4 Figures... Showing How HT Lost The Plot.

[Abu-Musa]

4 Figures... Showing How HT Lost The Plot.


http://aycu25.webshots.com/image/28584/2001193506924908318_rs.jpg

http://aycu22.webshots.com/image/29101/2001154723197217711_rs.jpg

http://aycu14.webshots.com/image/27613/2001150508864452874_rs.jpg

http://aycu15.webshots.com/image/29734/2001125719528359908_rs.jpg

[neelu]

No one has suggested or alleged that Muslim lands are liberated. You are living in a fantasy world if you think the HT bros have even come close to suggesting that Muslim lands are not in need of liberation either from the Kufaar or their agents. Just because we do not call for every postman/dishwasher/driver of the agents to be slaughtered as "Kufaar collaborators" that does not mean we want the Ummah's situation to remain as it is and you've been on this forum long enough to know that already. Everyone in HT wants the current rulers of the Muslim world to be overthrown and for them to be replaced with Islamic rule, just not in the way that you advocate.

[p]

assalamalaikum

abu musa. i don't understand your deluded drawing. please expand on what you mean. it makes no sense.

walaikumasalam

[Abu-Musa]

No one has suggested or alleged that Muslim lands are liberated. You are living in a fantasy world if you think the HT bros have even come close to suggesting that Muslim lands are not in need of liberation either from the Kufaar or their agents. Just because we do not call for every postman/dishwasher/driver of the agents to be slaughtered as "Kufaar collaborators" that does not mean we want the Ummah's situation to remain as it is and you've been on this forum long enough to know that already. Everyone in HT wants the current rulers of the Muslim world to be overthrown and for them to be replaced with Islamic rule, just not in the way that you advocate.

Precisely.

The only way to liberate the Lands is Jihad.

This is what the Shari'ah prescribes and those who ally with the Kuffar (Coonialist-Agent-Rulers) share the same Hukm as the Kuffar themselves (Colonilaists).

HT have therefore badly swallowed the Qadiyani pill, since if they recogngise the lands need liberating they are blatantlly abondoning the Jihad.

[Abu-Musa]

assalamalaikum

abu musa. i don't understand your deluded drawing. please expand on what you mean. it makes no sense.

walaikumasalam

Not deluded. Its the Truth.

HT has been affected by the Colonial mindset so they can see it!

[Adam]

Abu Musa,

Lets get some context here. Colonialism is more than merely armies and leaders. It is a political, cultural and economic control as well as the military. So the colonialist culture cannot simply be removed by physical force as you jihadis found when Sadaat was assassinated and the people remained at home instead of coming out for support onto the streets to bring the rest of the regime down. Colonialism has managed to impreganate the ummah with false ideas and concepts which have made her impotent. So HT agrees your triangle is colonialism but does not jump to jihad. After all these discussions you simply dont get the point that the authority belongs to the ummah without which you have no TRIANGLE but a cricle with jihadis bouncing off the perimeter. Its like saying if you change the headmaster of a school you will afffect change even if your staff and pupils dont co-operate.

REALITY PLEASE NOT TRIANGLES

[Abu-Musa]

So what is the reality according to you?

Is Colonial Rule & Colonial Military control, occupation?

But, Colonial-Agent Rule backed by an Army backing the Colonial-Agent - not Occupation??? The dubious inference being if the enemy occupies its occupation, if the agent of the enemy occupies it is not!?


How do you justify Jihad against the colonialists but not against their agents? Evidence please...

[Adam]

Abu Musa,

The armed forces are part of the ummah and both have been affected by colonialism in terms of its ideas. It is ideas that motivate change. It is not only the army which backs the leaders it is the ummah if it stays silent or does not seek change. The ummah backs the leaders because it does not understand Islam and hence why we need movements to change the ideas. The armed forces come from the ummah and will change if society generally adopts the call for change. There are numerous examples from contemporary politics and history where the most authoritarian of regimes collapsed from the power of change in the people. The Soviet Union is a recent example where the armed forces joined the society when at one time they were supporting the Communist dictatorships.

In the case of Islam, the Prophet saw clearly sent Musab ibn Umair to Medina to produce that change in the people even though he already had a pledge from the Ansar. Why do this. Why not just go for the change. Instead the Prophet saw waited until communication came from Musab that the people were in support of Islam and then the Prophet saw took the pledge of fighting.

I think we need to go back to basics and understand why and how we need to bring change. Society is to be changed so lets start with an understanding of society. Agreed Abu Musa?

[Abu-Musa]

The minute a Muslim 'allies' with the Kuffar, he is no longer 'from the Ummah'.

So when the Agent-Rulers 'ally' with Kuffar they become Kuffar themselves, and when the Ruler who is now an agent of the colonialists has the backing of an armed force... we now have a group of Apostates.

This is what needs to be resisted against.

The populations at large are suffering as a result of this being imposed on them. They are oppressed.


Allying with the Kuffar is one of the Nullifiers that takes one outside the fold of Islam.


Secondly the Rulers are Apostates because they do not Rule by what Allah(swt) has revealed. Hence they have committed Shirk al-Hakimiyyah.

So Shirk is a Second nullifier of Islam.

The Third nullifier of their Islam is the putting of their Rule above Allahs'(swt) Rule and the Guidance brought by Muhammad(saw).

The Fourth nullifier of their Islam after this is that they dislike what Allah(swt) has sent down.

The Fifth nullifier of their Islam is by doing the above, they have mocked the Deen and it's rulings.

The Sixth nullifier of their Islam is that on top of not ruling, shirk and mocking... they have deemed themselves 'free' of the Shari'ah, as if it is not applicable to them.

The Seventh and Final nullifier of their Islam is their turning away from the Deen, neither learning it or implementing.


So the Rulers have committed Seven out Ten of the Nullifiers of Islam and have an Army backing them and allying with them. Subjugating the masses to their Rule, and fighting Muslims in order to prevent Islam from returning to power.

This is occupation of Muslim Lands. It does not make a difference if those who do this have white skin and are called George Bush or Ehud Olmert.... or that they have darker skin and call themselves Pervez Musharraf or Abdullah Ibn Abdul Aziz al-Saud. It makes no difference whether they are Enemies or Agents of the Enemy... they are all Enemies who have usurped power and control over Muslim Lands.

These guys are Foreign to Islam. Jihad is required for this situation.


As far as Society is concerned then they are those in need of Enjoining Marouf and Forbidding Munkar... this is a seperate hukm which also must be done. It is not a pre-requisite to carry this out before doing something else which has its own hukm.


Agreed?

[neelu]

Precisely.

The only way to liberate the Lands is Jihad.

Your post was about as far from 'precisely' as you could get- which is exactly why I ended my last post with:

Everyone in HT wants the current rulers of the Muslim world to be overthrown and for them to be replaced with Islamic rule,just not in the way that you advocate.

[Abu-Musa]

I don't advocate it....

The Shari'ah advocates it... don't shoot the messenger.

[Adam]

My dear Abu Musa,

I think we have been over this ground before,

You have to define alliance,

The government employees, the armed forces personnel rank and file, the man who collects tax etc are they in alliance because they work for institutions that are supported and executed by the government. Arent these people from the ummah perpetuating the rule of the government. Do you want to fight them all ?(not to say this is my argument).

The change is not through some playstation inspired killing but effective change like the one Prophet saw brought about in Medina.

I dont believe you ever answered the questions of ijtihad relating to changng Dar-al-Kufr to Dar-al Islam, the reality upon which this ijtihad is based and why the Prophet saw forbade the sahaba ra from fighting until the establishment of the state in Medina.

Any thought of Musab ibn Umair and the delay in taking power in Medina until the Prophet saw received word from Musab about the preparation in Medina of the WHOLE OF SOCIETY.

YOU HAVE STILL NOT GRASPED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIGHTING JIHAD AGAINST OCCUPATION AND BRINGING ABOUT CHANGE IN SOCIETY TO ESTABLISH ISLAM. TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS MY FRIEND

[abujamal]

My dear Abu Musa,

I think we have been over this ground before...

YOU HAVE STILL NOT GRASPED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIGHTING JIHAD AGAINST OCCUPATION AND BRINGING ABOUT CHANGE IN SOCIETY TO ESTABLISH ISLAM. TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS MY FRIEND

Hey - no kidding!

[Abu-Musa]

My dear Abu Musa,

I think we have been over this ground before...

YOU HAVE STILL NOT GRASPED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIGHTING JIHAD AGAINST OCCUPATION AND BRINGING ABOUT CHANGE IN SOCIETY TO ESTABLISH ISLAM. TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS MY FRIEND

Hey - no kidding!


If you can do the honour of deciphering the hukm behind the terminologies...it would make things easier.

Then it will be exposed for all to see what the hukm is and whether they are Fard or not.... and their is a difference between various Fard that must be carried out.... and 'stages'. Fard are Fard and are there to be executed.

Like I have said before. Jihad against Apostate occupiers is Fard, and Enjoining Marouf and Forbidding munkar is Fard.

There is no evidence to show that one take preference over the other and should be put into a stage by stage process.

Fight the Regimes AND Enjoin Marouf AND Forbid Munkar AND Pray Five times a Day... etc.


NOT that I will Forbid Evil today and Pray Salah next week... since its the next 'stage'. Or God Forbid, to Enjoin the Good today and not Fight the Regimes for decades on end.... and worse to recognise them and not lay a finger on them and give them more freedom to do kufr buwah than you would give a Khaleef.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

the only way to liberate the lands is jihad. BUT it also has a method of how to execute the fard..
could abu musa tel us the method from islam about jihad and how we should liberate the lands...
(could you please quote quran and sunnah and not the agent OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!!)

[Adam]

Hello Knock Knock Abu Musa,

No one is arguing precedence. Merely that jihad to expel occupiers and method to change dar-al-kufr to dar-al-Islam are two difent subjects. What is so hard to understand here. By the way Abu Musa, the ahkam relating to the jihad by the state, is that done before the state is established or after. I'm sure its a bit impossible without a state. So I must conclude that a state has to exist prior but you say no actions can be preferred over the other. So I must presume you are spreading Islam to the world through Jihad via a Ghost state and a ghost Khalif unlss OBL is the assymetrical Khalif, in which case the classical scholars must have got it wrong. No need for state to carry Islam to the world as we are in perpetual jihad.

I'm sure the Prophet saw established a state in Medina first before embarking on jihad to the rest of the world.

[Abu-Musa]

the only way to liberate the lands is jihad. BUT it also has a method of how to execute the fard..
could abu musa tel us the method from islam about jihad and how we should liberate the lands...
(could you please quote quran and sunnah and not the agent OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!!)


Your first line is correct, the only way to liberate the lands is Jihad.

"BUT" is the Shaytaan whispering, sometimes known as 'Shaykh But'.


As for the Quran and Sunnah...

"And Fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you…" [al-Baqarah 2:190]

"And Kill them wherever you find them, and expel them from wherever they expelled you. And Fitnah is worse than killing..." [al-Baqarah 2:191]

"Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him." [al-Baqarah 2:194]

"And Fight them until there is no more Fitnah and the Deen is totally for Allah." [al-Anfal 8:39]

"O you who Believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (in Jihad) you cling heavily to the earth?" [at-Tawbah 9:38]

"Those who Believe, Fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, Fight in the Cause of Taghut. So Fight you against the friends of Shaytan..." [an-Nisa 4:76]


If you cannot fight then you prepare and train to become ready...

"And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war, to terrorise the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allah does know. And whatever you spend in the Allahs' Cause shall be paid back to you, and you shall not be treated unjustly." [al-Anfal 8:60]

And the Prophet(saw) explained: "power" with his statement: “Verily, the power is in shooting.” repeating it three times. [Muslim]


Note the Prophet(saw) did not say 'Power is in the Islamic State, power is in the Islamic State, power is in the Islamic State'.


Training and preparing is the pre-requisite for Jihad. Just like Wudu is the pre-requisite for Salah.

The Prophet(saw) said "Whoever learns the shooting and then leaves it, then he is not from us." [Muslim]


Jihad is continuous...

"And they will never stop fighting you, until they make you Apostate, if they can." [al-Baqarah 2:217]

The Prophet(saw) said: "Jihad will continue until the Day of Judgement."

The Prophet(saw) said: "A group of people from my Ummah will continue to Fight in defence of Truth and remain triumphant until the Day of Judgment." [Muslim]

The Prophet(saw) said: "This religion will continue to exist, and a group of people from the Muslims will continue to Fight for its protection until the Hour is established." [Muslim]

The Prophet(saw) said: "A group of people from my Ummah will continue to Fight in obedience to the Command of Allah, remaining dominant over their enemies. Those who will oppose them shall not do them any harm. They will remain ill this condition until the Hour overtakes them..." [Muslim]

The Prophet(saw) said: "A section of my people will not cease Fighting for the Truth and will prevail till the Day of Resurrection. Isa(as) Ibn Maryam would then descend and their (Muslims') commander would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say: No, some amongst you are commanders over each other. This is the honour from Allah for this Ummah." [Muslim]


... and not the agent OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!!)

You are making the allegation - prove it.

[abujamal]

Out of context evidences again.

[Abu-Musa]

Another (unsuccessful) one-line attempt by abujamal to obliterate the Quran and Sunnah.

[abujamal]

Its not fun to keep kicking a guy who is down and keeps asking for more - so copy and paste the same few lines that you regurgitate on this thread as everyone who reads through the thread can see an illustration of this.

It was good to out you like this - now you can talk to yourself having lost all credibility.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

first of all you have given out of context evidences....
you've also not answered the auestion....AGAIN!!!! (NOTHINGS CHANGED...lol)
the main question that abu musa should answer is, if you believe that jihad without the state is allowed then what are you doing on this forum just talkling about... people like you are known as VIRTUAL JIHADDI'S!!!!!!!!
WHY DONT YOU GO AND DO SOMETHING???

(I SENSE A U-TURN COMING OR A PATHETIC EXCUSE BY ABU MUSA TO SUPPORT HIS CHARACTER OF A virtual jihaddi!!!!!!!!!!)

[Abu-Musa]

This is all you guys resort to - personal attacks, and keep using the get-out clause "out of context" in order that you do not have to refute anything. Just because you use the statement "out of context" does not make it automatically true.

Its just another way of brushing the evidences under the carpet. Almost everytime you do this.

Just because you do not agree with a particular viewpoint you turn around and say its out of context... HTs' opinions are not the only views... HT does not have a monopoly on Islam.

You guys are making the claim that it is "out of context" yet cannot even prove it.

No evidence ever explicitly attaches the term 'only in the Islamic State' so why are you insisting restricting it.

The verses and hadith on Jihad... are linked to the following:


1. That Jihad is continuous till the day of Judgement. (so it doesnt make a difference if the state is around or not)

2. That we fight those the fight us.

3. That the kuffar will not stop fighitng us.

4. That we fight those and expel them from our lands.

5. That we fight until there is no more Fitnah and the Deen is totally for Allah(swt). [And I have keep stating that Scholars have concluded that fitnah occurs when no Imam is around... hence no state)

6. The appearance of Kufr Buwah.


So the reasons to trigger Jihad are in the text themselves and no text stipulates the State as pre-requisite.


In fact I have always argued that the Jihad today is 'defensive' and HT do not even deny the need for defensive Jihad without a State.


But you guys systematically brushing things under the carpet... and don't fear Allah(swt) while doing it.

[Observer]

The minute a Muslim 'allies' with the Kuffar, he is no longer 'from the Ummah'.

So when the Agent-Rulers 'ally' with Kuffar they become Kuffar themselves, and when the Ruler who is now an agent of the colonialists has the backing of an armed force... we now have a group of Apostates.

Brother Abu Musa, you need to be careful about what you say. The Prophet (saw) said that "if a person calls another a kafir, on the day of judgement one of them will be kafir."

Before declaring all the soilders in all the muslim armies as apostates you need irrefutable evidence against each one of them individually. It is not like saying qadianis are kafir because qadianis as a group are kafir beaciuse of what they believe, but muslim armies as a group is not kufaar because they don't have any specific belief which makes them kafir.

[abdul-ali]

But you guys systematically brushing things under the carpet... and don't fear Allah(swt) while doing it.
It is silly comments like these for which you can't be taken serious, aswell as just copying whatever some one previously says like a child copies another just to try and irritate.

Can you prove in a court (as you often rhetort) that the guys you refer to above do not fear Allah? Why don't you apply your own standards upon youself or is this another one of those cyber-hypocrisies such as fighting (physically) the kuffaar and the apostate rulers and the muslim armies is the method to re-establish Khilafah yet you spend your time on the HT disussion forum?

Had it not been for your persistent dodging of questions and unconstructive ploys from the beginning then we wouldn't be reading the same old lines in almost every thread in which you participate. You ignore the answers given to you such as the ones that explain seperation of jihad in defending land, life, honour from invading kuffaar and changing of society as 2 seperate obligations.

Also your definition of who is part of the apostate taghut you advocate to fight in our lands, and your lack of understanding of the make up of our societies in the muslim lands have been repeatedly demonstrated by you, and your answer is simply HT understanding is not the only understanding, and because of this you attempt to apply all the verses of jihad to any situation and then want people to disprove you.

If you had the basic understanding of how to engage in a construtive discussion such as keeping to the topic maybe we can all benefit, but even after repeated reminders of these basic matters you shrug them off and then want to be taken seriously? big shame.

Maybe you can try and answer the following apparent contradiction in your last post:

In fact I have always argued that the Jihad today is 'defensive' and HT do not even deny the need for defensive Jihad without a State

Why do you restrict jihad today to defnesive only when the verses you use are not restricted to defensive jihad when you also saying that these verses are not restricted by the absense of the state???
No evidence ever explicitly attaches the term 'only in the Islamic State'

[Abu-Musa]

It is silly comments like these for which you can't be taken serious, aswell as just copying whatever some one previously says like a child copies another just to try and irritate.

