Filth on TV in a family home

[Saif-Uddin]

1. If i am clueless perhaps you can educate us, but no i dont believe Muslims who vote are kuffar automatically, there may be issues that prevent takfir,
but no doubt it is act of shirk (and kufr), because it is clashes with a important aspect of tawheed, that only Allah (swt) is the One who can legislate for mankind.

When you vote in parliamentary elections you are giving the right of Allah (Legislation) to the MP/parliament and hence you have compromised Tawheed,
perhaps in exchange for some worldly benefit, but it is none the less a compromise in one of the core aspects of the deen.

The television issue of this thread is not even in the same league lol

2. Do you understand what you are saying here ?

The point of (Doing Shirk) is to choose a Kafir who would cause less harm to us.

This is the excuse some "Muslim Magicians" use to try and communicate and control the Jinn.

Its like saying If i dont sell drugs on my street block somebody else is going to do it anyway, or maybe i should help the Asian Mafia in my neighborhood peddle some drugs, or hide their fugitives or weapons, because at least we have more things in common with the Asian Mafia then if the Russian Mob or Japanese Yakuza were dominating our hood, we fear less harm from the Asian Mafia so lets give them our backing.

None of this is going to fly when The Law comes knocking on the door to take us to account for our role in helping the local mob.

In our case the Law is none other than Allah (swt), who told us to Fear Him Alone and avoid taghoot.

I know my examples are not the best but i hope this point sinks in inshallah because its important one for Akhirah.

Your examples are a complete failure and not relevant to living under Kaafir rule and voting for yhe purpose of reducing harm upon Muslims and the spread of corruption.

I suggest you real the ruling posted on Sheikh munnajids website Above...

"."

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/3062...o-be-less-evil

No one should imagine that anyone who says that it is OK to vote is thereby expressing approval or support for kufr. It is done in the interests of the Muslims, not out of love for kufr and its people. The Muslims rejoiced when the Romans defeated the Persians, as did the Muslims in Abyssinia (Ethiopia) when the Negus defeated those who had challenged his authority. This is well known from history. Whoever wants to be on the safe side and abstain from voting is allowed to do so. This response applies only to elections for influential positions. And Allaah knows best.

I suggest you read the link above as well.

[Saif-Uddin]

Trust Abu julaybeeb the Takfiri to derail this thread.

What exactly are mods doing?

[Saif-Uddin]

It isn't awrah anyway.

Mans Awrah is from Navel to the knees,

Exposing the thighs is clearly not Permissible.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/1715...d-in-the-awrah

[Abu julaybeeb]

Your examples are a complete failure and not relevant to living under Kaafir rule and voting for yhe purpose of reducing harm upon Muslims and the spread of corruption.

I suggest you real the ruling posted on Sheikh munnajids website Above...

"."

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/3062...o-be-less-evil

No one should imagine that anyone who says that it is OK to vote is thereby expressing approval or support for kufr. It is done in the interests of the Muslims, not out of love for kufr and its people. The Muslims rejoiced when the Romans defeated the Persians, as did the Muslims in Abyssinia (Ethiopia) when the Negus defeated those who had challenged his authority. This is well known from history. Whoever wants to be on the safe side and abstain from voting is allowed to do so. This response applies only to elections for influential positions. And Allaah knows best.

I suggest you read the link above as well.

u got any daleel
i see no quran
no hadith

[Abu julaybeeb]

Trust Abu julaybeeb the Takfiri to derail this thread.

What exactly are mods doing?

i had enough of u

u know your actually so simple minded
u havent studied tawheed at all
u havent even looked into shirk and takfir and the rulings regarding them

u take your aqeedah from atharis and asharis mixed together

u take rulings in ahkaam without daleel even when it comes to tawheed and shirk

you have no adaab
your always angry
your rude and condescending
you talk about peoples personal issues
you make assumptions and put words into peoples mouth
your just an idiot



and for the last time i dont make mass takfir

[Linkdeutscher]

Mans Awrah is from Navel to the knees,

Exposing the thighs is clearly not Permissible.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/1715...d-in-the-awrah

Yes very clearly indeed.

[Saif-Uddin]

Yes very clearly indeed.

Seems like your one of those Footbal fanatic Shayateen who dont like it,

I'll leave moronic Juhal like you to your own devices.

[Linkdeutscher]

Seems like your one of those Footbal fanatic Shayateen who dont like it,

I'll leave moronic Juhal like you to your own devices.

