ones agreed on.

or you are against Al Sa'ood came into power.

anyway......................

to answer your misconception.

first.....

let me tell you that with all the respect to you sister/brother.....

you don't have enough knowledge to go through such discussions and the evidence on that is your quesion.
please don't take this as an insult.

let's have a look.

you said.......

U claim that there was no Ottoman empire in Saudi, that's true for Najd but not the eastern part of the country.

then you said......

according to this sentence of urs they should not have attacked Ottoman empire presence in Jazeera or the various tiny Muslim countries that were ruled by MUSLIM rulers.

now.......
for the sake of the arguement.

i would like to say that there is no reponse to what you said.
and would like to say that Shiekh Muhammed bin abd Al Wahhab really is the one who fought the ottoman empire.

just for the sake of the arguement i'd say that for now.

from what you said.....
this shows that........

you don't know the difference between overthrowing a corrupt Muslim goverment which you are under it's rule.
(and this is not allowed in Islam)

and......

fighting a corrupt Muslim goverment which has no rule over you whatsoever.
(which is a different topic)

in other words......

you said that you agree on the fact the Najd wasn't wethin the ottoman empire......
and you agree that the ottoman empire did rule over Hijaz.

and there is arguement between me and you on that.

you come to me and say..........

how did Shiekh Muhammed Bin Abd Al Wahhab and Al S'ood overthrow the othoman Khilafa !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????????? ???

how could you use the term oevrthrow ??????
and how could you use the arguement of overthrowing a Muslim goverment????

although.......
Najd is a seperate country and land which is not ruled by the Khilafa.....
while Hijaz is ruled by the Khilafa ??????

in very simple english........

how can i " overthrow " a goverment which doesn't rule me ?????????????

so your whole question is just baselss and shows that you don't know the difference between overthrowing a goverment, and fighting a goverment.

anyway.............................

i hope in the next time you stick to what you know and don't argue about things which you don't know about or haven't studied.

now......
to answer your question.......

1- as i told you before this arguement is used by the enemies of Shiekh Muhammed bin Abd al Wahhab to claim that the Shiekh contradicted Islam by oevrthrowing a Muslim goverment.

2- to answer the question......
Hijaz......

was ruled by Sharif Mecca who was under the rule of the Ottomans.
when he heard about what the Shiekh and Al Sa'ood did (forming a goverment based on Quran and Sunnah) and that the Da'wah of Shiekh Abd Al Wahhab is against his ( the Sharif's) own ideologies ( which were Sufi i think) and that the Shiehk is against building graves and praying next to them.....ect ect.
when the Sharif heard that.....

he asked the ottomans to send him armies to go and fight the Da'wah of the Shiekh. and so he did.......
even though.....
the Shiekh tried to have a peacefull agreement with Him.....
and Hijaz fell under the rule of the Shiekh and Al Sa'ood.

i told you to go back to history books before but it seems you didn't.

anyway................

to end up your whole arguement and answer it from its roots.

here is the response of Shiekh Bin Baz to this misconception and here is the repsonse of Shiekh Al Faqeeh to this as well........

in Arabic which i think you understand.



لم يخرج الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب على دولة الخلافة العثمانية فيما أعلم وأعتقد فلم يكن في نجد رئاسة ولا إمارة للأتراك بل كانت نجد إمارات صغيرة وقرى متناثرة وعلى كل بلدة أو قرية - مهما صغرت - أمير مستقل… وهي إمارات بينها قتال وحروب ومشاجرات والشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب لم يخرج على دولة الخلافة وإنما خرج على أوضاع فاسدة في بلده فجاهد في الله حق جهاده وصابر وثابر حتى امتد نور هذه الدعوة إلى البلاد الأخرى…

" ندوة مسجلة على الأشرطة " بواسطة " دعاوى المناوئين " ( ص 237 )



السؤال : من هو الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب، ولماذا له مذهب يسمى به وما هي أفكار مذهبه وهل حقا خرج على الخلافة وكان من أسباب تداعيها، وما هى سيرته إذن؟

الفتوى : الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وصحبه أما بعد:

فقد ترجمنا للإمام المجدد محمد بن عبد الوهاب وتكلمنا على دعوته في الفتوى رقم: 5408.
ولم يخرج الشيخ محمد عبد الوهاب على الخلافة العثمانية، هذا كذب محض واختلاق، فمعلوم لكل من قرأ شيئاً من التاريخ أن الأشراف في مكة كانوا هم نواب السلطان العثماني في بلاد الحجاز، وهؤلاء الأشراف ما كادوا يسمعون بدعوة ابن عبد الوهاب في الجزيرة حتى خافوا على أنفسم منها، ورأوا أنها ستسلبهم الإتاوات والسحت الذي يأخذونه من القبور المقامة في بلاد الحجاز، وعلموا أن من دعوة ابن عبد الوهاب هدم القبور وتحريم الذبح لها والصلاة عندها، ولذلك سيروا جيوشهم الجيش تلو الجيش يحارب ابن عبد الوهاب في نجد، ولم يقم الشيخ بأكثر من رد العدوان عن نفسه وعن دعوته.. فأين كان في هذا خارجاً على السلطان!؟ ومع ذلك أرسل الشيخ محمد عبد الوهاب بوفد إلى الشريف أحمد بن سعيد شريف مكة، وكان على رأس هذا الوفد الشيخ عبد العزيز بن عبد الله الحصين، وكان مع هذا الوفد هدايا وتحف كثيرة، وكتب الشيخ ابن عبد الوهاب مع هذا الوفد كتاباً للشريف أحمد قال فيه بالنص: المعروض لديك أدام الله فضل نعمه عليك حضرة الشريف أحمد بن الشريف سعيد أعزه الله في الدارين، وأعز به دين جده سيد الثقلين أن الكتاب لما وصل إلى الخادم "يعني نفسه"، وتأمل ما فيه من الكلام الحسن رفع يديه بالدعاء إلى الله بتأييد الشريف لما كان قصده نصر الشريعة المحمدية ومن تبعها، وعداوة من خرج، وهذا هو الواجب على ولاة الأمور. ، ثم يقول في ختام رسالته: فإذا كان الله سبحانه قد أخذ ميثاق الأنبياء إن أدركوا محمداً صلى الله عليه وسلم على الإيمان به ونصرته، فكيف بنا يا أمته؟ فلا بد من الإيمان به، ولا بد من نصرته، لا يكفي أحدهما عن الآخر، وأحق الناس بذلك وأولاهم أهل البيت الذي بعثه الله منهم، وشرفهم على أهل الأرض به، وأحق أهل البيت بذلك من كان من ذريته صلى الله عليه وسلم، وغير ذلك يعلم الشريف أعزه الله أن غلمانك من جملة الخدام، ثم أنتم في حفظ الله وحسن رعايته. انظر حياة محمد عبد الوهاب ص322، فإذا كان الشيخ يجعل نفسه من جملة خدام الأشراف، فكيف يكون خارجاً على السلطان؟!.
والله أعلم.

المفتـــي: مركز الفتوى بإشراف د.عبدالله الفقيه

i hope we're done now........

[Le Croyant]

So ur argument is since the govt of Najd fought Hijaz, it's ok. Since they didn't fight their own govt. Good point. And pls don't say that I m saying Sheik Abdul Wahab was wrong. I never said that.

So if an outside xyz group (not from Saudi) fought against the regime & overthrew the govt then u would b ok with it since they didn't fight against their own ruler. Did i understand u correctly.

2- you are asking me as if i'm from Al Sa'ood, or the son of the king or that i'm a lawer for them.I m just asking where do u live? simple Q. I doubt u r the son of the king as then u would have to be somewhr in Europe drinking & fornicating.

[MXXXXM]

So ur argument is since the govt of Najd fought Hijaz, it's ok. Since they didn't fight their own govt. Good point.

that was point one......

and then i added.

Hijazis sent troops to Najd to fight the Shiekh.
that was number two.....

and then i posted the arabic response to this because it's detailed which i doubt that you read......

which says that the Sharif of Mecca agreed on being ruled by the Shiekh and His goverment.
and this is point number three........

add to all of this.......

the Shiekh had the support of people.
had the power to do it.....
and had a good ruler to rule......
and in Hijaz, Shirk and innovations were spread very widely.

anyway........
i know what are you talking about by the example you gave.....
but the answer is........

1- this needs a Fatwa, and i don't really give any.

2- you can't use comparison when you have evidence from Quran and Sunnah.
like comparing our situation today with the situation at that time when you have Quran and Sunnah telling you that overthrowing a Muslim mgoverment or fighting it is not allowed.

3- the situation today is totally different to the situation at that time.