Can you prove in a court (as you often rhetort) that the guys you refer to above do not fear Allah? Why don't you apply your own standards upon youself or is this another one of those cyber-hypocrisies such as fighting (physically) the kuffaar and the apostate rulers and the muslim armies is the method to re-establish Khilafah yet you spend your time on the HT disussion forum?

You are basically asking to prove a negative. This is a pointless angle as Muslim are trustworthy… your complaint of my discussing on the forum appears to be a ploy not address the argument. What does this have to do with proving the argument? A kind of “go away, we don’t want you discussing on this forum” just to avoid the real issue.

Had it not been for your persistent dodging of questions and unconstructive ploys from the beginning then we wouldn't be reading the same old lines in almost every thread in which you participate. You ignore the answers given to you such as the ones that explain seperation of jihad in defending land, life, honour from invading kuffaar and changing of society as 2 seperate obligations.

The way I see it, you guys have been dodging questions… (are the rulers Taghut or not? if Jihad can’t be used [8:39] if the Prophet[saw] didn’t use it first, time why is Ayah 3:104 when the Prophet[saw] never used it first time? How does a land transferred from a Colonialist to a Colonial Agent make the land less occupied leaving the Jihad suspended? are those who ally with the Kuffar not Kuffar themselves?)

and making unconstructive ploys… (“out of context”, “more hits for our website”, “why are you discussing on this forum”, “keep digging”)

and repeating the same old lines… (not without the State, not without the State, not without the State)

I agreed that Jihad including against the occupying regimes… and enjoining good and forbidding evil to society are 2 separate obligations.

Also your definition of who is part of the apostate taghut you advocate to fight in our lands, and your lack of understanding of the make up of our societies in the muslim lands have been repeatedly demonstrated by you, and your answer is simply HT understanding is not the only understanding, and because of this you attempt to apply all the verses of jihad to any situation and then want people to disprove you.

I have suggested leaving your terminologies aside and going to the hukm and its evidences… but no! that would just clear everything up wouldn’t it!

It also works the other way around as you guys stick to the HT understanding and expect people to disprove you. And when you are disproved, it is subject to a 007 brush under the carpet job.


If you had the basic understanding of how to engage in a construtive discussion such as keeping to the topic maybe we can all benefit, but even after repeated reminders of these basic matters you shrug them off and then want to be taken seriously? big shame.

I am all for constructive discussion, but who decides the terms? HT? Just look at your colleagues posts to see examples of unconstructive discussions, shrugging off, and lacking seriousness.

Like I said I am all for a constructive discussion, but this means reigning in your own side when they step out of line. It shouldn’t be all one-sided.

Maybe you can try and answer the following apparent contradiction in your last post:

Quote:
In fact I have always argued that the Jihad today is 'defensive' and HT do not even deny the need for defensive Jihad without a State

Why do you restrict jihad today to defnesive only when the verses you use are not restricted to defensive jihad when you also saying that these verses are not restricted by the absense of the state???

Quote:
No evidence ever explicitly attaches the term 'only in the Islamic State'

First of all the verses of Jihad are referring to Jihad. I quoted some restrictive ones too, not only to prove the obligation but to further prove the defensive nature – as you guys keep saying for the ‘context’ of today.

Those texts have the indication within them… “those who Fight you”, “until there is no more Fitnah”, “unless you see Kufr Buwah”, “from where they expelled you”.

All indicating defending against those who fight you, spread fitnah, rule in open kufr, spread fitnah. Defending against the forces that do this.

So these are contained within the texts themselves… where as the Islamic State being a pre-requisite is not contained in the text.


I Pray you understand.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

so abu musa are you a virtual jihadii or a real mujahid???
and what are you doing here...go and fight then!!!

[neelu]

so abu musa are you a virtual jihadii or a real mujahid???
and what are you doing here...go and fight then!!!

I just wanted to point out that although I disagree with Abu Musa's stance on most things, I also think this line of questioning is inappropriate. You know as well as I do that even if Abu M has or had been involved in some level of jihadi activity that is a matter between him and Allah (swt) and it would be inappropriate to put him at risk by coaxing him to admit to such actions on a public forum. Please try and keep the level of discussion at an intellectual level regarding the method for resuming the Islamic way of life and how to go about implementing it. This reminder is for everyone, including Abu M and including myself.

[Abeer-al-Janabi]

4 Figures... Showing How HT Lost The Plot.

Are these diagrams your shariah evidences???
It seems you must have had sleepless nights devising the models/diagrams!

These issues have been discussed many times over and over again. It really sounds like a stuck record. I am sure we can go to previous threads for answers or comments which are to be posted on this thread!

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERNS NEELU....
BUT FOR SOMEONE WHO 'WANTS' TO DO JIHAD (IN HIS DREAMS OR NOT) AND PREPARED TO SACRIFICE HIS LIFE IN THE CAUSE OF ALLAH I'M SURE ABU MUSA WONT MIND TELLING THE TRUTH......WHETHER ITS ON THE FORUM OR NOT....

[Abu-Musa]

so abu musa are you a virtual jihadii or a real mujahid???
and what are you doing here...go and fight then!!!

I just wanted to point out that although I disagree with Abu Musa's stance on most things, I also think this line of questioning is inappropriate. You know as well as I do that even if Abu M has or had been involved in some level of jihadi activity that is a matter between him and Allah (swt) and it would be inappropriate to put him at risk by coaxing him to admit to such actions on a public forum. Please try and keep the level of discussion at an intellectual level regarding the method for resuming the Islamic way of life and how to go about implementing it. This reminder is for everyone, including Abu M and including myself.

Jazakullah Khair.

[Abu-Musa]

4 Figures... Showing How HT Lost The Plot.

Are these diagrams your shariah evidences???
It seems you must have had sleepless nights devising the models/diagrams!

These issues have been discussed many times over and over again. It really sounds like a stuck record. I am sure we can go to previous threads for answers or comments which are to be posted on this thread!


Diagrams of reality...

Now if you apply the Shariah evidences to all of them apart from the one with Khaleef at the top... you will find that fighting is required to liberate the lands from the kuffar and/or their agents.

And that fighting is not suspended just because the job is handed over to an agent to deal with. In fact the agent takes the same rule as the one he allies himself with.


Now whats your evidence for giving an agent-ruler doing kufr buwah an easier time... than if the kuffar themselves or a khaleef who does kufr buwah were ruling over muslim lands?


This is HT's (witting or unwitting) logic to me...

If a Kafir rules over us on Muslim Land - we fight.

If a Khaleef rules over us by Kufr Buwah - we fight.

If we have an Agent-Ruler allied to the Kuffar, plus he rules us by Kufr Buwah - HT lets him of the hook???

[abdul-ali]

You are basically asking to prove a negative. This is a pointless angle as Muslim are trustworthy… your complaint of my discussing on the forum appears to be a ploy not address the argument. What does this have to do with proving the argument? A kind of “go away, we don’t want you discussing on this forum” just to avoid the real issue.
Amazing how you make several unrelated points in a short 2 sentence paragragh. Anyway dealing with your rambles:

Accusing brothers (& sisters) of not fearing Allah has to be based on some actions they must have done, so this 'proving a negative' doesn't excuse you of making such accusations; accusations which if true would make the accused untrustworthy.

We don't argue for the sake of it, so in order to discuss sincerely for the sake of truth, and for that topic of disagreement to get anywhere then you need certain ettiquettes of discussion, which brother you unashamedly lack and defend because of your apparent combined fixation and hatred for HT for whatever reason. This is what it has to do with the argument, i.e. making silly remarks, avoiding questions, changing topics etc.

The question of your hypocracies such as one standard for you and another for HT when making accusations upon brothers, and especially the point of not doing what you advocate which Allah (swt) condemns and many people have pointed out to you, are points that are awaiting an answer and can not be construed as 'not wanting you to discuss on this forum' other wise it defeats the objective of having a discussion forum and HT's activities.
I agreed that Jihad including against the occupying regimes… and enjoining good and forbidding evil to society are 2 separate obligations.
Changing the subject without explanation. I said Jihad defending land, life, honour against invading kuffar as something seperate to changing society and you come out with 'I agreed' and give a different statement to mine. Atleast tell us what is for you:
a) society
b) enjoining good and forbidding evil to society
I am all for constructive discussion, but who decides the terms?
This is not a treaty that someone wants you to sign that we need to decide upon the terms, common sense tells you that changing topic, bringing up the same argument on unrelated threads, makign silly pointless remarks like "007", and making sweeping accusations, are unconstructive, especially trying to cram all your disagreements in one sentence expecting that they will be dealt with all in that one thread.
First of all the verses of Jihad are referring to Jihad.Really?Well that is an eye opener.I quoted some restrictive ones tooSo there are some unrestricted ones which you may have quoted? Why do you choose the defensive ones to say Jihad is defensive?, that is my question, which you didn't answer.

I will insha-Allah try and highlight your misunderstanding of our reality and your misapplication of the verses of jihad onto this reality, as and when I have the time.

[Abu-Musa]

Nice cherry-pick of my post.

The answers to your questions are in the bits you did not quote.

I do understand that you may not like the answers I gave, however they are still my answers.

[Abu-Musa]

Amazing how you make several unrelated points in a short 2 sentence paragragh. Anyway dealing with your rambles:

Accusing brothers (& sisters) of not fearing Allah has to be based on some actions they must have done, so this 'proving a negative' doesn't excuse you of making such accusations; accusations which if true would make the accused untrustworthy.

We don't argue for the sake of it, so in order to discuss sincerely for the sake of truth, and for that topic of disagreement to get anywhere then you need certain ettiquettes of discussion, which brother you unashamedly lack and defend because of your apparent combined fixation and hatred for HT for whatever reason. This is what it has to do with the argument, i.e. making silly remarks, avoiding questions, changing topics etc.

1. There is a difference between accusing someone "you do not fear Allah!" and asking people about fearing Allah(swt).

2. I don't 'hate' HT.

3. Like I said: The way I see it, you guys have been dodging questions… (are the rulers Taghut or not? if Jihad can’t be used [8:39] if the Prophet[saw] didn’t use it first, time why is Ayah 3:104 when the Prophet[saw] never used it first time? How does a land transferred from a Colonialist to a Colonial Agent make the land less occupied leaving the Jihad suspended? are those who ally with the Kuffar not Kuffar themselves?)

and making unconstructive ploys… (“out of context”, “more hits for our website”, “why are you discussing on this forum”, “keep digging”)

and repeating the same old lines… (not without the State, not without the State, not without the State)


The question of your hypocracies such as one standard for you and another for HT when making accusations upon brothers, and especially the point of not doing what you advocate which Allah (swt) condemns and many people have pointed out to you, are points that are awaiting an answer and can not be construed as 'not wanting you to discuss on this forum' other wise it defeats the objective of having a discussion forum and HT's activities.

I agree that standards should be the same. However sometimes the discussion is on HT standards and HT failing to apply them to itself. Now I aint subject HT rules... but if I feel you guys contradict yourself I point it out.

That does not mean I am contradicting myself when I point out that you trip over yourselves without applying it to me. Since I aint from HT.

Other than that we should be able to clarify things properly between ourselves.

I agreed that Jihad including against the occupying regimes… and enjoining good and forbidding evil to society are 2 separate obligations.
Changing the subject without explanation. I said Jihad defending land, life, honour against invading kuffar as something seperate to changing society and you come out with 'I agreed' and give a different statement to mine. Atleast tell us what is for you:
a) society
b) enjoining good and forbidding evil to society

As far as I am concerned fighting the Agent-Ruler and his Army is "Defending the Land". From what I gather you don't agree, but thats the way I look at the same obligation. I did as you quoted me refer to the regimes as "occupying regimes".

Like I said this is a seperate duty.

For me the society in the context of Muslims is the Ummah at large and their Muamalat. Enjoining Marouf and Forbidding Munkar is at various levels including Muamalat, like for example Aqai'd, Ibadaah, Akhlaq.


I quoted some restrictive ones too
So there are some unrestricted ones which you may have quoted? Why do you choose the defensive ones to say Jihad is defensive?, that is my question, which you didn't answer.

I will insha-Allah try and highlight your misunderstanding of our reality and your misapplication of the verses of jihad onto this reality, as and when I have the time.

Again I answer this in my post...

Those texts have the indication within them… “those who Fight you”, “until there is no more Fitnah”, “unless you see Kufr Buwah”, “from where they expelled you”.

All indicating defending against those who fight you, spread fitnah, rule in open kufr, spread fitnah. Defending against the forces that do this.

So these are contained within the texts themselves… where as the Islamic State being a pre-requisite is not contained in the text.


Inshallah Bro.

[Muki]

Salaam, I dont like the manner in which abu musas views are being dissmissed. For a long time I had been a supporter of HT although I have never liked the way in which many HT people conduct themselves (thinking they have the only correct understanding and approaching any discussion with tunnel vision). I think I can agree with Maajid Nawaaz when he says:

Hizbut-Tahrir is thus faced with two choices: they must either,

i) Accept the lands are Dār al-Islām and go on to insist that there is manifest Kufr (Kufr Buwāh) in the laws of these lands, in which case the Jihadist method is obligated upon them according to the Party's own ideas. The invalidity of this conclusion (again from the Party's own ideas) is the subject of my next article.

ii) Or accept that the lands are Dār al-Islām and that there is no manifest Kufr (Kufr Buwāh) present therein, but rather and at best, a misapplication of the Shari'ah. Hence, political reform is needed by working with the regimes to encourage change, as it was during the last days of the Ottoman Caliphate. This stance accommodates reformists and opposition camps vis-a-vis dictatorships in the Muslim world, and places a civic duty upon all to work for political, intellectual and social reform, but essentially means that the states are not theologically illegitimate and so must not be removed by force.

[al-muwahhid]

Salaam Muki,

Or how about the fact that neither of those options given by Nawaaz are correct. We consider that all the lands are dar-ul-kufr. They need to be replaced with dar-ul-islam and HT have adopted a specific method to do this.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

still avoiding the question.....lol...
answer the question...
JIHADDI OR VIRTUAL JIHADDI???!!!

[al-muwahhid]

Blood_Thirsty,

Please stick to the topic.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

THIS HAS GOT ALOT TO DO WITH THE TOPIC...
IF ABU MUSA THINKS JIHAD SHOULD BE DONE WITHOUT THE STATE HE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE SINCERITY TO PRACTICE WHAT HE PREACHES...

[al-muwahhid]

Salaam Blood_Thirsty,

Why don't you start a new thread on that topic. This topic is related to HT. Whether Abu Musa is engaged in Jihad, assisting physically, by his wealth or by his speech in the fighting is irrelevant to this thread.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

WASALAAM,
YEAH I MIGHT NEED TO....

[abdul-ali]

Amazing how you make several unrelated points in a short 2 sentence paragragh. Anyway dealing with your rambles:

Accusing brothers (& sisters) of not fearing Allah has to be based on some actions they must have done, so this 'proving a negative' doesn't excuse you of making such accusations; accusations which if true would make the accused untrustworthy.

We don't argue for the sake of it, so in order to discuss sincerely for the sake of truth, and for that topic of disagreement to get anywhere then you need certain ettiquettes of discussion, which brother you unashamedly lack and defend because of your apparent combined fixation and hatred for HT for whatever reason. This is what it has to do with the argument, i.e. making silly remarks, avoiding questions, changing topics etc.

1. There is a difference between accusing someone "you do not fear Allah!" and asking people about fearing Allah(swt).

2. I don't 'hate' HT.
Here is an example of avoiding the points - I brought to your attention your blanket statement of 'you guys brush things under the carpet and don't fear Allah (swt) whilst doing it' i.e accusation of not fearing AllaH (SWT) and now you are tryign to say you were asking about fearing Allah. I quoted you and you tryign to change the story?
3. Like I said: The way I see it, you guys have been dodging questions… (are the rulers Taghut or not? if Jihad can’t be used [8:39] if the Prophet[saw] didn’t use it first, time why is Ayah 3:104 when the Prophet[saw] never used it first time? How does a land transferred from a Colonialist to a Colonial Agent make the land less occupied leaving the Jihad suspended? are those who ally with the Kuffar not Kuffar themselves?)

and making unconstructive ploys… (“out of context”, “more hits for our website”, “why are you discussing on this forum”, “keep digging”)

and repeating the same old lines… (not without the State, not without the State, not without the State)
As for this accustaion that brothers here have been dodging your questions, if we were to go back to the threads where these discussions about the topics of jihad as the method took place we can see the results. However when you just cut and paste the same ayaat and repeat the lines on many different threads, even though they have been answered before, doesn't mean people are dodging them, with short replies like "out of context".

I will insha-Allah break down your questions and answer them, and show you where you dodged the questions previously, and I hope not, will probably do again.


The question of your hypocracies such as one standard for you and another for HT when making accusations upon brothers, and especially the point of not doing what you advocate which Allah (swt) condemns and many people have pointed out to you, are points that are awaiting an answer and can not be construed as 'not wanting you to discuss on this forum' other wise it defeats the objective of having a discussion forum and HT's activities.

I agree that standards should be the same. However sometimes the discussion is on HT standards and HT failing to apply them to itself. Now I aint subject HT rules... but if I feel you guys contradict yourself I point it out.

That does not mean I am contradicting myself when I point out that you trip over yourselves without applying it to me. Since I aint from HT.

Other than that we should be able to clarify things properly between ourselves..
Only if you are willing to discuss constructively without avoiding questions, as what you did above, and cut the "007" "ghandi" and other cr*p, and stop repeating other peoples lines like a child, and try and discuss one topic on one thread as opposed to the same topic on many threads as you have been doing so far.

I agreed that Jihad including against the occupying regimes… and enjoining good and forbidding evil to society are 2 separate obligations.
Changing the subject without explanation. I said Jihad defending land, life, honour against invading kuffar as something seperate to changing society and you come out with 'I agreed' and give a different statement to mine. Atleast tell us what is for you:
a) society
b) enjoining good and forbidding evil to society

As far as I am concerned fighting the Agent-Ruler and his Army is "Defending the Land". From what I gather you don't agree, but thats the way I look at the same obligation. I did as you quoted me refer to the regimes as "occupying regimes".