Harder. Try harder.

[murad]

Your examples are a complete failure and not relevant to living under Kaafir rule and voting for yhe purpose of reducing harm upon Muslims and the spread of corruption.

I suggest you real the ruling posted on Sheikh munnajids website Above...

"."

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/3062...o-be-less-evil

No one should imagine that anyone who says that it is OK to vote is thereby expressing approval or support for kufr. It is done in the interests of the Muslims, not out of love for kufr and its people. The Muslims rejoiced when the Romans defeated the Persians, as did the Muslims in Abyssinia (Ethiopia) when the Negus defeated those who had challenged his authority. This is well known from history. Whoever wants to be on the safe side and abstain from voting is allowed to do so. This response applies only to elections for influential positions. And Allaah knows best.

I suggest you read the link above as well.

Why dont we post the full fatwa instead of just taking the bit that suits you... Here it is for everyone's benefit....
--- Praise be to Allaah.
This is a matter concerning which rulings may differ according to different circumstances in different times and places. There is no absolute ruling that covers all situations, both real and hypothetical.


In any case, this is the matter of ijtihaad based on the principle of weighing up the pros and cons, what is in the interests of Islam and what is detrimental. With regard to this matter, we have to refer to the people of knowledge who understand this principle. We should put the question to them, explaining in detail the circumstances and laws in the country where the Muslim community is living, the state of the candidates, the importance of the vote, the likely benefits, and so on.
No one should imagine that anyone who says that it is OK to vote is thereby expressing approval or support for kufr. It is done in the interests of the Muslims, not out of love for kufr and its people. The Muslims rejoiced when the Romans defeated the Persians, as did the Muslims in Abyssinia (Ethiopia) when the Negus defeated those who had challenged his authority. This is well known from history. Whoever wants to be on the safe side and abstain from voting is allowed to do so. This response applies only to elections for influential positions. And Allaah knows best.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/3062...o-be-less-evil
---
Two things to note here are that firstly this is greatly watered-down fatwa because Sheikh Salih al Munajjid was under pressure from the new ruler of Saudi to reform what was considered his more hard-line or strict positions on certain aspects of the deen, including democracy and voting.

Towards the end of September 2017, Al Munajjid was arrested by the Saudi Government along with other famous scholars, causing an outrage in the Muslim world. Currently he is still under their custody and nothing was ever heard from him since his arrest.

So we can no longer say that these are the words of the Sheikh or represent his true thoughts on the matter, because he is in jail for opposing the reform islam agenda of the current ruler of his land, and even if he was free we cannot say with 100% certainty that he is free to give fatwa from undue influence - therefore his opinion on these sensitive matters cannot be a hujjah for us absolutely.

Secondly even in this watered down version, its like almost any Islamic prohibition - there can be exceptions.

Kissing the head of a evil king or taghoot is obviously a wrong action for a Muslim to do but when the Sahabi (ra) did it to secure his release and the release of the Muslim prisoners then Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) did not object. That is not the same as saying we go kissing the foreheads of every single King you come across. It was a exception to the Rule.

What we were discussing here are not the exceptions but the Rule, the Principle itself - that it is wrong to give your vote/bayah/approval to a entity that you know will rule by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed, and this is no doubt the safest position in order to protect your emaan.

and Allah knows best

[murad]

Trust Abu julaybeeb the Takfiri to derail this thread.

What exactly are mods doing?

I made this thread, and i dont care if it gets de-railed so why do you ? lol

You are alienating Muslims and non-Muslims with your "my way or the high way" approach.

and whats with all the insults ? are you not capable of saying something without throwing a insult ?

is there something i need to know about this brother ? does he have anger issues or something ?

[Saif-Uddin]

Why dont we post the full fatwa instead of just taking the bit that suits you... Here it is for everyone's benefit....
--- Praise be to Allaah.
This is a matter concerning which rulings may differ according to different circumstances in different times and places. There is no absolute ruling that covers all situations, both real and hypothetical.