4- a Muslim goverment fighting a Muslim goverment is different topic to the topic of a Muslim overthrowing a Muslim goverment which is different to the topic of a group of Khawarij and Takfeeris trying to shake the security of Muslim lands.

bottom line.......

they are two seperate topics and there is no way whatsoever that you can compare the group which you are talking about and Shiekh Bin Abd Al Wahhab.

And pls don't say that I m saying Sheik Abdul Wahab was wrong. I never said that.

that's what you think........

to your understanding.....
Shiekh Muhammed Bin Abd Al Wahhab overthrew a Muslim goverment which is wrong.
so what the Shiekh did was wrong and a mistake.


I doubt u r the son of the king as then u would have to be somewhr in Europe drinking & fornicating.

Subhan Alla who made you know the unknown and see what they do even though you are not with them.....
and Subhan Allah who made you forget all the goodness they did for me and you specifically and look and over amplify their mistakes and sins make this look as some that takes of Islam.

Akhi/Ukhti......

fear Allah and learn about your religion.

[AbuMubarak]

one of the issues i have with this entire "obey your leaders" in light of these tyrants, is that the Prophet
Õáì Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã

specifically said that there would be a group who would fight for truth

lookng around the world today, there is only one group standing up, fighting for the muslims, creating fear in the hearts of the kuffar and trying to return this deen to its uppermost status

all of this "reasoning" is doing nothing more than justifying the stagnation of the ummah, submission to the kuffar, and worse yet, it is not defending the muslims

not saudi, not pakistan, not iran, etc

all of these groups work hand in hand with the kuffar AGAINST the muslims

no school sponsorship justifies this

[MXXXXM]

our brother Abu Mubarak may allah forgive Him said......


specifically said that there would be a group who would fight for truth

lookng around the world today, there is only one group standing up, fighting for the muslims, creating fear in the hearts of the kuffar and trying to return this deen to its uppermost status

Akhi......
one of the problems which we have between Muslims today is that they take the Hadith or the verse and interpret it the way they want to not according to the proper interpretation and they don't follow Olama' and scholars.

Akhi......

with all the respect to you, but the group which you are talking about is not the one you think. and i myself used to think that it's the one.

i know that you know that this is a Hadith mentioned by the Prophet peace be upon Him which says along the lines that there will alaways be a group fighting for truth and standing for it until the day of judgement.

and here comes my gift for you Akhi and for a lot of people who don't bother to open a basic book of Hadith and read the interpretation of the Hadith by Olama' and i'm sure you are not one of them.

here is a little gift Akhi.

the group which the Prophet peace be upon Him is talking about is Al Tayfah Al Mansurah or in other words, Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jama'aa.
not a group in the sense of an organization that has a leader and weapons.

no.......

a group in the sense that this group will stand for the truth (Quran and Sunnah) and fight for it no matter how innovations and Fitnah is around. they will always exist and be there.

in other words and in simple english.

the Salafis.

and this is well proven Akhi through out history and even Olama' used this as a prove of the Prophethood of the Prophet peace be upon Him and how He peace be upon Him told of something from the unknown.

if you go through history Akhi......

you'll always find that Salafis (Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jama'aa) and their ideology and scholars do exist.

from the time of the Prophet peace be upon Him up until now.

Imam Ahmad, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Al Qaiyyem, Ibn Hajar, Muhammed Bin Abd Al Wahhab, A'al El Shiekh, Bin Baz Al Albani, Al Fowzan and until the day of judgement.
and these are very few names.

bottom line is......
through out the history of Islam, not a single period of time cam upon Muslims without a Salafi scholars or even group of Scholars.

while if you come to Sufi's, Shia, Khawarij, Asha'ri's, Habashi's, and the rest...

they all at one period of time or another disapeared or even didn't exist.

and there has been always a group of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jama'aa to respond to them at all times up until this day.

as for the group you are talking about Akhi.......

this group came up to light after the 1998 blasts in Africa, and the ideology didn't exist before the 70's......

so it's just a new trend let's say......

anyway......

bottom line is.....

the Hadith refers to Al Tayfah Al Mansurah which is Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jama'aa.

Mansurah in its ideology and thoughts
not Mansurah by its weapons and blowing up.