Like I said this is a seperate duty.

For me the society in the context of Muslims is the Ummah at large and their Muamalat. Enjoining Marouf and Forbidding Munkar is at various levels including Muamalat, like for example Aqai'd, Ibadaah, Akhlaq.
There is no clarity and differentiation in your argument and I am surprised that you even say 2 seperate duties (which actually seems like regurgitating the muhajiroun explanation).

Firstly in answer to explaining society, for you it is the Ummah and their mu'amalat. I woudl like to know what these 'muamalat' are, e.g. is the government including the army, the state schools, the road builders etc are they the Ummah's mu'amalat? please clarify.

Secondly your biggest misunderstanding is that you view the situation today as merely a case of changing the ruler, like a khalifah who has just apostasised or been killed and replaced by the kuffar, without realising the the whole khilafah system has been scrapped and replaced, and this has happened with the consent of the masses whether in Turkey, pakistan or Saudi kingdom.

The armies also generally have the support of the people because they are from the people and not from outside. The situation today requires building this islamic society and not just fighting it, and this is why your ayaat of jihaad are misapplied and out of context, as our situation resembles the meccan period and not the mughal invasion of Baghdad.

These points have been made before and maybe need more thorough discussion insha-Allah.

I quoted some restrictive ones too
So there are some unrestricted ones which you may have quoted? Why do you choose the defensive ones to say Jihad is defensive?, that is my question, which you didn't answer.

I will insha-Allah try and highlight your misunderstanding of our reality and your misapplication of the verses of jihad onto this reality, as and when I have the time.

Again I answer this in my post...

Those texts have the indication within them… “those who Fight you”, “until there is no more Fitnah”, “unless you see Kufr Buwah”, “from where they expelled you”.

All indicating defending against those who fight you, spread fitnah, rule in open kufr, spread fitnah. Defending against the forces that do this.

So these are contained within the texts themselves… where as the Islamic State being a pre-requisite is not contained in the text.
Again you didn't get my specific question, and highlight of your contradiction - the verses that order fighting until there is no more fitnah and the deen is for Allah and the offensive ayaat of jihaad if taken out of context like you do, would mean fighting the kuffaar offensively, state or no state (as none mention state), but you say Jihad is only defensive today, why the restriction when there are unrestricted verses.

[Abu-Musa]

Here is an example of avoiding the points - I brought to your attention your blanket statement of 'you guys brush things under the carpet and don't fear Allah (swt) whilst doing it' i.e accusation of not fearing AllaH (SWT) and now you are tryign to say you were asking about fearing Allah. I quoted you and you tryign to change the story?

OK fair enough. The 'point' is if some of you guys feared Allah(swt) then you would not brush these issues under the carpet. I ask that you fear Allah(swt).

Only if you are willing to discuss constructively without avoiding questions, as what you did above, and cut the "007" "ghandi" and other cr*p, and stop repeating other peoples lines like a child, and try and discuss one topic on one thread as opposed to the same topic on many threads as you have been doing so far.

I do generally agree with you Bro. However it some topics do overlap, you guys should get this as you link virtually eveything back to Khilafah. "007"s can be cut, "Ghandi" I still reckon is a fair comparison.

If the issues aren't addressed and just brushed aside I would not need to repeat them. I do genuinely feel they get brushed under the carpet. It's good you are happy for proper constructive discussion and I hope inshallah we can do this... even though at the moment it seems like pot calling the kettle black.

There is no clarity and differentiation in your argument and I am surprised that you even say 2 seperate duties (which actually seems like regurgitating the muhajiroun explanation).

Firstly in answer to explaining society, for you it is the Ummah and their mu'amalat. I woudl like to know what these 'muamalat' are, e.g. is the government including the army, the state schools, the road builders etc are they the Ummah's mu'amalat? please clarify.

Secondly your biggest misunderstanding is that you view the situation today as merely a case of changing the ruler, like a khalifah who has just apostasised or been killed and replaced by the kuffar, without realising the the whole khilafah system has been scrapped and replaced, and this has happened with the consent of the masses whether in Turkey, pakistan or Saudi kingdom.

The armies also generally have the support of the people because they are from the people and not from outside. The situation today requires building this islamic society and not just fighting it, and this is why your ayaat of jihaad are misapplied and out of context, as our situation resembles the meccan period and not the mughal invasion of Baghdad.

These points have been made before and maybe need more thorough discussion insha-Allah.

It is really a matter of different duties, and if we tear down the terminologies and look at the evidences... we see just that different duties.

As for Mu'amalat it is do with the relationship with others and yes it will include the relationships between all the institutions you mention. However the Mu'amalat with regards to some is to treat them as Apostates as they are not from the 'Ummah'. This is where the relationship would be one of War and Fighting to remove them, the obvious being Government and Army.

Actually I see the next bit as HTs' biggest misunderstanding and I hope you can specifically demonstrate how when the Kuffar, occupy and divide the Muslim World, then replace themselves with agents that at such a point the Jihad would be suspended? Please explain why it is one rule for the colonialist-occupier... and another rule for the agents of the colonialist-occupier?

The fact that they dismantled the Khilafah System and replace it with any other system under the sun - does not make Jihad suspended... this is Muslim Land they are imposing these systems on. They are treating the Muslim World like their backyard. This is a greater reason to fight them even more... not less of a reason.

If you want to get technical - we fight them like they fight us... if they destroy our Khilafah, divide and rule our lands militarily, impose Kufr Systems on our lands by force. We will use the same thing they used against us to reverse the situation. I have no quarms about saying we must liberate our lands, establish Khilafah, expel the kuffar and their agents - and to do it all by Force. Just like they took it away forcefully we will get it back forcefully. How can you deny the right to use anything upto the measure of the enemy?

So it is 'defensive' Jihad until every inch of ex-Caliphate territory is turned back into an actual Caliphate.

You talk about the whole system is now changed... well thats true in Israel too. Does it mean that the occupiers have replaced the 'system' their is no more Jihad? Why is there discrimination between occupiers on one hand and their agents on the other?

So in a nutshell the "change of system" has no bearing on the Jihad required to liberate that territory and turn it back to Khilafah.

The other misunderstanding is that all this is with the consent of the masses, as if the colonialists walked into the Muslim Land and held a referendum... and every one just agreed to be occupied, divdided and ruled - then handed over to agents. Even if this happened it would have no legitimacy whatsoever and would be null and void. It would not change a thing.

You then site [i]"Turkey, pakistan or Saudi kingdom..." this is the biggest joke, as you metnioned countries with military and monarchical dictatorships. The Muslim World is far from being a place where regimes are their by peoples choice and consent.

Our situation has many similarities with Mongol Invasion of Baghdad... it's just that HT thinks we should not Fight the Mongols and the Agents of the Mongols.

As for the Jihad verses, please take another look... there are those clearly related to specific circumstances (mentioned inside the text)... many of which exists today and hence trigger the hukm.

[Muki]

Salaam.

Did the ottoman "khilafah" not implement the French penal code along with an economic system that had aspects of interest in it yet it was still considered Dar ul Islam. It could be argued that Abdul Wahhab was completely within his rights to rebel against the ottoman rulers in that they were ruling by kufr..How could HT call the ottoman empire dar ul islam and taliban dar ul kufr ?. I think the whole ishtihad regarding this "new reality" after the fall of the Ottoman Empire is deeply flawed and its from this flawed premise that HTs erroneous methodoligy stems.

Wasalam

[Abu_Hamza]

Aoa,
At this time the ‘Khilafah’ was very weak but the head of state was a Muslim, sane, mature male; the criteria for a Khalif. Also sovereignty was to Allah and the authority was with the Ummah . Thus the ‘Khilafah was in existence no matter how weak.

[Muki]

Ws.

Are you saying despite implementing kufr laws because the head of state was a Muslim, sane, mature male it was khilafah ?. The same could be said for many of the muslim countries today !

[Abu_Hamza]

Aoa,
If it is agreed the ‘Head of Sate’ fulfilled the criteria to be such. The points you seemed to have missed in my posting was that ‘Sovereignty was to Allah’ i.e. that the ‘Hukum Shari’ah’ was being implemented. However, even though the monetary system was adopted from other than Islam, it still needed to be authorised by the ‘Imams’. Thus, with this seal of approval and despite the fact that they were wrong in their adoption (due to the weakness of their understanding, the closing of the doors to Ishtihad and many other factors), it can be argued that the ‘Shari’ah’ was still in operation, as it was referred to for all adoptions. Secondly the ‘Authority’ was with the ‘Ummah’. The ‘Ummah’ understood and demanded the implementation of ‘Shari’ah’ over them, as was not the case in Afghanistan.

[Muki]

Ws,
Just to get this clear: Are you saying that open kufr can be implemented in an Islamic state as long as it was authourised by the Imams (due to their weak understanding etc) ?

[Observer]

I have a few points to make which may clarify the issue of Jihad and the State connection.

1. The necessity of a State for waging Jihad is evident from the time of the Prophet (saw) that when he was waging jihad, there were muslims living in Makkah (under Kuffar) but he never asked them to wage jihad against kuffar although the ayat of jihad were being revealed to him. The muslims in Makkah did not wage jihad to join the state of madina nor to convert makkah into Dar ul Islam.

2. After treaty of Huddabiyah, when Abu Bashir (ra) escaped from his prisoners (after he was returned by the Prophet (saw)) he formed a small group in the desert which used to raid the caravans of Quraish, the Prophet (saw) did not approve it as Jihad and no one from madina went to join them. In fact The Prophet (sallallahu alaihe wa-sallam) said: "He would have kindled a war if there had been others with him." thereby disapproving of his act.

In light of the above, it is clear that Jihad is only obligatory with the State.
Without the state, Jihad (defence not offence) can at best be mubah but no one can call it obligatory.

The ayat do not make Jihad obligatory on every muslim (fard ain), which is evident from the above two points and the seerah of the prophet (saw).

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

some good points there by 'analyst'....
not only that...when the ottoman state existed...the caliph had the 'bayah' from the people...there isnt a country in the world that is an islamic state as the 'bayah' has not bein given....

[Abu-Musa]

Ws,
Just to get this clear: Are you saying that open kufr can be implemented in an Islamic state as long as it was authourised by the Imams (due to their weak understanding etc) ?


"They take their rabbis and priests to be their Lords besides Allah..." [9:31]

[Abu-Musa]

In light of the above, it is clear that Jihad is only obligatory with the State.
Without the state, Jihad (defence not offence) can at best be mubah but no one can call it obligatory.
(saw).


No classical scholar ever made defensive Jihad 'mubah'. What the hell are you on about?

So long as those elements and conditions that require the defensive Jihad to be carried out exist, then it will remain a Fard Ayn until sufficient numbers are engaged to deal with the threat.

You also have a weird understanding of the incidents surrounding Abu Basir(ra) as well as your take that his actions were dissaproved by the Messenger(saw)?

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

once again...what are you doing here...????????????LOL

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

ANSWER THE QUESTION PLZ!!!
NO U-TURNS OR DODGING THE QUESTION!!!LOL

[Abu-Musa]

once again...what are you doing here...????????????LOL

where?

[Observer]

No classical scholar ever made defensive Jihad 'mubah'. What the hell are you on about?

So long as those elements and conditions that require the defensive Jihad to be carried out exist, then it will remain a Fard Ayn until sufficient numbers are engaged to deal with the threat.

You also have a weird understanding of the incidents surrounding Abu Basir(ra) as well as your take that his actions were dissaproved by the Messenger(saw)?

What I have stated proves that Jihad is NO WAY to change dar ul kufr to dar ul islam by individuals or groups. My posting was in this context because you have been stating that jihad is fard against all the regimes, and you consider it fard ayn.

[Muki]

Abu musa would i be right in saying that you have a difference of opinion with HT as to whether the muslim countries today are dar ul kufr in that you beleive that the lands are dar ul islam in which open kufr is being implemented thereby allowing a rebellion against the rulers to restore ruling by islam ?.

[Observer]

Abu musa would i be right in saying that you have a difference of opinion with HT as to whether the muslim countries today are dar ul kufr in that you beleive that the lands are dar ul islam in which open kufr is being implemented thereby allowing a rebellion against the rulers to restore ruling by islam ?.

How can a land be dar ul Islam if open kufr is being implemented in it?

[Peregrine_Falcon]

Abu musa would i be right in saying that you have a difference of opinion with HT as to whether the muslim countries today are dar ul kufr in that you beleive that the lands are dar ul islam in which open kufr is being implemented thereby allowing a rebellion against the rulers to restore ruling by islam ?.

How can a land be dar ul Islam if open kufr is being implemented in it?

Open kufr refers to that which negates the rulers authority to rule due to him deliberately bringing in law that is non-islamic. By definition this can happen only when dar-al-islam exists. Open kufr does not negate dar-al-islam - it obliges the removal of the ruler and sanctions fighting.

However, abu musa is not arguing that the regimes today are dar-al-islam but rather the rule that orders us to fight them if they commit open kufr applies to a situation where the rulers are implementing non-Islam. He makes the analogy between open kufr and the non-implementation of Islam and applies fighting to both situations. I hope my understanding of what abu musa is stating is correct.

There is no-one that considers the current situation to be anything accept dar-al-kufr. Muki I think you are clutching to on straws in trying to ascertain that the current regimes are legitimite.

[Abu-Musa]

What I have stated proves that Jihad is NO WAY to change dar ul kufr to dar ul islam by individuals or groups. My posting was in this context because you have been stating that jihad is fard against all the regimes, and you consider it fard ayn.


It proves no such thing. Please speak from evidence.


How can a land be dar ul Islam if open kufr is being implemented in it?

Exactly the same logic I use when I say - How can the Hadith of Fighting the Ruler doing Kufr Buwah apply to only a legitimate Islamic State? As Open Kufr is being implemented? So it therefore applies even more to Dar al Kufr...


Abu musa would i be right in saying that you have a difference of opinion with HT as to whether the muslim countries today are dar ul kufr in that you beleive that the lands are dar ul islam in which open kufr is being implemented thereby allowing a rebellion against the rulers to restore ruling by islam ?.

These lands are formerly Dar al-Islam which have been occupied by the colonilaists then divided-up and handed over to agents. So they are still Muslim Lands that need liberation via Jihad... if you want to look at it another way the Muslim World is occupied territory that belonged to the Khilafah.

Until Khilafah is back over all Muslim Lands we really haven't liberated Muslim Lands from occupation and colonialism.

HT miss the point that the Khilafah did not just vanish one day... its lands were occupied by something else.

They also excuse the Kufr Buwah of the rulers by not fighting them... by confusing people by their terminlologies. Rather than accept in principle that a Muslim must Rule by Islam no matter what (i.e. its Fard) and if they don't (i.e. do Kufr Buwah) then they must be fought. Instead they let them commit Kufr Buwah as if implementing Islam is only optional for them... and they are let of the hook, witout the need to fight them. In the end a Kafir usurping Muslim Land is fought, a Khaleefah who commits Kufr Buwah is fought, but a so-called 'muslim' agent of the kuffar doing Kufr Buwah left right and centre... gets a get out jail free card - stamped by HT.


HT to this day are not - despite being given the opportunity - prepared to say a Muslim has no choice but to implement Islam, and if he goes into Kufr Buwah he is fought. They continue to provide a filthy get-out clause for the rulers.

A "State" cannot do Kufr Buwah... people do Kufr Buwah.

There is also no precident to say it makes the slightest difference if a ruler does Kufr Buwah after implementing Islam, or does it from day one.

[Abu-Musa]

Open kufr refers to that which negates the rulers authority to rule due to him deliberately bringing in law that is non-islamic. By definition this can happen only when dar-al-islam exists. Open kufr does not negate dar-al-islam - it obliges the removal of the ruler and sanctions fighting.

However, abu musa is not arguing that the regimes today are dar-al-islam but rather the rule that orders us to fight them if they commit open kufr applies to a situation where the rulers are implementing non-Islam. He makes the analogy between open kufr and the non-implementation of Islam and applies fighting to both situations. I hope my understanding of what abu musa is stating is correct.

There is no-one that considers the current situation to be anything accept dar-al-kufr. Muki I think you are clutching to on straws in trying to ascertain that the current regimes are legitimite.

What I am saying is only a Khaleef and his Army is acceptable over Muslim Land. Otherwise where did they go?? Who usurped the power and occupied their place??


To say a Kufr Buwah from a Khaleef requires that he be fought against, but a so-called apparently Muslim person who becomes King or President can get away with Kufr Buwah without being fought is absurd.

This in and of itself is making the implementation of Islam 'optional' on a Muslim. Where as I say it is Fard no matter what, and if they do not implement Islam they are dealt with.

That is why whether it is Dar al-Islam or not makes no difference because the Kufr Buwah emanates from the Ruler and the Ruler is an individual human being who can act according to Islam or Kufr.

The Qiyas of the Kufr Buwah of Rulers in the various Hadith is totally valid to todays situation. The rule that is being extended is that a Muslim in Authority performs Open Disbelief. So people can keep going on about dar al-islam and bayah (which is only the case in 'some' hadith) but that is not where the Qiyas is being made.

The ahadith always state words to the effect "unless you see kufr buwah" the ruling of fighting and its reason is linked to the Kufr Buwah not the legitimacy of the Ruler or State. We do not fight the Ruler because he is a Khaleef, President, King, or Emir... we fight him because he commits Open Kufr.

What also gives strength to the Qiyas of Kufr Buwah apply to todays reality... is if we look to all the evidences on 'ruling' (i.e. the subject matter) there is Qat'i evidence to show that Muslims must Rule by Islam by default... it is Fard and not optional.

So a Muslim must rule by Islam in the first place, and if he does not then this is seen as a Kufr Buwah from him. The system or his title being a secular ruling title does not let him off the hook from being fought.