In any case, this is the matter of ijtihaad based on the principle of weighing up the pros and cons, what is in the interests of Islam and what is detrimental. With regard to this matter, we have to refer to the people of knowledge who understand this principle. We should put the question to them, explaining in detail the circumstances and laws in the country where the Muslim community is living, the state of the candidates, the importance of the vote, the likely benefits, and so on.
No one should imagine that anyone who says that it is OK to vote is thereby expressing approval or support for kufr. It is done in the interests of the Muslims, not out of love for kufr and its people. The Muslims rejoiced when the Romans defeated the Persians, as did the Muslims in Abyssinia (Ethiopia) when the Negus defeated those who had challenged his authority. This is well known from history. Whoever wants to be on the safe side and abstain from voting is allowed to do so. This response applies only to elections for influential positions. And Allaah knows best.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/3062...o-be-less-evil
---
Two things to note here are that firstly this is greatly watered-down fatwa because Sheikh Salih al Munajjid was under pressure from the new ruler of Saudi to reform what was considered his more hard-line or strict positions on certain aspects of the deen, including democracy and voting.

Towards the end of September 2017, Al Munajjid was arrested by the Saudi Government along with other famous scholars, causing an outrage in the Muslim world. Currently he is still under their custody and nothing was ever heard from him since his arrest.

So we can no longer say that these are the words of the Sheikh or represent his true thoughts on the matter, because he is in jail for opposing the reform islam agenda of the current ruler of his land, and even if he was free we cannot say with 100% certainty that he is free to give fatwa from undue influence - therefore his opinion on these sensitive matters cannot be a hujjah for us absolutely.

Secondly even in this watered down version, its like almost any Islamic prohibition - there can be exceptions.

Kissing the head of a evil king or taghoot is obviously a wrong action for a Muslim to do but when the Sahabi (ra) did it to secure his release and the release of the Muslim prisoners then Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) did not object. That is not the same as saying we go kissing the foreheads of every single King you come across. It was a exception to the Rule.

What we were discussing here are not the exceptions but the Rule, the Principle itself - that it is wrong to give your vote/bayah/approval to a entity that you know will rule by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed, and this is no doubt the safest position in order to protect your emaan.

and Allah knows best

I posted the link to the whole Fatwa and pointed out the fact we can't do Takfir on someone simply because they voted.

if you read it all than you must know that we cannot say those who voted to select a less Islamophobic kaafir have done any more Shirk Akbar than those didn't vote and let any Kaafir legislate over them.

Abu julaybeeb the Takfiri and co were claiming its Shirk Akbar to vote, which means Takfir on a mass scale including himself.

[Abu julaybeeb]

I posted the link to the whole Fatwa and pointed oit the fact we can't do Takfir on someone simply because they voted.

if you read it all than you must know that we cannot say those who voted to select a less Islamophobic kaafir have done any more Shirk Akbar than those didn't vote and let any Kaafir legislate over them.

Abu julaybeeb the Takfiri and co were claiming its Shirk Akbar to vote, which means Takfir on a mass scale including himself.

the fatwa without any daleel

and when u use too much aql it makes u astray
stick to daleel

your saying if voting is sinful then people who sit down doing nothing wrong at all will be sinful because the leader will still get into power
what kind of logic is this
in Islam you need daleel to say someone is sinful not logic
in islam if you dont have the means to change something you wont be sinful
as Allah says no burden that you cannot bear
As hadith says if u cant then hate with your heart


no Aalim has ever said if something is shirk or minor kufr or haram you will be sinful whether the person becomes in charge or not

and no it doesnt mean that
due to your ignorance you think because its shirk everyone is automatically a kaafir
but your wrong

[Saif-Uddin]

the fatwa without any daleel

and when u use too much aql it makes u astray
stick to daleel

your saying if voting is sinful then people who sit down doing nothing wrong at all will be sinful because the leader will still get into power
what kind of logic is this
in Islam you need daleel to say someone is sinful not logic
in islam if you dont have the means to change something you wont be sinful
as Allah says no burden that you cannot bear
As hadith says if u cant then hate with your heart


no Aalim has ever said if something is shirk or minor kufr or haram you will be sinful whether the person becomes in charge or not

and no it doesnt mean that
due to your ignorance you think because its shirk everyone is automatically a kaafir
but your wrong

Abujaybeeb for the last time,

Your saying let any old kaafir legislate over you,

The fatwa is saying choose the least Islamophobic one, since a Kaafir is gonna legislate over you either way.

If the latter is Shirk Akbar then your just as guilty.

[Abu julaybeeb]

Abujaybeeb for the last time,

Your saying let any old kaafir legislate over you,

The fatwa is saying choose the least Islamophobic one, since a Kaafir is gonna legislate over you either way.

If the latter is Shirk Akbar then your just as guilty.

makes no sense
your not sinful if you didnt do nothing