Mansurah on the people of innovations and the Fitnah.
not Mansurah on the Muslim and non Muslim women and children.

all of this "reasoning" is doing nothing more than justifying the stagnation of the ummah, submission to the kuffar, and worse yet, it is not defending the muslims

not saudi, not pakistan, not iran, etc

all of these groups work hand in hand with the kuffar AGAINST the muslims

no school sponsorship justifies this

Akhi......

you shouldn't be asking about the results or the reasons when following Allah's orders.
you should follow and then search for answers.
even if these orders are against your own family.

there are rules which we have to follow and stick to. in Islam we don't depend on emotions or our logic or way of thinking, we depend on Quran and Sunnah.

Allah might say do so and so........
to us....
it might look strange or odd, or might look harmfull or bad.....
might sometimes even look lethal.

but these are our brains. they are limited.

and since we lost our trust in Allah.....
but not following the orders and not obeying Him.

we can't trust Allah anymore and we can't accept the fact that whatever Allah is telling us, it's the most logical solution to our problems.

and so......
we go and follow our logic and our emotions and leave the evidence, or even in some cases, twist the evidence so that it would suit us and would satisfy our emotions and go by our logic.

as simple as the Ash'aree's saying......
how can Allah have a hand ???????

so they go and twist the meaning of a hand and say.....
Hand means power or hands means control.

and so......
the verse now suits their logic and they take by it.

and the same applies to some people around here......

Alkah says......
don't do anything which you are unable to do.

they go and twist one of the biggest rules in Islam and say......
this applies to everything except Jihad.

and so now......
Islam is more logical to them.

and this is what you are implying Akhi.......

to you......
if the result would be submission to the Kuffar.....
Stagnation of the Ummah.....
and not defending the muslims.....

you reject it, wether there is an evidence on it or not.

in other words......

you look at the results....
if they are good.... you move on.
if not..... you stop.

and this what we call in Shariah, Itibaa' al Hawa (following the desire) and i'm sure you are not one of those people.

in Islam......
or at least to Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jama'aa.

we look at the evidence.
if authantic..... we follow it and move on.
if not....we leave it and stop.

so, it's the evidence which we look at not the results....... except in some very certain cases.

and this is how the Prophet peace be upon Him dealt with things.

people were being killed and tortured in Mecca at the early times of Islam, and also at the time of the treaty with Muslims and the Prophet peace be upon Him did nothing.
also....
Khalid bin Al Waleed withdrew from a war against the romans when the Muslims were very outnumbered.
and also......
the Prophet peace be upon Him had treaties with the jews of Madenah.
and also......
Ibn Taymiyya and Imam Ahmed never overthrew or fought the rulers who ruled them even though some were clearly Kuffar
and the list goes on Akhi..........

isn't this.... according to your interpretation Akhi.

Submission to the Kuffar and worse of all not helping Muslims ??????????

yes it is.....
and it looks to me as such.
and it looks to evey Muslim who doesn't have a lot of knowledge as such.
layman like me and you Akhi.....
yes it looks at such.

but when you sit down and think about it.
and leave all emotions behind you.
and try to learn from the results which came afterwards.

you know that.......

following emtions and desires when the Muslims were tortured and killed in Mecca would've caused Islam to become a religion which is mentioned only in History books, and me and you would've never heard about it.

following those emotions would've cause 10 000 Muslims in Mu'tah to die and would've caused the romans to attack the Muslims and reach Madenah.

following those emotions would've caused the Jews of Madenah to be part of the enemy in Ghaswat al Ahzab and the Muslims to be eleminated from existance.

following those emotions would've caused Imam Ahmed and Shiekh Ibn Taymiyya to be killed and a great amount of knowledge and some of the greatest books in the history of Islam to be never published.

bottom line Akhi........

look at the evidence then judge and never base your judgment on the results expecially in those cases.

because whenever you follow the evidence......
you'll find the good results....
even after hundreds of years.

and remember.......

the Prophet peace be upon Him spent 3 years in secret Da'wah....
around ten years in open Da'wah in Mecca and then moved to Madenah.

look how long did it take him peace be upon Him......
today....
people want to turn the whole world into an Islamic Khilafah in a couple of years.

knowing that there are Muslims out there who don't know that Allah has got a Hand which we don't know how is it.

Subhan Allah........

[Zaid the Great]

Several questions to MXXXM:

1) What do you say about the Riba banks all over the kingdom?? How can ALqurood claim they implement shariah when they allow riba banks???

2)What do you say about the American Army bases on the land of Al-Jazeerah and giving special priority to americans in everything??? (The americans even have their own cities in some places!!)