If we then decide they are Apostates or even Kuffar in origin then they must be fought automatially as Kafirs are not permitted to have control over Muslim Soil. Hence they will be seen as usurpers, occupiers etc.

[neelu]

Muki, I think it would be simpler if you set up a separate thread for your questions as they're of a different nature to what Abu Musa is asking about, otherwise we'll have two different discussions going on simultaneously on the same thread.

Edit: Looks like Abu Jamal beat me to it and started a new thread already so Muki's questions can be discussed on the thread pasted below- jazakallah khayr:

http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=1090

[Observer]

In the end a Kafir usurping Muslim Land is fought, a Khaleefah who commits Kufr Buwah is fought, but a so-called 'muslim' agent of the kuffar doing Kufr Buwah left right and centre... gets a get out jail free card - stamped by HT.

The kafir is fought because of the general ayat of fighting kuffar.

The khalifah doing kuf buwah is fought because of the Prophet (saw) following ahadith

Narrated Junada bin Abi Umaiya:
We entered upon 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was sick. We said, "May Allah make you healthy. Will you tell us a Hadith you heard from the Prophet and by which Allah may make you benefit?" He said, "The Prophet called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam, and among the conditions on which he took the Pledge from us, was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah (Bukhari)

It has been narrated on the authority of 'Auf b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke God's blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): Shouldn't we overthrow them with the help of the sword? He said: No, as long as they establish prayer among you. (Muslim)

These ahadith clearly refers to the change of condition of a land where Islam has been implemented, but muslims see kufr buwah after that. See the words in the ahadith "unless we noticed him having open Kufr" and "as long as they establish prayer among you"

As far as the situation is concerned where there is no Khalifah, the Prophet (saw) told us to stay away from all factions and did not instruct us to fight the rulers.

It has been narrated on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said: People used to ask the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) about the good times, but I used to ask him about bad times fearing lest they overtake me. I said: Messenger of Allah, we were in the midst of ignorance and evil, and then God brought us this good (time through Islam). Is there any bad time after this good one? He said: Yes. I asked: Will there be a good time again after that bad time? He said: Yes, but therein will be a hidden evil. I asked: What will be the evil hidden therein? He said: (That time will witness the rise of) the people who will adopt ways other than mine and seek guidance other than mine. You will know good points as well as bad points. I asked: Will there be a bad time after this good one? He said: Yes. (A time will come) when there will be people standing and inviting at the gates of Hell. Whoso responds to their call they will throw them into the fire. I said: Messenger of Allah, describe them for us. He said: All right. They will be a people having the same complexion as ours and speaking our language. I said: Messenger of Allah, what do you suggest if I happen to live in that time? He said: You should stick to the main body of the Muslims and their leader. I said: If they have no main body and have no leader? He said: Separate yourself from all these factions, though you may have to eat the roots of trees (in a jungle) until death comes to you and you are in this state. (Muslim)

The hadith clearly states that a muslim has to remain with the Khalifah (the implicit meaning is that he will fight against the rebels with the Khalif and he should not leave him) but if there is no Khalifah than there is no such obligation of fighting the rulers but he is instructed to distance himself from them and their activities.

[Observer]

Observer wrote:
What I have stated proves that Jihad is NO WAY to change dar ul kufr to dar ul islam by individuals or groups. My posting was in this context because you have been stating that jihad is fard against all the regimes, and you consider it fard ayn.


It proves no such thing. Please speak from evidence.

If you see the actions of the Prophet (saw) in Makkah, he did not fight to change dar ul kufr to dar ul islam.

Even after ayat of jihad were revealed, he did not ask the individuals living in Makkah (dar ul kufr) to fight the regime to change it to dar ul Islam.

This is enough evidence that for individuals Jihad is no way to change dar ul kufr to dar ul Islam.

Jihad is done by the state to change dar ul kufr to dar ul Islam.

[Sameera]

Observer it is a big leap to say that the hadith of biting the tree means dontt fight the rulers when their is no Khilafah. We could equally argue that we cannot go with any of the groups including the hizb when there is no Khilafah as we are to keep away from all the factions and just bite the tree.

However from what I have seen on the forum hizb makes its own group and the work it does an exception to the rule. Equally abu musa made fighting the rulers and exception to the rule when talking at length about the fighing victorious group and saved sect as being an exception to the rule according to the hadiths that they will always be present.

If we look at it in all fairness then all of these are exceptions to the general rule in the biting the tree hadith. In fact the biting the tree hadith mentions staying away from the sects forbiding us from them, it is not talking either way about the rulers.

[Abu-Musa]

The hadith clearly states that a muslim has to remain with the Khalifah (the implicit meaning is that he will fight against the rebels with the Khalif and he should not leave him) but if there is no Khalifah than there is no such obligation of fighting the rulers but he is instructed to distance himself from them and their activities.


There is no forbiddance of Fighting the Rulers in that text. There is a forbiddance from all those Sects.

I cannot believe the AQLI QIYAS used to give the Rulers a - get out of jail free card - when it comes to facing the sword.

I showed you where the TEXT refers to Kufr Buwah, and this Kufr Buwah is what the text itself is linking to Fighting.


Conveniently you did not even touch on the other points on whether Muslims must rule by Islam by default or not. Where did the Khilfah go? And what/who 'occupied' its place?

I agree with:

The kafir is fought because of the general ayat of fighting kuffar.

Are not the Rulers doing Kufr Buwah, left, right and centre Apostates? Why fight the Khaleef on one Kufr Buwah and not a King who commits hundreds?

Why is the implementation of Islam by a Muslim being made optional? And if it is not optional then you agree that they MUST rule by Islam by default... then all that is left is to deal with their departure from the Rule of Islam regardless if its mid-term or from day one.

At least agree or not if they must implement Islam by default obligation (and by daleel Qat'i). Then we can deal with the second part of what happens if they depart from the default position.


(However this is always avoided as it crystal clear where the road ends)

[official]

What I have stated proves that Jihad is NO WAY to change dar ul kufr to dar ul islam by individuals or groups. My posting was in this context because you have been stating that jihad is fard against all the regimes, and you consider it fard ayn.


It proves no such thing. Please speak from evidence.


How can a land be dar ul Islam if open kufr is being implemented in it?

Exactly the same logic I use when I say - How can the Hadith of Fighting the Ruler doing Kufr Buwah apply to only a legitimate Islamic State? As Open Kufr is being implemented? So it therefore applies even more to Dar al Kufr...


Abu musa would i be right in saying that you have a difference of opinion with HT as to whether the muslim countries today are dar ul kufr in that you beleive that the lands are dar ul islam in which open kufr is being implemented thereby allowing a rebellion against the rulers to restore ruling by islam ?.

These lands are formerly Dar al-Islam which have been occupied by the colonilaists then divided-up and handed over to agents. So they are still Muslim Lands that need liberation via Jihad... if you want to look at it another way the Muslim World is occupied territory that belonged to the Khilafah.

Until Khilafah is back over all Muslim Lands we really haven't liberated Muslim Lands from occupation and colonialism.

HT miss the point that the Khilafah did not just vanish one day... its lands were occupied by something else.

They also excuse the Kufr Buwah of the rulers by not fighting them... by confusing people by their terminlologies. Rather than accept in principle that a Muslim must Rule by Islam no matter what (i.e. its Fard) and if they don't (i.e. do Kufr Buwah) then they must be fought. Instead they let them commit Kufr Buwah as if implementing Islam is only optional for them... and they are let of the hook, witout the need to fight them. In the end a Kafir usurping Muslim Land is fought, a Khaleefah who commits Kufr Buwah is fought, but a so-called 'muslim' agent of the kuffar doing Kufr Buwah left right and centre... gets a get out jail free card - stamped by HT.


HT to this day are not - despite being given the opportunity - prepared to say a Muslim has no choice but to implement Islam, and if he goes into Kufr Buwah he is fought. They continue to provide a filthy get-out clause for the rulers.

A "State" cannot do Kufr Buwah... people do Kufr Buwah.

There is also no precident to say it makes the slightest difference if a ruler does Kufr Buwah after implementing Islam, or does it from day one.

Abu-Musa
If the Ummah is silent over this issue would that deem them as subscribers to the rule of Kufr and you need to fight them to implement Islam upon them by force just as you would with the rulers who implementing Kufr Buwah and the army protecting the rulers.

Even if you do that what if a Kufr force dispose the Khalifa latter on and implement Kufr system would they (the Ummah) fight with you to regain Islamic system?

[Observer]

Abu Musa Wrote: There is no forbiddance of Fighting the Rulers in that text. There is a forbiddance from all those Sects.
I have stated that "if there is no Khalifah than there is no such obligation of fighting the rulers but he is instructed to distance himself from them and their activities." There is a big difference b/w obligation and not being forbidden. Have u any evidence which shows that fighting is fard ON INDIVIDUALS in dar ul kufr against the ruler.
I have already stated several times that muslim INDIVIDUALS DID NOT FIGHT in Makkah even though ayat of Jihad were being revealed in Madina. The Prophet (saw) DID NOT make it fard or even ask them to fight the rulers to convert Makkah into dar ul Islam.
Conveniently you did not even touch on the other points on whether Muslims must rule by Islam by default or not. Where did the Khilfah go? And what/who 'occupied' its place?

I agree that muslims must rule by Islam.
If khalifah starts ruling by kufr buwah, he is fought, but if there is no khalifah and the land is dar ul kufr than the ruler is not fought but work is done to convert it from dar ul kufr to dar ul Islam as the Prophet (saw) did in Makkah.
It should be clear to everyone that ahkam or dar ul kufr differ from dar ul Islam e.g. scholars say that hudood are not implemented on a person who commited a crime in dar ul kufr. Similarly there are different ahkam to treat the ruler in dar ul Islam and dar ul Kufr. One is fought and the other is not fought.
Sameera wrote: Observer it is a big leap to say that the hadith of biting the tree means dontt fight the rulers when their is no Khilafah. We could equally argue that we cannot go with any of the groups including the hizb when there is no Khilafah as we are to keep away from all the factions and just bite the tree.
I think I have replied to the first part (fighting the ruler) in my reply to Abu Musa. Regarding the second part I agree that all other obligation remain as they are even if khalifah is not there, i.e. praying, fasting, working to re-establish Islam, fighting against the attackers etc.

[Abu-Musa]

I have stated that "if there is no Khalifah than there is no such obligation of fighting the rulers but he is instructed to distance himself from them and their activities." There is a big difference b/w obligation and not being forbidden. Have u any evidence which shows that fighting is fard ON INDIVIDUALS in dar ul kufr against the ruler.
I have already stated several times that muslim INDIVIDUALS DID NOT FIGHT in Makkah even though ayat of Jihad were being revealed in Madina. The Prophet (saw) DID NOT make it fard or even ask them to fight the rulers to convert Makkah into dar ul Islam.


There is an obligation to Fight the Rulers because:

1. As 'Muslims' they must Rule by Islam by default, however they have departed from this and commit Kufr Buwah continuously. The ruling upon them is that we must not fight them unless we see Open Disbelief from them (which they actually do today).

2. They have allied with the Kuffar against Islam and Muslims. They fight Muslims and imprison them for working to establish Shari'ah. The ruling on them is that they take the same rule as those they ally with and are fought just like if they are Kafir occupiers and Kafir cononialists themselves and are fought as they fight us.

3. They are Apostates who have usurped power over the Muslim and their Lands, hence must be fought as Kafir usurpers/occupiers. The ruling on these is that we kill them wherever we find them and expel them from the lands and seats of power they have usurped and do not belong to them.

4. If more than one or alll of the above reasons apply then it is even more urgent and only serves to emphasise the obligation of fighting them.


If you can prove that none of these have occured then I agree there is no Jihad required.



I agree that muslims must rule by Islam.
If khalifah starts ruling by kufr buwah, he is fought, but if there is no khalifah and the land is dar ul kufr than the ruler is not fought but work is done to convert it from dar ul kufr to dar ul Islam as the Prophet (saw) did in Makkah.
It should be clear to everyone that ahkam or dar ul kufr differ from dar ul Islam e.g. scholars say that hudood are not implemented on a person who commited a crime in dar ul kufr. Similarly there are different ahkam to treat the ruler in dar ul Islam and dar ul Kufr. One is fought and the other is not fought.

If you agree that the Muslims must rule by Islam then...

1. Are the rulers Muslims according to you? If they are - then are they not departing from Islamic Rule? and if they are not Muslims - are they not Kafirs occupying the lands and thrones?

2. Does a Khilafah/Dar al-Islam that gets Colonised, Occupied, Divided & Ruled by the Kuffar who then hand over to their Agents as 'client-states'... still not be considered as occupation needy of Jihad? (And is this what happened in Makkah since you think this is the reality?!?!?)

3. Where have the scholars cherry-picked about Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr vis-a-vis the obligations on the neck of the entire Ummah?

[Observer]

1. As 'Muslims' they must Rule by Islam by default, however they have departed from this and commit Kufr Buwah continuously. The ruling upon them is that we must not fight them unless we see Open Disbelief from them (which they actually do today).

The ahadith which mention fighting the ruler if kufr buwah is witnessed pertains to the Khaleefah only. e.g. read the following hadith:

Narrated Junada bin Abi Umaiya:
We entered upon 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was sick. We said, "May Allah make you healthy. Will you tell us a Hadith you heard from the Prophet and by which Allah may make you benefit?" He said, "The Prophet called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam, and among the conditions on which he took the Pledge from us, was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah (Bukhari)

The hadith is mentioning that muslims are to obey the ruler (i.e. Khaleefah beacuse in other ahadith fulfilling his bayah is mentioned) and not to fight against him UNLESS kufr buwah is witnessed. The hadith does not pertain to the situation if muslims are living in dar ul kufr in the first place as is our situation today.

2. They have allied with the Kuffar against Islam and Muslims. They fight Muslims and imprison them for working to establish Shari'ah. The ruling on them is that they take the same rule as those they ally with and are fought just like if they are Kafir occupiers and Kafir cononialists themselves and are fought as they fight us.

There is no evidence which makes it fard on muslims to fight against a ruler who imprisons muslims working to establish sharia.

Regarding liberating occupied areas from the kuffar, it is fard on the rulers but if they do not fullfill their fard, the muslims are not ordered to fight the rulers but rather they have to work to establish an Islamic State which will fullfill this fard. This is just like all other obligations, e.g. ruler has to implement all hudood but if he does not do it, muslims are not instructed to fight him but re-establish the state which fullfills this and all other obligations. Please give any evidence which makes it obligatory for muslims (individuals) to fight the ruler if he does not declare jihad against kuffar.

3. They are Apostates who have usurped power over the Muslim and their Lands, hence must be fought as Kafir usurpers/occupiers. The ruling on these is that we kill them wherever we find them and expel them from the lands and seats of power they have usurped and do not belong to them.

The obligation of fighting the kuffar is on the ruler it is not on individuals. All the ayat which refer to fighting were revealed in Madina when muslims has a state but these ayat did not make it fard on muslims in Makkah to fight the kuffar rulers in Makkah. If you are using these ayat for (as per your understanding) apostate rulers then they will also take the hukm of kuffar i.e. obligation is not on the individuals to fight them.

1. Are the rulers Muslims according to you? If they are - then are they not departing from Islamic Rule? and if they are not Muslims - are they not Kafirs occupying the lands and thrones?

2. Does a Khilafah/Dar al-Islam that gets Colonised, Occupied, Divided & Ruled by the Kuffar who then hand over to their Agents as 'client-states'... still not be considered as occupation needy of Jihad? (And is this what happened in Makkah since you think this is the reality?!?!?)

1. In my opinion the rulers are musilms who have not departed but who did not implement Islam in the first place so the ahadith of fighting the rulers do not pertain to them.

2. The kuffar occupied muslim lands but then left it as stated by you. The rule was then transfered to the muslim rulers who are not implementing Islam. Now the issue is of establising Islam and fighting is not the method to do it. This has to be done the way the Prophet (saw) did it in Makkah.

3. Where have the scholars cherry-picked about Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr vis-a-vis the obligations on the neck of the entire Ummah?

We are not talking here of the entire Ummah but INDIVIDUAL musilms i.e. is it fard on Individual muslims (each one of them) to fight to convert DUK to DUI. Several ahkam for INDIVIDUALS are different if they live in DUK than if they live in DUI.

[Abu-Musa]

The ahadith which mention fighting the ruler if kufr buwah is witnessed pertains to the Khaleefah only...

This is incorrect. As the Prophet(saw) never used the word Khaleefah, he used the word Ruler which is a general word referring to those in authority. As for the Pledge of Allegience this is reference to the Bay'ah being given to the Prophet(saw) at that time i.e. it is reporting what happened back then. What follows are instructions on how to behave in future including obeying those in authority (for which Muslim must rule by Islam according to definite-text) and to fight them if we see Kufr Buwah from them.

So the fulfiling the Bay'ah is what they did at the hands of the Prophet(saw). He(saw) made it binding on them to tolerate the 'Rulers' (in general) i.e. the ones they will have in future (not the Prophet[saw] at that time), however we are to fight them (Rulers in general) if they commit Kufr Buwah.

We do not fight them because they are legitimate Khaleefs, we do not fight them because they are called Emir, King, or President.

We fight them because they commit Kufr Buwah. The hukm of Fighting is linked to the Kufr Buwah.

It is direct ahkam for the Ruler commiting Kufr Buwah. Look at the explnations of the Hadith...

Imam Nawawi said, “Al-Qādhī ‘Iyādh said, ‘The scholars have formed a consensus that the leadership (Imāmah) is not to be contracted to a disbeliever (Kafir) and that if disbelief (Kufr) comes from him, then he is to be removed.”

“So if disbelief (Kufr) and changing the legislation (Shara’ ) or innovation (Bid’ah) comes from him, then he has left the status of authority and his (right) of obedience falls and it becomes obligatory upon the Muslims to rise up against him and remove him and set up a just Imām, if that is possible for them. Then if that is not possible, except for a group (Tā’ifah), then it is obligatory upon them (i.e. a group) to rise up and remove the disbeliever (Kāfir). And that is not obligatory concerning the innovator, unless they assume that they are able (to do so). Then if the inability is confirmed, then the uprising is not obligatory, but the Muslims must make Hijrah away from his land to other than it, and flee with his religion.” [“Sahīh Muslim Bi ’Sharh’ An-Nawawī: Kitāb Al-Imārah ”, Vol. 12/229]


And Ibn Hajar said, if the ruler disbelieves, “And its summary is that he is to be removed because of disbelief (Kufr), according to the consensus (Ijmā’ ). So it is obligatory upon each Muslim to rise up for that.” [Fat’h Al-Bārī ”, Vol. 13/123]


Nowhere have they said it was because he was the Khaleef only!? (Such a person is not even referred to as a Khaleef) In fact we should rise up even if it means establishing a party to fight the ruler. Their authority falls, you cannot justify their authority.

There is no evidence which makes it fard on muslims to fight against a ruler who imprisons muslims working to establish sharia.

You're right it only requires one Kufr law to make it Fard... not just getting thrown in jail for working to replace all the kufr laws!?

Regarding liberating occupied areas from the kuffar, it is fard on the rulers but if they do not fullfill their fard, the muslims are not ordered to fight the rulers but rather they have to work to establish an Islamic State which will fullfill this fard. This is just like all other obligations, e.g. ruler has to implement all hudood but if he does not do it, muslims are not instructed to fight him but re-establish the state which fullfills this and all other obligations. Please give any evidence which makes it obligatory for muslims (individuals) to fight the ruler if he does not declare jihad against kuffar.

Defensive Jihad is Fard Ayn on those directly affected and then spreads if the strength is not sufficient to expel the enemy. It is not just 'Fard on the Rulers'.

I said: "The ruling on them is that they take the same rule as those they ally with and are fought just like if they are Kafir occupiers and Kafir cononialists themselves and are fought as they fight us."

You are asking me: "Please give any evidence which makes it obligatory for muslims (individuals) to fight the ruler if he does not declare jihad against kuffar."

I should only be required to prove my claim.... not yours. I ain't claiming what you are saying!?

I am saying the rulers have allied with the Kuffar and should be treated like them, they are all fighting us to stop Islam and we should "fight those who fight us".

Do you deny that the rulers are allies of the Kuffar?

I will happily go through the evidences with you about allying with the Kuffar.

Also when the rulers fight Muslims to prevent the Shari'ah from returning, is this fighting and killing of Muslims in the Cause of Allah?

Allah(swt) says: “Those who Believe, Fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, Fight in the cause of Taghut. So Fight you against the allies of Shaitan; Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan.” [Surah an-Nisa 4:76]

So I say.... the Rulers today are Taghut. They do not fight in the Cause of Allah(swt). The Armies fight in the Cause of the Taghut (Rulers and Legislation). Those who fight in the cause of Taghut are disbelievers... allies of each other and Shaytaan.

Allah(swt) is ordering us to Fight them.


The obligation of fighting the kuffar is on the ruler it is not on individuals. All the ayat which refer to fighting were revealed in Madina when muslims has a state but these ayat did not make it fard on muslims in Makkah to fight the kuffar rulers in Makkah. If you are using these ayat for (as per your understanding) apostate rulers then they will also take the hukm of kuffar i.e. obligation is not on the individuals to fight them.

Look at Ayah 4:76 above - Allah(swt) refers to "those who Believe", where does He(swt) say "just those rulers".

Also I've mention this before, rising a group on 3:104 was revealed in Madinah so.... why HT exist then!??

The rules of Jihad cover a wide range of circumstances including Fighting to expel the enemy, Fighting the Taghut and their allies, Fighting to remove Fitnah, Fighting to remove the Ruler manifesting Kufr, Fighting in order to expand the territory of the Khilafah etc.

Fighting the occupiers and Tahgut Rulers is seperate from expanding the Khilafah....

So it is a bit silly for you to keep saying "revealed in Madina" then say to me... "If you are using these ayat for (as per your understanding) apostate rulers then they will also take the hukm of kuffar i.e. obligation is not on the individuals to fight them."

And if you say the Jihad are based on Madinan Ayahs - then if you have this as 'your understanding' then for HT to exist on Madinan Ayah - 3:104 - means by this type of thinking that HTs premise for existence if flawed. (And what ever excuse you make to get out of this, apply it to Jihad as well!)

Here is an exercise for you...

Allah(swt) says:

“Fasting is prescribed for you” [Baqarah 2:183]

“Fighting is prescribed for you” [Baqarah 2:216]

These duties have been ordered in the exact same way, so please explain how with the exact same language used by the Creator(swt)... that one Ayah is for individuals and the other just for Rulers!?!


1. In my opinion the rulers are musilms who have not departed but who did not implement Islam in the first place so the ahadith of fighting the rulers do not pertain to them.

“And whosoever does not Legislate by what Allah has revealed, are the Kafiroon.” [Surah al-Maidah 5:44]

“And whoever from you takes them as Awliya', then surely he is one of them…” [Surah al-Maidah 5:51]

“Those who Believe, Fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, Fight in the cause of Taghut. So Fight you against the allies of Shaitan; Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan.” [Surah an-Nisa 4:76]


So I follow Allahs’(swt) ‘opinion’!

And them being Apostates, Allies of Kuffar, Tawagheet, and committing Kufr Buwah, left, right and centre… and the relevant Ahkam apply!


Do you accept the rulers are Taghut? Please make it crystal-clear.

2. The kuffar occupied muslim lands but then left it as stated by you. The rule was then transfered to the muslim rulers who are not implementing Islam. Now the issue is of establising Islam and fighting is not the method to do it. This has to be done the way the Prophet (saw) did it in Makkah.

Wrong. The Kuffar occupied and colonised the Muslim World and handed it over to their (i.e. the Kuffars) Agents (Allies/Awliya). I also mentioned 'client-states' (you know indirect-rule monitored and controlled from London, Washington etc). So if you differentiate between Agent Lawrence and Agent Sa'ud please make it crystal clear for everyone.

The Colonialist did not rule by Islam and the Agents (foreign or local) did not Rule by Islam either. They all occupy the area that belonged to the Khilafah.

Now 1400 years ago was Makkah a Khilafah that was taken by Colonilalists/Agent of Colonialists?? No! So wrong reality!

We are not talking here of the entire Ummah but INDIVIDUAL musilms i.e. is it fard on Individual muslims (each one of them) to fight to convert DUK to DUI. Several ahkam for INDIVIDUALS are different if they live in DUK than if they live in DUI.

I asked where the scholars say all this. Show me where they make all these restrictions.

[Sameera]

I think I have replied to the first part (fighting the ruler) in my reply to Abu Musa. Regarding the second part I agree that all other obligation remain as they are even if khalifah is not there, i.e. praying, fasting, working to re-establish Islam, fighting against the attackers etc.

I think the issue of fighting the Rulers has not yet been dealt with by the way the posts are going. This has not been dealt to its conclusion and abu musa has brought some valid points that need dealing with.

You agree that fighting attackers is an obligation even if the khalifah is not there. Then further down you go against abu musa to say all ayat of fighting were revealed in madinah, trying to say it is only for the ruler and only for the state.

If everyone agrees on defensive jihad without khalifah then be honest and admit it and have agreement on it, rather than say two different things to two different people. I hope you did not do this just to win arguments and score points.

1. In my opinion the rulers are musilms who have not departed but who did not implement Islam in the first place so the ahadith of fighting the rulers do not pertain to them.

If you accepted earlier saying ‘I agree that muslims must rule by Islam’ then now you say they have not departed, then what do you mean? Implementing Islam is a wajib so it is nothing but a departure on the part of the rulers.

This gives weight to the argument against you, that you are allowing them the option of not ruling by Islam, an opening for the rulers to wiggle their way out of the duty to rule by Islam.

If something is wajib we don’t allow wiggle room, least of all to the rulers.

[Peregrine_Falcon]

If everyone agrees on defensive jihad without khalifah then be honest and admit it and have agreement on it, rather than say two different things to two different people. I hope you did not do this just to win arguments and score points.

There are two issues:
1. Fighting to defend oneself against agression
2. Fighting the rulers to re-establish the state

The dispute is over the method to re-establish the state, not on defensive jihad. If the method is to fight the rulers to establish the state - the rules regarding fighting were revealed after the state was established by the Prophet (SAW). So in order to understand how the state was established we need to look at the actions that he prophet (SAW) undertook that led to the establishment of the state. And these actions of the Prophet (SAW) did not include the fighting, as these rules were revealed after he (SAW) completed that task.


1. In my opinion the rulers are musilms who have not departed but who did not implement Islam in the first place so the ahadith of fighting the rulers do not pertain to them.

If you accepted earlier saying ‘I agree that muslims must rule by Islam’ then now you say they have not departed, then what do you mean? Implementing Islam is a wajib so it is nothing but a departure on the part of the rulers.

The current regimes today have not departed from ruling by Islam - as they have never ruled by Islam in the first instance. The hadith used as evidence for fighting the rulers, applies to the Khalifah even though the hadith does not mention the word Khalifah.

"The Prophet called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam, and among the conditions on which he took the Pledge from us, was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler..." The subject of the hadith is the baya to the Prophet (SAW) as the ruler, and the obedience to the ruler whom the baya has been given "...not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah" and to fight him i.e. the ruler to whom the baya has been given, if he commits kufr buwa.

The ruler to whom the baya is given is effectively the Khalifah! The term Khalifah was not used in the hadith because the Prophet (SAW) did not take the title Khalifah. "After me there is no more Prophethood, instead there will be khalifahs... give baya to them one after the other" Since the regimes today have not been given the baya'. They have no legitimacy to their ruling.

However, the problem today is not just the issue of the regimes falling to establish Islam, but from the failure of the Ummah to comprehend the comprehensiveness of the Aqeeda and establish upon herself the Islamic system. Thus fighting the rulers and removing them alone will not establish the wajib of implementing Islam. All you will end up doing is removing one kufr for another.

The State is built upon four principles in any one of them is absent, the State is absent. 1. Sovereignty to Allah 2. Authority to the Ummah 3. One man appointed to lead the Ummah 4. And he has the right to adopt.

Fighting the ruler ignores that authority is with the Ummah and only she can seize the reigns of power and not any group or faction.

[Observer]

Let me restate my position regarding the three issues.

I. Defense
2. Converting Dar ul Kufr to Dar ul Islam
3. Fighting the rulers

I am dealing with the issue with respect to INDIVIDUAL duty NOT THE DUTY OF WHOLE UMMAH.

1. Defense

It is fard for individuals to fight under the muslim ruler (whether tyrannt or just) when he calls all muslims to fight. Otherwise it is not individual duty if he does not ask everyone to fight i.e. if the regular forces are enough to defeat the emeny. If the enemy occupies the a muslim land, the obligation transfers to the next nearby land whereas for the individuals living in the occupied areas it is not obligatory to fight if the muslim ruler no longer remains in power.

This is owing to the fact that ayat of Jihad have been revealed in Madina and its establishment is for the rulers not individulas. Whereas the ayat 3:104 qouted is regarding individuals who are to establish a group. It is made further clear by the fact that he Prophet (saw) did establish a group in Makkah even before the ayat 3:104 was revealed. We take the hukm according to its subject and reality not whether it was revealed in Makkah or Madina. So fasting is an individual fard even though the ayat were revealed in Madina whereas as establising Jihad is not an individual fard.

This I have stated several times from the seerah that muslim individuals in Makkah were not asked to fight the kuffar even though the Prophet (saw) was fighting them in Badr, Ohad, and Battle of Ditch and ayat of Jihad were being revealed addressing the believers (as stated by Abu Musa). But still the believers in Makkah did not fight, WHY?

These events clearly prove that for individuals carrying out Jihad is not fard unless the ruler calls for general mobilization as happened in Tabuk.

2. Converting DUK to DUI

There is no evidence which states that it is fard on INDIVIDULAS to convert DUK to DUI through fighting. It is only the state which fights to convert DUK to DUI as is clear from the seerah. The Prophet (saw) as individual did not fight in Makkah to convert it into DUI.

3. Fighting the Ruler.

All the ahadith which mention fighting the ruler pertain to the Khaleefah although some refer to him as Ruler and others refer to him as Amir as mentioned by Abu Musa but we do not take ahadith superficially, but ahkam are derived from all the ayat and ahadith pertaining to an issue by studying them in depth. If you see the hadith mentioned by me (and other ahadith also) it states

"to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah"

This pertains to the Khaleefah because the Prophet (saw) has stated that "to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right" the Prophet (saw) would only ask us to be obedient to the ruler whose rule is contracted according to Islam, and what right the Prophet (saw) is asking us to give the ruler, it is evident the right is right of bayah. Thus saying that all rulers are mentioned in the hadith is wrong.

Abu Musa please read carefully what you quoted from Imam Nawawi
“the leadership (Imāmah) is not to be contracted to a disbeliever (Kafir) and that if disbelief (Kufr) COMES FROM HIM, then he is to be removed. So if disbelief (Kufr) and changing the legislation (Shara’ ) or innovation (Bid’ah) COMES FROM HIM, then he has left the status of authority and HIS (RIGHT) OF OBEDIENCE falls…”

This also pertains to the ruler of muslim who is ruling from Islam and then he changes and starts implementing kufr buwah.

Also what was stated by Imam Nawawi that “Then if the inability is confirmed, then the uprising is not obligatory,” So now you agree that the fard of uprising is subjective to ability. Then who will confirm this inability?

Also refer to the hadith quoted by me previously i.e.

“You should stick to the main body of the Muslims and their leader. I said: If they have no main body and have no leader? He said: Separate yourself from all these factions, though you may have to eat the roots of trees (in a jungle) until death comes to you and you are in this state. (Muslim)”

This is the action prescribed for an INDIVIDUAL when he lives in a era where there is no Khaleefah. The Prophet (saw) did not mention fighting the ruler as INDIVIDUAL fard but rather isolating oneself from him. This does not mean that the fard of establishing Islam or fasting or praying also fall because that is not the subject of this hadith.

Sameera wrote: You agree that fighting attackers is an obligation even if the khalifah is not there. Then further down you go against abu musa to say all ayat of fighting were revealed in madinah, trying to say it is only for the ruler and only for the state.

If everyone agrees on defensive jihad without khalifah then be honest and admit it and have agreement on it, rather than say two different things to two different people. I hope you did not do this just to win arguments and score points.

I do not agree that defensive Jihad is Obligatory on all INDIVIDUALS. It is only obligatory on INDIVIDULAS if the ruler (whether just or tyrant) declares it as general mobilization. This is because of the hadith of the Prophet (saw) that "Jiahd will remain established till the day of judgement, it will not be affected by justice of the just or tyranny of the tyrant" meaning that Jihad is fard under just or tyrant (muslim) ruler but not an INDIVIDUAL duty.

And I seek Allah protection from trying to win arguments and score points by twisting Islam.

If you accepted earlier saying ‘I agree that muslims must rule by Islam’ then now you say they have not departed, then what do you mean? Implementing Islam is a wajib so it is nothing but a departure on the part of the rulers.

This gives weight to the argument against you, that you are allowing them the option of not ruling by Islam, an opening for the rulers to wiggle their way out of the duty to rule by Islam.

If something is wajib we don’t allow wiggle room, least of all to the rulers.

What I stated was that they have not departed but rather they do implement Islam in the first place. These are two different conditions and INDIVIDUALS are not ordered to fight the rulers in DUK but the rulers iin DUI who depart from Islam as explained by me above.

My whole post is with respect to the INDIVIDUAL not the obligation of the UMMAH as a whole. There is a difference in this. The Ummah is to implement Islam immediately and completely. But INDIVIDUALS cannot do this and have to follow the path of the Prophet (saw) as he did in Makkah.

[Observer]

Abu Musa Wrote:I am saying the rulers have allied with the Kuffar and should be treated like them, they are all fighting us to stop Islam and we should "fight those who fight us".

Do you deny that the rulers are allies of the Kuffar?

Rulers are agents of kuffar agreed. They want to see the domination of kufr over muslim lands and they are actively working for it.

Now the question is what does one INDIVDUAL do in this situation. It would have been marvelous had the whole Ummah risen up and overthrown the rulers and established Islam immediately, as happened when Mongols attacked Baghdad and destroyed Khilafah.

But this is not happening Ummah is not rising. So what does one INDIVIDUAL do, does he go out kill a few muslim soilders praying in the masjid (accusing them of being agents of kuffar) and gets killed as a result? Does he kill the businessmen who pays taxes to the agent rulers accusing them of supporting the kuffar by giving their agents money? Does he kill the farmers in the fields because they grows wheat and rice which the ruler eats accusing them of feeding the agenst of kuffar and thereby supporting kuffar? Does he kill all the factory workers accusing them also of supporting the rulers? Where will you stop if you propose killing the agent rulers and all those who support his rule, then you will have to kill everyone living and working in the state because all o fthem support the rule in one way or the other.

So do you think this will establish Islam? This will fullfill the fard of driving away the kuffar? What you are talking about is fitnah in which muslim will kill muslim and nothing else.

This is pure stupidity and there is no evidence for this from Islam. All the ayat you quoted pertain to condition when there is a state i.e. it is obligatory on the muslims to fight the Taghut under a state not every INDIVIDUAL. Those muslim who were left behind in Makkah DID NOT fight the Taghut although they knew Quran better than all of us and the Prophet (saw) was there but he did not tell them to fight Taghut or did he? Similarly those who migrated to Habsha did not fight any Taghut in Africa, infact Jaffar (ra) only partcipated in Jihad after he came to Madina but not before that. If fighting Taghut does not need any state, the prophet (saw) must have instructed the muslims in Makkah and Habsha to start fighting Taghut immediately. But he (saw) did not ask anyone of them to do this or did he? WHY???