3) What do you say of the BILLIONS of dollars of oil wealth stolen by the murtad regime to build themselves palaces???

4)What do you say about the tens of music hannels owned by princes such as Al-waleed ibn talal??


I can go on and on

Please answer the questions without laff wa dawaraan!!

[RashidD]

the group which the Prophet peace be upon Him is talking about is Al Tayfah Al Mansurah or in other words, Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jama'aa.
not a group in the sense of an organization that has a leader and weapons.


I think you should listen to Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki's lecture on the book Thawaabit Ala Darb Al Jihad (Written by Sheikh Yusuf Al-'Uyayri Shaheed InshaALLAH (Rahimahullah)) In the first cd he discusses regarding At-Tayfah Wal Mansurah...

EDIT: What's laff wa dawaraan @ Zaid?

[Le Croyant]

Subhan Alla who made you know the unknown and see what they do even though you are not with them.....
and Subhan Allah who made you forget all the goodness they did for me and you specifically and look and over amplify their mistakes and sins make this look as some that takes of Islam.

I have been with quite a number of them to know how they are... but alhamdulillah there are minority of them who mashaAllah very practicing.

What good did these princes do for me? care to let me know.



fear Allah and learn about your religion.

Insha'Allah that's the goal... if u stop learnin then u have lost.



to your understanding.....
Shiekh Muhammed Bin Abd Al Wahhab overthrew a Muslim goverment which is wrong.
so what the Shiekh did was wrong and a mistake.

Pls don't put words into my mouth...

Shiekh Muhammed Bin Abd Al Wahhab did the rite thing, u r the one who thinks one should not fight tryants.

And u have keep in in mind, the Ikhwan were not a govt but just a group. who helped form a Islamic country. And they didn't belong to only one part of the region..

[MXXXXM]

our brother Zaid the Great may Allah forgive Him said......

What do you say about the Riba banks all over the kingdom?? How can ALqurood claim they implement shariah when they allow riba banks???

that's one thing which a lot of Olama' ctriticised the goverment for.

but at the end of the day it's not an excuse to overthrow the government and not a sin which takes out of the fold of Islam.
so they are not Kuffar by doing this.

if you think they are.... please refer to my thread which takes about misconceptions about Takfeer.


What do you say about the American Army bases on the land of Al-Jazeerah and giving special priority to americans in everything??? (The americans even have their own cities in some places!!)

there are no bases in Saudi Arabia now Al Hamdullilah.....
and they used to have some bases due to Saddam's threat to Saudi.
if you think otherwise.... prove it.

What do you say of the BILLIONS of dollars of oil wealth stolen by the murtad regime to build themselves palaces???


1- prove it
2- they Saudi people take part of this money and they don't complain about it.
3- some of the money is owned by the family and they are free to do whatever they want by it
4- building a palace for the governer is not a sin nor it's a shame expecially that he builds for his people houses and provides them by what they need.
5- the majority of the Saudis themselves don't complained about it, so it wonders me how, and i guess you're not a Saudi complain about it.
6- this is not a justification for overthrowing them, cursing them, hating them, fighting them or making Takfeer against them.

simple......

What do you say about the tens of music hannels owned by princes such as Al-waleed ibn talal??

i don't know about princes....
i know about Al Waleed Bin Talal and some few grandsons here and there.

and the response to that is.....

1- Al Waleed Bin Talal has got nothing to do with the goverment and has no interference in the decisions nor in any other politics.

2- what is he doing is not Kufr and not even close to it.

3- this doesn't justify fighting the goverment or making Takfeer against it.

4- how can you judge the people who legistlate and govern for the sins of someone who has nothing to do with them except being a relative or even a friend.

I can go on and on

Akhi before you do that.

you need to read about Aqeedah and what are the categories of sins and Kufr, what makes someone a Kafir and what prevents someone from being a Kafir.

and after that akhi......

open up a new thread.......
bring your points and most of all.......
prove them with a solid evidence.

when it comes to making Takfeer against a goverment and when it comes to general issues like these, nothing but a solid evidence is accepted Akhi.

this thread talks about a different topic which has nothing to do with the Saudi goverment or any other goverment so please stick to the topic Akhi.

our brother Rashid may Allah forgive Him said.....
I think you should listen to Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki's lecture on the book Thawaabit Ala Darb Al Jihad (Written by Sheikh Yusuf Al-'Uyayri Shaheed InshaALLAH (R