Individuals have to follow the method adopted by the Prophet (saw) to re-establish Islam and the Prophet (saw) did not fight to do that. After that the method of Jihad is followed and State NOT INDIVIDUAL is the vehicle for Jihad.

[Abu-Musa]

So now you are doing a total denial of any Jihad without an Islamic State. You have cherry-picked isolated bits of what I have said and gone on your own ramblings.

"Then Fight in the Cause of Allah, you are not responsible except for yourself, and incite the believers (to fight with you), it may be that Allah will restrain the evil might of the disbelievers. And Allah is Stronger in Might and Severe in Punishment." [Surah an-Nisa 4:84]

Allah(swt) is binding Jihad to the indivdual. It is well known that Ulemah say that this means he can fight even if alone.

You do not disagree that the orders for fasting and fighting are ordered in the exact same languange, but you instead make tafsir from your hawa.

You then made your get-out-clause for taking 3:104 as taking it from the reality. Well this too for Jihad, it has been shown to you that the fighting is because of the Kufr Buwah from what the commentators have said. The 'reality' is War against Islam everywhere.

I can easily argue at this point that the group is for the state to engage in Hisbah (which is true), but I don't have the audacity to play with the Ayat and make the big baseless leap and make it state-only, like you are doing with the Ayat.

You have no clear evidence to restrict the Jihad to a State and Ruler only. You are departing from the decisively proven fact that a Muslim must implement Islam by default obligation. If a Muslim does not rule by Islam from day one or later... it is still a departure. Not ruling by Islam by a Muslim in authority is a departure, there is no get-out-clause for him.

You mention your erroneous understanding of the hadith of isolating oneself (from all those sects), which is not isolating from the ruler - the topic is "callers to the gates of hellfire" - not rulers and leadership. This has nothing to do with what to do with ruler committing Kufr Buwah (we are told what to do with them in other ahadith)... it is what to do to avoid "callers to the gates of hellfire". The Prophet(saw) said to stick with the Imam and Jamaah (to avoid the callers to hell), and then responded to the question "What if there is no Imam and no Jamaah?" then the reply came "Stay away from all those sects". So this is more befitting to avoid HT, and nothing to do with avoiding confrontation with the Rulers.

As for the actual Hadith on confronting Rulers... you did not deal with the FACT that it is talking about future Rulers (in general) not the 'Khaleefah' which is not a word that is even mentioned (though you do mention the general words but go ahead with your restriction anyway!). Again it is proven decisively that Muslim must Rule by Islam without choice... anything else clearly being a 'departure'. You are resticting with words 'Khaleefah' that are not contained in the text. The fact there is general usage of the words and 'other' ahadith, this gives us plenty of room for the wider meaning.

The Rulers are departing from what they are supposed to do by default as Muslims.

You then agree that they are allies/agents of the Kuffar seeking domination of Kufr, so are they now Kuffar like the ones they ally with? Or do you have a get-out-clause for this too???

The Agents of the Kuffar are Kuffar themselves and must be fought and removed from our lands.

For your information the Ummah is rising, and they were those within the Ummah that did rise at the time too. But even if they did not - it does not make it right, and it does not alter what must be done.

Again where does the Qur'an say fight the Taghut under a State-Only?

If by this you accept the Rulers are Taghut, tell me now how we can have Taghut-Muslims?

Habasha was a Muslim (the Prophet[saw] sent some Sahaba[ra] there for asylum!) and Makkah had a treaty!! However it might be worth looking at what Abu Baseer(ra) did to the Mushriks when he was outside of Makkah and Madina, free from any treaty.

Please respond without your editing and inserting your words between the Quran and Sunnah to change the meaning and restrict things to your own view... and without cherry-picking.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

SALAAM...I AGREE THAT THE MUSLIMS LANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN OCCUPIED BY THE KUFFAR... FOR THE MUSLIMS LIVING THERE DEFENSIVE JIHAD IS A MUST....CAN ABU MUSA TEL ME WHAT THE METHOD IS TO RESUME THE ISLAMIC WAY OF LIFE???

[abdul-ali]

However the Mu'amalat with regards to some is to treat them as Apostates as they are not from the 'Ummah'. This is where the relationship would be one of War and Fighting to remove them, the obvious being Government and Army.
Here I disagree with this statement that the muslim armies and all those in the governments are "not from the Ummah" i.e. apostate kuffaar. The armies are not from the Kuffaar but are from the muslims in general and these muslims do not join the armies, or police forces believing that they are going to serve the USA, nor do they join with the intention of fighting the general muslims.

This argument seems to come from applying the verses of allying with the kuffaar and expanding it on those who are not allied to the kuffaar in reality. That is why this question has been ignored as to how far do you take it, e.g, are the teachers who teach the government curriculum kuffaar, or the road sweepers, tax collectors, and what about the families of police and soldiers and general muslims who are in favour of and support the police and armies and government institutes are they now all apostate kuffaar?

[official]

Defensive Jihad is Fard Ayn on those directly affected and then spreads if the strength is not sufficient to expel the enemy. It is not just 'Fard on the Rulers'.

The reality of today is that the Ummah does not understand this point and you need to address it with the Ummah and linked directly to their Aqeeda. If that is to happen en mass, we’ll not be suffering the humiliation, of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan …………………………………………………………………etc.

I think you too busy responding to the other guys you eve fail to notice my question earlier. I hope you do have the time to go back to it.

[Observer]

Abu Musa read what you are writing:
Allah(swt) is binding Jihad to the indivdual. It is well known that Ulemah say that this means he can fight even if alone.

So now you agree that fighting for INDIVIDUALS is Mubah and not fard.

Also you have no answer to the following questions:
1. Why did not the muslims in Makkah not consider fighting Taghut fard and why they did not fight as fard ayn in Makkah, they had no treaty with the Makkans.
2. Why did not Jaffar (ra) and others fight Taghut in whole of Africa.
3. Why did the Prophet (saw) not instruct the muslims in Makkah to fight as fard ayn even before treaty of Huddabiyah although he was fighting the Makkans in Badr, Uhud, and Ditch.

Also read the hadith and comment in my post again:
"to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah"

This pertains to the Khaleefah because the Prophet (saw) has stated that "to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right" the Prophet (saw) would only ask us to be obedient to the ruler whose rule is contracted according to Islam, and what right the Prophet (saw) is asking us to give the ruler, it is evident the right is right of bayah. Thus saying that all rulers are mentioned in the hadith is wrong

So now answer this:
1. If the ruler mentioned in the hadith includes all rulers (even those who rule by Kufr Buwah in the first place) than you have a contradiction i.e. why is Prophet (saw) asking us to obey the rulers who implement kufr buwah in the first place (as you state) and what right he (saw) is asking us to give them. You have to resolve this contradiction. The contradiction can only be removed if you consider the ruler as Khaleefah because he is to be obey and given his right (of bayah). Thus fighting is only against the ruler who implements kufr buwah after Islam is being implimented and it does not pertain to all rulers.

[Abu-Musa]

You continue to cherry-pick what you do and do not answer.

So now you agree that fighting for INDIVIDUALS is Mubah and not fard.

Also you have no answer to the following questions:
1. Why did not the muslims in Makkah not consider fighting Taghut fard and why they did not fight as fard ayn in Makkah, they had no treaty with the Makkans.
2. Why did not Jaffar (ra) and others fight Taghut in whole of Africa.
3. Why did the Prophet (saw) not instruct the muslims in Makkah to fight as fard ayn even before treaty of Huddabiyah although he was fighting the Makkans in Badr, Uhud, and Ditch.

Also read the hadith and comment in my post again:


What are you talking about? Fighting and Fasting have been made obligatory in exactly the same way, they are both duties on the Muslims. By going down such a line as ‘mubah on the individual’ you are now admitting the duty is not state-only. You are referring to a duty, Salah cannot suddenly become ‘mubah’, neither can Jihad. This understanding of yours is innovated.

Read the Treaty of Hudaibiyah Muslims in Makkah were covered by the treaty.

Jaffar(ra) and the Sahaba with him became residents in Abyssinia under Asylum, why are you jumping to the whole of Africa? Maybe because you lost the argument about Abyssinia specifically.

Also you need to realise that the Revelation was still being revealed… it wasn’t automatically complete as soon as Hijrah took place. Even in Madinah it was being revealed. So to assume everything to be considered completed just because it was Madinah is another leap too far.

The early battles were in response to the command to fight those from where they expelled you (from makkah) where the Quraysh stole in Makkah all the remaining property that belonged to the Muslims and sold them off. So a War footing with Makkah had started very early on, where as those not engaged in a direct war with the State were invited to Islam first.

So these examples you are plucking out of the air have their own context. Makkah also had its specific context due to the presence of Masjid al-Haram there.

You are now going into arguments for the sake of it, and pulling out examples for the sake of it… This is twisting everything to win the argument.

So now answer this:
1. If the ruler mentioned in the hadith includes all rulers (even those who rule by Kufr Buwah in the first place) than you have a contradiction i.e. why is Prophet (saw) asking us to obey the rulers who implement kufr buwah in the first place (as you state) and what right he (saw) is asking us to give them. You have to resolve this contradiction. The contradiction can only be removed if you consider the ruler as Khaleefah because he is to be obey and given his right (of bayah). Thus fighting is only against the ruler who implements kufr buwah after Islam is being implimented and it does not pertain to all rulers.

We are being asked to obey the Muslims in authority so long as they implement Islam – which is binding on them by being Muslims. If they depart to Kufr Law then they are fought. If you are going to the silly extent you are taking it, then if a Khaleef is given Bayah to then implement Kufr from day one then you will also let him of the hook too.

So in the end it is not a contradiction it is you playing with words and inserting words.

The fighting of the Ruler is after the Revelation has made it Fard on him to implement Islam. Rather than admit that the get-out-clause is wrong, you shamelessly defend it.

In the end you have not responded to anything, rather you just played games by cherry-picking.

[Abu-Musa]

Defensive Jihad is Fard Ayn on those directly affected and then spreads if the strength is not sufficient to expel the enemy. It is not just 'Fard on the Rulers'.

The reality of today is that the Ummah does not understand this point and you need to address it with the Ummah and linked directly to their Aqeeda. If that is to happen en mass, we’ll not be suffering the humiliation, of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan …………………………………………………………………etc.

I think you too busy responding to the other guys you eve fail to notice my question earlier. I hope you do have the time to go back to it.

Not all the Ummah is understanding this, though they are a lot who are, as with the Deen in general. Da'wah must continue, this does not make the duties any less urgent.


Abu-Musa
If the Ummah is silent over this issue would that deem them as subscribers to the rule of Kufr and you need to fight them to implement Islam upon them by force just as you would with the rulers who implementing Kufr Buwah and the army protecting the rulers.

Even if you do that what if a Kufr force dispose the Khalifa latter on and implement Kufr system would they (the Ummah) fight with you to regain Islamic system?

No it would not. The Rulers and Armies are actively engaged in what they are doing... this makes their War on Islam and alliance with Kufr blatantly evident.

This is not so with the Ummah in general. Any silence is not a silence of consent... rather one of subjugation by the tyrant apostates.

However they are those in the ruling elite and indviduals in some case members of certain parties, who actively back the regimes. But this is not the case of the Ummah at large.

Your last question is hypothetical, though I would say by that point if the Ummah brought forth enough strength to bring the Khilafah into existence by Allahs'(swt) permission... then they with Allahs'(swt) permission can do it again and repel the invaders.

Unlike some who think Jihad is nullified as soon as the colonilaists step in... and as people fulfil their duty to fight in order to repel them and restore the Deen, the best they can offer is to say "its only mubah!".

[Abu-Musa]

Here I disagree with this statement that the muslim armies and all those in the governments are "not from the Ummah" i.e. apostate kuffaar. The armies are not from the Kuffaar but are from the muslims in general and these muslims do not join the armies, or police forces believing that they are going to serve the USA, nor do they join with the intention of fighting the general muslims.

They are not from the Ummah judging by what is apparent. We are not here to open up their hearts and check their intentions.

The Regime and the Army are Kufr Entities, which it is legitimate to Fight against. Most are Apostates, a few might not be... however a Mujahid must deal with them as one. If an individual whose condition is still that of a Muslim due to a prevetative factor, he is still fought if he gets in the way. These people are raised on the Day of Judgement according to their intentions.

This might for example apply to a person who is forced to fight for the regime.

The Regimes and Armies are allies of each other and the Kuffar.


This argument seems to come from applying the verses of allying with the kuffaar and expanding it on those who are not allied to the kuffaar in reality. That is why this question has been ignored as to how far do you take it, e.g, are the teachers who teach the government curriculum kuffaar, or the road sweepers, tax collectors, and what about the families of police and soldiers and general muslims who are in favour of and support the police and armies and government institutes are they now all apostate kuffaar?


Again this is specific to the Regime and Armies. The Rulers, Ministers, Politicians, Army Officers. Who are in reality and practically allying with the Kuffar.

These are the ones who are actively engaged in Kufr and alliance with the Kuffar - upholding it politically and militarily.

The Ummah are the victims that are being subjugated by the dictators.

I do not accept the pyramid-takfir where we declare everyone apostates.

However the Rulers Kufr is evident along with the Armies that are guilty of cementing their thrones. Ulemah have mentioned the Ruler who Apostates and has an Army backing him, it is even mentioned in "The Funds of the Khilafah State" ... neither the Ulemah nor the Hizb made pyramid-takfir. Even though they mention the Ruler and Army are a group of Apostates which the Ummah must rise against.

[Sameera]

There are two issues:
1. Fighting to defend oneself against agression
2. Fighting the rulers to re-establish the state

The dispute is over the method to re-establish the state, not on defensive jihad. If the method is to fight the rulers to establish the state - the rules regarding fighting were revealed after the state was established by the Prophet (SAW). So in order to understand how the state was established we need to look at the actions that he prophet (SAW) undertook that led to the establishment of the state. And these actions of the Prophet (SAW) did not include the fighting, as these rules were revealed after he (SAW) completed that task.

Then does the brother not have an argument, since 3:104 was revealed after the task was complete too.

Exactly why is that 3:104 is allowed to be used by the party, but the Jihadis are not allowed to use any of the verses of Jihad? Should we not be consistent?

Is it not valid to say that our lands have now been occupied by forces who have taken over lands that belong to the former khilafah?

Brother abu musa appears to be arguing that the muslim/khilafah lands have been taken over, but in makkah there were no muslim/khilafah lands back then to takeover so it cannot be the same thing. Is this not a valid assertion?

It seems like we can never have the exact situation of rasulallah(saw) because the realities are so different. To the extent in my opinion we can never have the same conditions as rasulallah(saw) ever again… since soon as the state came for the first time, we started gaining ‘muslim lands’ that have now been taken over. But they were no ‘muslim lands’ at all back then. Does this mean we will always be in a position that we either have a khilafah or muslim lands that are taken-over?

You say that the rasulallah(saw) actions did not include fighting. Can you accept that there were no muslim lands back then to fight for? (whereas today we have)


The current regimes today have not departed from ruling by Islam - as they have never ruled by Islam in the first instance. The hadith used as evidence for fighting the rulers, applies to the Khalifah even though the hadith does not mention the word Khalifah.

"The Prophet called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam, and among the conditions on which he took the Pledge from us, was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler..." The subject of the hadith is the baya to the Prophet (SAW) as the ruler, and the obedience to the ruler whom the baya has been given "...not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah" and to fight him i.e. the ruler to whom the baya has been given, if he commits kufr buwa.

The ruler to whom the baya is given is effectively the Khalifah! The term Khalifah was not used in the hadith because the Prophet (SAW) did not take the title Khalifah. "After me there is no more Prophethood, instead there will be khalifahs... give baya to them one after the other" Since the regimes today have not been given the baya'. They have no legitimacy to their ruling.

However, the problem today is not just the issue of the regimes falling to establish Islam, but from the failure of the Ummah to comprehend the comprehensiveness of the Aqeeda and establish upon herself the Islamic system. Thus fighting the rulers and removing them alone will not establish the wajib of implementing Islam. All you will end up doing is removing one kufr for another.

The State is built upon four principles in any one of them is absent, the State is absent. 1. Sovereignty to Allah 2. Authority to the Ummah 3. One man appointed to lead the Ummah 4. And he has the right to adopt.

Fighting the ruler ignores that authority is with the Ummah and only she can seize the reigns of power and not any group or faction.

I think on the kufr buwa hadith the party (or at least you members) are digging your heals on a particular interpretation and refusing to budge. You are insisting it is for the legitimate khalifah, abu musa says its for rulers generally speaking. However he went through the text and wording, even showing you brothers that the bayah was for the rasul(saw) back then. He also mentions that its definite text on the wajib to implement islam (which I agree it is) and then it comes down to straying away from this. Does he not have a strong argument? Can it not be accepted that it is as legitimate as hizb, if you don’t want to accept it to be stronger?

People keep mentioning authority for the ummah, but the brothers are from the ummah. Just because some ummah don’t do there duty does not make it alright. Just like a lot of ummah don’t pray, that’s not alright.


Sorry for going on a bit… just trying to get my head around it.

Masalama

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

i'll ask again...can abu musa or 'SAMEERA' tel me what the method is to resume the islamic way of life..???

[Peregrine_Falcon]

Then does the brother not have an argument, since 3:104 was revealed after the task was complete too.This verse is concerned with establishing a group and not with resuming the Islamic way of life. What links the activities of the group and the resumption of the Islamic way of life is that RasullAllah worked as part of a group in Makkah.

Exactly why is that 3:104 is allowed to be used by the party, but the Jihadis are not allowed to use any of the verses of Jihad? Should we not be consistent?The jihadis do use the verses of Jihad - however the evidences must be valid for the reality and for the rule one is addressing.

Is it not valid to say that our lands have now been occupied by forces who have taken over lands that belong to the former khilafah?

Brother abu musa appears to be arguing that the muslim/khilafah lands have been taken over, but in makkah there were no muslim/khilafah lands back then to takeover so it cannot be the same thing. Is this not a valid assertion?
The lands were indeed colonised, but he Muslims abondoned the Islamic way of life as well. So it is not sufficient to just change the rulers.

It seems like we can never have the exact situation of rasulallah(saw) because the realities are so different. To the extent in my opinion we can never have the same conditions as rasulallah(saw) ever again… Yes, you are right the situation is not the same, and the party has explained that this is a new reality that has never occurred previously. It is not a situation where the Khalifah has committed kufr buwah, nor is it the same situation the Prophet (SAW) faced, where he (SAW) was bringing Islam for the first time... hence the need to do ijtihad. The ijtihad of the party is based on analogy to the transformation of dar-al-kufr to dar-al-islam that the Prophet (SAW) made, identifying the actions that were undertaken to make that transformation and linking together the duties that are obliged upon the group called for in 3:104.


You say that the rasulallah(saw) actions did not include fighting. Can you accept that there were no muslim lands back then to fight for? (whereas today we have)The actions of resuming the Islamic way of life, do not permit fighting until we get to support point - where there may be a need to take physical action against a regime - and the evidence for this is the second pledge of Aqaba. As regards to taking back the Muslims lands, yes this may require fighting by the State. But until the state is established how do you intend to liberate these lands? Whatever authority you assume will be batil!


I think on the kufr buwa hadith the party (or at least you members) are digging your heals on a particular interpretation and refusing to budge. You are insisting it is for the legitimate khalifah, abu musa says its for rulers generally speaking.
Context of the hadith is not addressing the rulers generally, because we are not obliged to obey any ruler except the one that has received the baya.


However he went through the text and wording, even showing you brothers that the bayah was for the rasul(saw) back then. It has not been denied that the baya was for rasulAllah.

I can argue that Allah says in the Qur'an "Do not pray" “Wala taqraboo al salata" and this is the apparent meaning - but nonetheless the apparent meaning changes when the evidence is taken in context “Wala taqraboo al salata wa antom sukara” [4:42]. If you want to isolate text and wording from their context be my guest.


He also mentions that its definite text on the wajib to implement islam (which I agree it is) and then it comes down to straying away from this. Does he not have a strong argument? Can it not be accepted that it is as legitimate as hizb, if you don’t want to accept it to be stronger?
If the hadith was definite in text we would not be having this debate and you would not be asking us to accept the legitimacy of abu musa's understanding.

It is an obligation to implement Islam and this is established by the verses of Qur'an "...And rule by that which Allah has revealed..." etc. That is not is dispute. However, when understanding what it means to implement Islam and its obligation, it must be understood with reference to all the evidences. Prophet (SAW) was offered leadership by Quraish, he was offered authority by Bani Sasaa'. During the second pledge of Aqaba before committing to taking the authority, the readiness of the people was sought. And once in Madinah the baya of obedience was sought. All these evidences indicate that implementation is invalid without fulfilling set number of conditions - namely the four principles of ruling mentioned in an earlier post.


People keep mentioning authority for the ummah, but the brothers are from the ummah. Just because some ummah don’t do there duty does not make it alright. Just like a lot of ummah don’t pray, that’s not alright.

The brothers are from the Ummah and so are we, even if both of us got together it would not be sufficient. And you are right in saying the "ummah don’t do there duty does not make it alright" - but nonetheless sharia has made it the prerogative of the Ummah to establish this duty. Hence the need to carry the dawa and culture the Ummah with Islam, then to take her leadership and direct her to seize the reigns of power

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

another good point by falcon...JZK

[Observer]

Abu Musa Wrote:
Read the Treaty of Hudaibiyah Muslims in Makkah were covered by the treaty.

Jaffar(ra) and the Sahaba with him became residents in Abyssinia under Asylum, why are you jumping to the whole of Africa? Maybe because you lost the argument about Abyssinia specifically.

I am talking of much before the treaty of Hudabiyyah during Badr, Uhud and Ditch.

Regarding Jaffar (ra) and sahaba, now you agree it is OK not to fight if you are in asylum. Habsha was not being run by Islamic Laws, only the king embraced Islam while the whole court was christian. So now you agree that it is OK not to fight if one lives under kufr laws and the ruler is muslim.

We are being asked to obey the Muslims in authority so long as they implement Islam – which is binding on them by being Muslims. If they depart to Kufr Law then they are fought.

So now you also agree that the hadith is specific to fight the ruler when he departs to kufr law.

Regarding the ayah quoted by you:
"Then Fight in the Cause of Allah, you are not responsible except for yourself, and incite the believers (to fight with you), it may be that Allah will restrain the evil might of the disbelievers. And Allah is Stronger in Might and Severe in Punishment." [Surah an-Nisa 4:84]

This was revealed very early in Madina, after battle of uhud. But no one from amongst the sahaba were told that it was an individual duty to fignt. In fact the ayah states that "and incite the believers (to fight with you)" which in it self makes it clear that this ayah does not make Jihad fard ayn on INDIVIDUAL. No one in Makkah was told that it was an individual duty to fight and no one in Habsha was told that it was an INDIVIDUAL duty to fight. This ayah gives the permissibility for an Individual to fight and nothing more.

You have not brought any evidence which proves that Jihad is fard ayn on INDIVIDUALS in the condition when the ruler is not declaring jihad.

You have also not brought any evidence that it is fard ayn on individual to fight the ruler if he rules by kufr in the first place, beacuse the ahadith all pertain to fighting the ruler who converts dar ul Islam to dar ul kufr as stated by you also.

[Observer]

Abu Musa Wrote:
Read the Treaty of Hudaibiyah Muslims in Makkah were covered by the treaty.

Jaffar(ra) and the Sahaba with him became residents in Abyssinia under Asylum, why are you jumping to the whole of Africa? Maybe because you lost the argument about Abyssinia specifically.

I am talking of much before the treaty of Hudabiyyah during Badr, Uhud and Ditch.

Regarding Jaffar (ra) and sahaba, now you agree it is OK not to fight if you are in asylum. Habsha was not being run by Islamic Laws, only the king embraced Islam while the whole court was christian. So now you agree that it is OK not to fight if one lives under kufr laws and the ruler is muslim.

We are being asked to obey the Muslims in authority so long as they implement Islam – which is binding on them by being Muslims. If they depart to Kufr Law then they are fought.

So now you also agree that the hadith is specific to fight the ruler when he departs to kufr law.

Regarding the ayah quoted by you:
"Then Fight in the Cause of Allah, you are not responsible except for yourself, and incite the believers (to fight with you), it may be that Allah will restrain the evil might of the disbelievers. And Allah is Stronger in Might and Severe in Punishment." [Surah an-Nisa 4:84]

This was revealed very early in Madina, after battle of uhud. But no one from amongst the sahaba were told that it was an individual duty to fignt. In fact the ayah states that "and incite the believers (to fight with you)" which in it self makes it clear that this ayah does not make Jihad fard ayn on INDIVIDUAL. No one in Makkah was told that it was an individual duty to fight and no one in Habsha was told that it was an INDIVIDUAL duty to fight. This ayah gives the permissibility for an Individual to fight and nothing more.

You have not brought any evidence which proves that Jihad is fard ayn on INDIVIDUALS in the condition when the ruler is not declaring jihad.

You have also not brought any evidence that it is fard ayn on individual to fight the ruler if he rules by kufr in the first place, beacuse the ahadith all pertain to fighting the ruler who converts dar ul Islam to dar ul kufr as stated by you also.

[Abu-Musa]

First of all. Why are you cherry-picking? Please explain this.

I am talking of much before the treaty of Hudabiyyah during Badr, Uhud and Ditch.

Regarding Jaffar (ra) and sahaba, now you agree it is OK not to fight if you are in asylum. Habsha was not being run by Islamic Laws, only the king embraced Islam while the whole court was christian. So now you agree that it is OK not to fight if one lives under kufr laws and the ruler is muslim.

I already said:
The early battles were in response to the command to fight those from where they expelled you (from makkah) where the Quraysh stole in Makkah all the remaining property that belonged to the Muslims and sold them off. So a War footing with Makkah had started very early on, where as those not engaged in a direct war with the State were invited to Islam first.

Jaffar(ra) and the Sahaba with him became residents in Abyssinia under Asylum, why are you jumping to the whole of Africa? Maybe because you lost the argument about Abyssinia specifically.

Legitimate Asylum and Treaties are reasons to temporaily cease fighting. When did I deny this.

These Sahaba(ra) were facing persecution in 'Makkah' when they fled to Abyssinia. So you are jumping the gun as most of this stuff was not even revealed till later.

The Hadith pertaining to Abu Baseer(ra) is the evidence as he was not under a treaty nor was he under the Islamic State. Yet he spilled the blood of the Mushrikeen and seized their property, and his condition is that of where the Imam of the Muslims was 'absent' where he was.


So now you also agree that the hadith is specific to fight the ruler when he departs to kufr law.

Yes, the Rulers in general, whether it is from day one or later, on the basis that Muslims must implement Islam by default obligation - and they depart from this obligation. The departure and adherence is on obligations, not something willy-nilly.


Regarding the ayah quoted by you:
"Then Fight in the Cause of Allah, you are not responsible except for yourself, and incite the believers (to fight with you), it may be that Allah will restrain the evil might of the disbelievers. And Allah is Stronger in Might and Severe in Punishment." [Surah an-Nisa 4:84]

This was revealed very early in Madina, after battle of uhud. But no one from amongst the sahaba were told that it was an individual duty to fignt. In fact the ayah states that "and incite the believers (to fight with you)" which in it self makes it clear that this ayah does not make Jihad fard ayn on INDIVIDUAL. No one in Makkah was told that it was an individual duty to fight and no one in Habsha was told that it was an INDIVIDUAL duty to fight. This ayah gives the permissibility for an Individual to fight and nothing more.

You have not brought any evidence which proves that Jihad is fard ayn on INDIVIDUALS in the condition when the ruler is not declaring jihad.

Again yiou bring no evidence to make Jihad (a Fard) into a 'Mubah'.

The Fard Ayn is related to the situation today. Jihad is originally Kifayah.

Today the Muslim Wolrld need liberation from Apostate-Agents of the Kuffar (whom you agree are agents working for the domnion of Kufr), who are occupying the lands of the former Khilafah - Muslim Lands. The Fard is Ayn in order to defend and repel this.

The reponsiblilty in the Ayah is laid at the individual. It is the situation which makes something Ayn and Kifayah. You are trying to quote a Kifayah situation to disprove the Ayn situation, this is your error.

"O you who Believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (Jihad) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.

If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do all things." [Surah at-Tawbah 9:38-39]


If Jihad is only permissible why is Allah(swt) threatening his punishment? Will 'individuals' not be punishmed?

The proofs are general, they are not restricted to a state-only situation. The reality of the situation is what dictates Fighting, like the enemy invading, the ruler commiting kufr buwah etc. You have not brought proof that categorically shows that Jihad is only permitted by the State to the exclusion of everything else.

Where as the verses are addressing Muslims generally without specifiying the 'state-only' condition, and the verses are giving examples by way of linking Jihad to circumstances where the ahkam become active due to their presence... never linking it to the presence or absence of a state/ruler.

In the end you are stipulating an extremely restrictive condition without sufficiently backing it up.

You major problem is that the texts simply do not specify 'only with a state' or 'only with a ruler'. The Revelation simply was not revealed in such a manner. The revelation simply attached duties and repsonsiblities on the necks of Muslims.

Apart from being sick, elderly, disabled... I only found one other exception to being exempt from Fighting...

"Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day would not ask your leave to be exempted from fighting with their properties and their lives, and Allâh is the All-Knower of Al-Muttaqun. It is only those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts are in doubt that ask your leave (to be exempted from Jihad). So in their doubts they waver." [Surah at-Tawbah 9:44-45]


So if you follow into this category... thats fine.

Otherwise Jihad has been legislated on the necks of the Ummah, just like fasting. The exemptions are very clear. The presence or absence of a state is not a stipulated exemption.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

what category are you on about eh???
coz im sure you'd fall into that category...LOL
quick question....if jihad is fard without the state are you talking about defensive or offensive jihad????

[Observer]

Abu Musa I have found that so called "religious people" who think they know everything loose temper and get angry when they have no argument left, then to get over the frustration they start calling others fasiq and even kafir just like you declared that if I don't agree with your view point I fall into the catagory of "only those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts are in doubt". This, let me assure you, you will have to answer for on the day of judgement.

Getting back to the topic,
Of course I know the ayat (9:44,45) or do you think you are the only one who reads Quran, and the ayat do not make jihad fard ayn on a muslim who is living in dar ul Kufr as we are. The ayat were revealed when Prophet (saw) was leaving for Tabuk and had ordered general mobilization but the mufiqeen used to come to him (saw) and ask for leave, the ayat are addressing that specfic issue i.e. of people remaining back from "general mobilization" ordered by the Prophet (saw).

Read the other ayat quoted by you which also pertain to the battle of Tabuk and general mobilization.
"O you who Believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (Jihad) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.

If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do all things." [Surah at-Tawbah 9:38-39]

The ayat clearly state "when you are asked to march forth" so who gives the order to march, he was the prophet(saw) and after his death it the amir. So thses ayat are also addressing "general mobilization" ordered by the amir.

So both of the honourable ayat presented by you as evidences are out of context as far as jihad being fard ayn on muslims in dar ul kufr is concerned.

Regarding Muslims in Makkah you are contradicting yourself
Abu Musa wrote:
The early battles were in response to the command to fight those from where they expelled you (from makkah) where the Quraysh stole in Makkah all the remaining property that belonged to the Muslims and sold them off. So a War footing with Makkah had started very early on, where as those not engaged in a direct war with the State were invited to Islam first.
So may question remains why were not muslims who remained behind in Makkah asked to fight the Quraysh "as fard ayn" even though the ayat of Jihad were revealed and the Prophet (saw) was fighting Quraysh.

Abu Musa Wrote: The Hadith pertaining to Abu Baseer(ra) is the evidence as he was not under a treaty nor was he under the Islamic State. Yet he spilled the blood of the Mushrikeen and seized their property, and his condition is that of where the Imam of the Muslims was 'absent' where he was.

It only shows that fighting is permissible (mubah) and no one can use the above event to prove that what Abu Bashir (ra) was doing was fard ayn. This is exactly what I am saying that without any amir, fighting is permissible for an Individual not fard ayn.
You have not been able to come up with even a single evidence that Jiahd without amir is fard ayn on individual living in dar ul kufr.
Your problem is that you have confused the whole method of Jihad. Yes we all agree that Jihad is fard on the Ummah today (and for that matter it will remain fard till day of Judgement) but the method for fulfilling this fard is through the state only.

The ayat of Jihad are not like Fasting i.e. fasting is fard ayan even in dar ul kufr or even on an Island where you are all alone but this is not the case with Jihad. You take very superficial understanding of ayat. If we take you understanding and apply it on other ayat, then cutting the hands of the thieves and flogging the zani and other punishments will also be fard ayn on all muslims because no where the Quran states that these punishments are to be implemented by the ruler. So now you will start advocating that implementing punishments is also fard on all muslims?

[al-muwahhid]

The ayat of Jihad are not like Fasting i.e. fasting is fard ayan even in dar ul kufr or even on an Island where you are all alone but this is not the case with Jihad. You take very superficial understanding of ayat. If we take you understanding and apply it on other ayat, then cutting the hands of the thieves and flogging the zani and other punishments will also be fard ayn on all muslims because no where the Quran states that these punishments are to be implemented by the ruler. So now you will start advocating that implementing punishments is also fard on all muslims?



Excellent point.

[Abu-Musa]

because no where the Quran states that these punishments are to be implemented by the ruler

100% Accurate Point.

[Abu-Musa]

Abu Musa I have found that so called "religious people" who think they know everything loose temper and get angry when they have no argument left, then to get over the frustration they start calling others fasiq and even kafir just like you declared that if I don't agree with your view point I fall into the catagory of "only those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts are in doubt". This, let me assure you, you will have to answer for on the day of judgement.

I never said you fall into this category or called you a kafir or fasiq.

You have the cheek to accuse me of doing this and having nor argument left, when you continuously cherry-picked from my posts and did not deal with the issues raised properly.

If you read I simply stated another category of people who do not need to engage in Jihad.

Now I gave you the simple opportunity to show that the lack of an Islamic State is one of the exemptions for Jihad, and you couldn’t do it.

Getting back to the topic,
Of course I know the ayat (9:44,45) or do you think you are the only one who reads Quran, and the ayat do not make jihad fard ayn on a muslim who is living in dar ul Kufr as we are. The ayat were revealed when Prophet (saw) was leaving for Tabuk and had ordered general mobilization but the mufiqeen used to come to him (saw) and ask for leave, the ayat are addressing that specfic issue i.e. of people remaining back from "general mobilization" ordered by the Prophet (saw).

OK, lets say the ayat do not make jihad fard on a muslim in Dar al-Kufr… where do the ayat make it fard in Dar al-Islam?? The lands are not the issue, the duty is on the necks of Muslims.

As for Ayn and Kifayah – see previous post for the answer, as you missed it out during your cherry-picking.

The Jihad can be announced in any situation where the reality necessitates it. It is for Muslims to respond in that situation and then will come the call for Jihad. This call is not specific to the Islamic State alone. The enemy can invade Muslim Lands and the Muslims call for Jihad and cry out for help, then it is a duty to respond even though there is no Dar al-Islam.

Like I said you need to categorically that the Islamic State alone has a monopoly on Jihad to exclusion of everything else. Something which you have failed to do.

Read the other ayat quoted by you which also pertain to the battle of Tabuk and general mobilization.
"O you who Believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (Jihad) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.

If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do all things." [Surah at-Tawbah 9:38-39]

The ayat clearly state "when you are asked to march forth" so who gives the order to march, he was the prophet(saw) and after his death it the amir. So thses ayat are also addressing "general mobilization" ordered by the amir.

OK, Muslims are fighting occupiers and tawagheet. Because there are always more than 3 of them in an area, they appoint an Amir… who declares the Jihad.

Muslims have been called to march forth in the Cause of Allah(swt)… in Palestine, Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan… and against the Tawagheet.

Nowhere is the restriction only to the Islamic State. In fact the grouping together under an Amir to fight in these areas is from the legitimate forms of leadership in Islam. Whereas the Tawagheet Rulers are not legitimate leaderships.

So both of the honourable ayat presented by you as evidences are out of context as far as jihad being fard ayn on muslims in dar ul kufr is concerned.

They are within context. It is the “only in an Islamic-State” notion which is out of place and out of context.

Quote:Abu Musa Wrote: The Hadith pertaining to Abu Baseer(ra) is the evidence as he was not under a treaty nor was he under the Islamic State. Yet he spilled the blood of the Mushrikeen and seized their property, and his condition is that of where the Imam of the Muslims was 'absent' where he was.


It only shows that fighting is permissible (mubah) and no one can use the above event to prove that what Abu Bashir (ra) was doing was fard ayn. This is exactly what I am saying that without any amir, fighting is permissible for an Individual not fard ayn.
You have not been able to come up with even a single evidence that Jiahd without amir is fard ayn on individual living in dar ul kufr.
Your problem is that you have confused the whole method of Jihad. Yes we all agree that Jihad is fard on the Ummah today (and for that matter it will remain fard till day of Judgement) but the method for fulfilling this fard is through the state only.

If it is only permissible please tell me… Did Abu Basir(ra) do an action that receives reward? As if it was only ‘permissible’ then there is no reward and no punishment.

Now you say its Fard today until the day of Judgement!!? Yet you still can’t prove it is a ‘state only’ requirement.

I agree with you 100% Jihad remains Fard until the Day of Judgement.

Just bring the evidence to apply a ‘state-only’ restriction.


The ayat of Jihad are not like Fasting i.e. fasting is fard ayan even in dar ul kufr or even on an Island where you are all alone but this is not the case with Jihad. You take very superficial understanding of ayat. If we take you understanding and apply it on other ayat, then cutting the hands of the thieves and flogging the zani and other punishments will also be fard ayn on all muslims because no where the Quran states that these punishments are to be implemented by the ruler. So now you will start advocating that implementing punishments is also fard on all muslims?

So if I am alone on an Island. Then a Kafir lands on it and declares war on me… what is it? Just mubah to fight him!

Superficial understanding? You have gone this far already, all you have left to do for all intents and purposes is get a pen and write “only in an Islamic State” after each Ayah about Jihad. Since this is all that is left to do, you have practically done this already you just need to confirm it in writing.

And I do say it is correct in the absence of an Islamic State, for Muslims to appoint Just arbitrators from within their communities to judge disputes between them. Where a crime has been committed to implement the Islamic Verdict.

The orders are originally on the necks of Muslims, and without a State the Fard falls back on our necks.

[Abu-Musa]

Jabir Ibn ‘Abdillah(ra) said, “I heard the Prophet(saw) saying, ‘There will not cease to be a group from my nation (Ummah), fighting upon the Truth, dominant, until the Day of Resurrection.’ He said, ‘Then ‘Īsā Ibn Maryam(as) will descend, and their Amir will say, ‘Come lead our prayer.’ So he will say, ‘No. Verily, you are Amirs upon one another; an honour from Allah for this nation (Ummah).’”

So such group and it’s Amirs will never cease to exist Fighting upon the Truth. Regardless of whether there exists an Islamic State or not. Such a group has been given approval in the Hadith of RasulAllah(saw) upon the tongue of Isa(as), and it is considered an Honour from Allah(swt).


Jihad under a State is part of the Jihad generally in addition to other circumstances not an exclusive restriction to the State alone.


Imam al-Shawkani said: ‘The arguments regarding the jihad being a religious obligation, both in the Qur’an and in the Sunnah, are too numerous to be set down here. Nevertheless, it is a fard kifayah as long as some people are fulfilling this fard kifayah then the rest are absolved from the duty. Otherwise, it is an fard ‘ayn incumbent on every adult by law until the duty is fulfilled. Similarly, it is a fard ‘ayn also on those people who are ordered to jihad by the Imam.’ [Al-Sayl al-Jarrar]


Imam Nawawi said: “Jihad during the time of the Messenger of Allah(saw) was a fard kifayah, though it is also alleged that it was a fard ‘ayn. Since then, there are two conditions relative to the unbelievers: If they remain in their own territories, then jihad is not an obligation on all Muslims. As long as a sufficient number of Muslims undertake it, the remainder are released from this duty. If they invade one of our territories, its population are obliged to repel them with all their force. If fighting is possible then fighting becomes an obligation. Every slave, poor person, son and debtor must prepare for war, even though they may not have permission…" [Al-Minhaj]


Ibn Qudama said: “Jihad is a fard kifayah. If a group of people engage in it, the remainder are released. It becomes a fard ‘ayn under three conditions:

If two armies meet and two lines of soldiers confront one another, those present are forbidden to leave the battlefield, and it becomes a fard ‘ayn on each one to remain at his station.

If the unbelievers attack a territory, it is a fard ‘ayn on its population to fight and repel them.

If the Imam calls a group of people to arms, then they must join his military forces. And he should at least announce Jihad once every year.’

He also says: “So if the Imam does not exist, then the Jihad is not delayed”
[Al-Mughnī Wash-Sharh Al-Kabir]


And these are mentioned with the existence of an Imam/State being a separate issue from the defence of the lands.


Regarding today...

Shaykh Abdullah Azzam says: “Jihad is currently fard `ayn - individually obligatory, in person and by wealth, in every place that the Disbelievers have occupied. It remains fard `ayn continuously until every piece of land that was once Islamic is regained.”

“Jihad today is individually obligatory (fard `ayn), by self and wealth, on every Muslim, and the Islamic community remains sinful until the last piece of Islamic land is freed from the hands of the Disbelievers, nor are any absolved from the sin other than the Mujahideen.” [Join the Caravan]

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

so for us muslims living in the UK is it obligatory upon us to to engage in jihad???

[Abu-Musa]

Yes it is Fard Ayn on every single Muslim in the World to engage in Jihad physically and financially and verbally in accordance with ones ability.

If one cannot then it is Fard on them to acquire the means for Jihad in order that they can perform it and attain the ability. The State is only an 'ability' as far as offensive Jihad is concerned, which requires the expansion of an already existing State.

The Jihad today is Fard Ayn until all Muslim Lands are liberated from occupiers, usurpers, apostate-agent rulers and their allies/protectors and every inch of Muslim Lands is ruled over by Islam. Then it will become Kifayah again except for 4 reasons which make will make it Ayn:

1. The Enemy attacks or its troops confront you.

2. The Kuffar occupy/usurp Muslim Lands and/or the authority (whether they are kuffar from outside, or from the inside, whether apostates or kuffar in origin, or apostate by doing kufr buwah).

3. The Khaleef gives an you order to fight.

4. If the Khilafah is dismantled. As it would be impossible that it is replaced with a 'Neutral Void'. It would require destruction by its enemies in order to usurp it and replace it with another system, this usurping must be reversed by Jihad. The Muslims would have to come together and give support (Nussrah) to each other appointing an Amir over them and fight to regain the territories and establish Islam over all territories re-gained until completion.



Muhammad(saw) said "Whoever dies but neither fought, nor sincerely considered fighting, will die a death of jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic era of ignorance)." [Sahih Muslim, 3:1517]

[Observer]

Eid Mubarak to all and specially to you brother Abu Musa.

Abu Musa Wrote: OK, lets say the ayat do not make jihad fard on a muslim in Dar al-Kufr… where do the ayat make it fard in Dar al-Islam?? The lands are not the issue, the duty is on the necks of Muslims.

The ayat are related to general mobilization of muslims ordered by the amir, the hukm from this ayah along with the hadith of the Prophet (saw) makes Jihad fard ayn if the ruler (just or tyrant) calls for general mobilization.

But there is no evidence which makes Jihad fard ayn on a muslim individual in dar ul kufr if ruler does not declare general mobiliztion.

OK, Muslims are fighting occupiers and tawagheet. Because there are always more than 3 of them in an area, they appoint an Amir… who declares the Jihad.

Muslims are not obliged to obey amir of a group because they have not given bayah to him and they are not like rulers whose obedience is mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah. Furthermore there is no evidence that Jihad is fard ayn under amir of a group.

In todays reality groups declaring Jiahd is a disaster which has befallen the Ummah. now you find many groups waging "Jihad" and in the process following their own agenda or worst following US agenda all over the muslim world. And you expect me or other muslims to follow one of them!!

If it is only permissible please tell me… Did Abu Basir(ra) do an action that receives reward? As if it was only ‘permissible’ then there is no reward and no punishment.

He had the choice of going back to Makkah, so when you have two choices the action is permissible. Still it does not prove that the action was fard ayn.

So if I am alone on an Island. Then a Kafir lands on it and declares war on me… what is it? Just mubah to fight him!

If a person fights to defend himself or his property and his honour, it is not called Jihad. So if a kafir declares "war" on you on an Island, you defend youself, similarly if a dog attacks on the Island, you you defend yourself, this is not called jihad.

And I do say it is correct in the absence of an Islamic State, for Muslims to appoint Just arbitrators from within their communities to judge disputes between them. Where a crime has been committed to implement the Islamic Verdict.

Wrong again as you have no evidence for this, as usual. It is only the judges appointed by the ruler who has the authority to give judgement and only the ruler who implements hudood and no one else. It is not obligatory for the ummah to obey anyone else except the ruler.

Muhammad(saw) said "Whoever dies but neither fought, nor sincerely considered fighting, will die a death of jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic era of ignorance)." [Sahih Muslim, 3:1517]

If Jihad is fard ayn why has the Prophet (saw) said "nor sincerely considered fighting", this shows that Jihad is not fard ayn.

Jabir Ibn ‘Abdillah(ra) said, “I heard the Prophet(saw) saying, ‘There will not cease to be a group from my nation (Ummah), fighting upon the Truth, dominant, until the Day of Resurrection.’ He said, ‘Then ‘Īsā Ibn Maryam(as) will descend, and their Amir will say, ‘Come lead our prayer.’ So he will say, ‘No. Verily, you are Amirs upon one another; an honour from Allah for this nation (Ummah).’”


How can you restrict "fighting upon the truth" to Jihad alone. If this is the case then there have been several times in histroy when no group of muslims have been dominant in fighting like the time when Khilafah collapsed. Other ahadith also deal with this topic, like the Prophet (saw) said "A group of people from the Muslims will remain on the Right Path and continue until the Day of Judgment to triumph over those who oppose them.". This is not specific to Jihad as you have tried to imply. Still another hadith says that "The people of the West will continue to triumphantly follow the truth until the Hour is established."
(Both ahadith are from Muslim)

And if you read other ahadith, the Amir mentioned in the hadith is the ruler of muslims at that time (and some call him Imam Mahdi) and not amir of a group.

When the Prophet (saw) mentions Jama'a of muslims and their amir and bayah, it is the ruler over the main body of muslims i.e. khaleefah and bayah is to him alone and not amir of a group. This is the problem with the Jihadis, they don't care whether there is a Jama'a or not whether there is an amir or not, they just apply all the ahadith on themselves and go about declaring Jihad and signing peace treaties and declaring truces on behalf of the ummah, and then they wonder why Allah (swt) does send nusrah to the Ummah.

When the Prophet (saw) mentions that "one who separated from the Jama'a of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya." This Jama'a is the main body of the Ummah and not a group, because we know that we can leave any group and join another group and this is not a sin or death of Ignorance.

When a detachment of muslims turned around in battle and came back to Madina saying to the Prophet (saw) "We are the ones who have fled. He said: No, you are the ones who return to fight after wheeling away. We then approached and kissed his hand, and he said; I am the Jama.a of the Muslims. (Abu Dawud). Here again Jamaa means main body of muslims of which Prophet(saw) was the ruler.

You have failed to provide any evidence which makes Jihad fard ayn on Individual muslims in dar ul kufr, while the fard of Jihad remains on the Ummah as a whole.

[Abu-Musa]

Eid Mubarak to all and specially to you brother Abu Musa.
Eid Mubarak.

The ayat are related to general mobilization of muslims ordered by the amir, the hukm from this ayah along with the hadith of the Prophet (saw) makes Jihad fard ayn if the ruler (just or tyrant) calls for general mobilization.

But there is no evidence which makes Jihad fard ayn on a muslim individual in dar ul kufr if ruler does not declare general mobiliztion.

Bro, you need to bring evidence of a categorical restriction of Jihad to Dar al-Islam/state only.

When you say tyrant or just ruler, please elaborate. Are you talking Khaleef-only or do you extend this to Taghut Rulers today.

Muslims are not obliged to obey amir of a group because they have not given bayah to him and they are not like rulers whose obedience is mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah. Furthermore there is no evidence that Jihad is fard ayn under amir of a group.

Actually you see group give Bayah to the Amir of groups of Mujahideen. The evidences for Jihad are general, and can apply to a group and individual and a state. Their needs text to say otherwise… i.e. a catergoric restriction by text from the generality.

At this point I will remind you that I have previously explained the Ayn and Kifayah being dependent on the circumstances. I am really not seeking clarification from on this from you (though you may still disagree with me on it), my focus is on your restriction to “state-only”.

Also Khalid Ibn Walid(ra) was appointed Amir of Jihad while the Imam(saw) was absent. This appointing of an Amir without the Imam was approved by Muhammad(saw) and he was given the title “The Sword of Allah”. Today we have no Imam either. The parallel being the absence of the Imam from the situation, and not whether he is present somewhere else.

In todays reality groups declaring Jiahd is a disaster which has befallen the Ummah. now you find many groups waging "Jihad" and in the process following their own agenda or worst following US agenda all over the muslim world. And you expect me or other muslims to follow one of them!!

This is really mocking the Deen. Jihad is Fard when the enemies are fighting us and ruling and usurping our lands. It is in fact this “no jihad without the state” attitude which is being injected as an Opium to the Masses.

He had the choice of going back to Makkah, so when you have two choices the action is permissible. Still it does not prove that the action was fard ayn.

Fard Ayn aside he fought without a state and his fighting carried reward. Something carrying reward is Fard or Mustahab NOT mubah.

If a person fights to defend himself or his property and his honour, it is not called Jihad. So if a kafir declares "war" on you on an Island, you defend youself, similarly if a dog attacks on the Island, you you defend yourself, this is not called jihad.

We are ordered to fight those who fight us. I disagree with you here it is Jihad or if you want to get technical Qital. This is in and of itself defensive jihad. Evidence would have been appreciated for such a claim. You cited life(himself), property, and honour… why did you leave out LAND?

Wrong again as you have no evidence for this, as usual. It is only the judges appointed by the ruler who has the authority to give judgement and only the ruler who implements hudood and no one else. It is not obligatory for the ummah to obey anyone else except the ruler.

I did not say judges, I said “arbitrators”. It is obligatory since the duties are on the necks of the Ummah.

If Jihad is fard ayn why has the Prophet (saw) said "nor sincerely considered fighting", this shows that Jihad is not fard ayn.

Again it boils down to circumstances. I have cited the circumstances where Jihad becomes Fard Ayn.

However you have not brought one evidence that categorically restricts the Jihad to a ‘state-only’. I will give you another opportunity to bring it.

How can you restrict "fighting upon the truth" to Jihad alone. If this is the case then there have been several times in histroy when no group of muslims have been dominant in fighting like the time when Khilafah collapsed. Other ahadith also deal with this topic, like the Prophet (saw) said "A group of people from the Muslims will remain on the Right Path and continue until the Day of Judgment to triumph over those who oppose them.". This is not specific to Jihad as you have tried to imply. Still another hadith says that "The people of the West will continue to triumphantly follow the truth until the Hour is established."
(Both ahadith are from Muslim)

And if you read other ahadith, the Amir mentioned in the hadith is the ruler of muslims at that time (and some call him Imam Mahdi) and not amir of a group.

When the Prophet (saw) mentions Jama'a of muslims and their amir and bayah, it is the ruler over the main body of muslims i.e. khaleefah and bayah is to him alone and not amir of a group. This is the problem with the Jihadis, they don't care whether there is a Jama'a or not whether there is an amir or not, they just apply all the ahadith on themselves and go about declaring Jihad and signing peace treaties and declaring truces on behalf of the ummah, and then they wonder why Allah (swt) does send nusrah to the Ummah.

When the Prophet (saw) mentions that "one who separated from the Jama'a of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya." This Jama'a is the main body of the Ummah and not a group, because we know that we can leave any group and join another group and this is not a sin or death of Ignorance.

When a detachment of muslims turned around in battle and came back to Madina saying to the Prophet (saw) "We are the ones who have fled. He said: No, you are the ones who return to fight after wheeling away. We then approached and kissed his hand, and he said; I am the Jama.a of the Muslims. (Abu Dawud). Here again Jamaa means main body of muslims of which Prophet(saw) was the ruler.

You have failed to provide any evidence which makes Jihad fard ayn on Individual muslims in dar ul kufr, while the fard of Jihad remains on the Ummah as a whole.


The victorious party will always exist, and fighting is a characteristic of it. There is also the Hadith that Jihad will continue until the Day of Judgement. Again I say it is continuous this is just one reason that even without a state it is still continuous and must be performed.

I now put it to you why are you putting a stop on the continuation of Jihad today, and the continuation of the victorious party who will always fight upon the Truth. It is not specific to Jihad, but the fighting upon the Truth is something that this party will continue to do until the Day of Judgement. These are all characteristics of the victorious party.

So when you ask “How can you restrict ‘fighting upon the truth’ to Jihad alone?” – I restrict fighting to fighting, it being one of the characteristics of the group.

The Prophet(saw) said:“There will not cease to be a party (Ta’ifah) from my nation (Ummah), establishing the order of Allah. They are unharmed by those who betray them or oppose them, until the Decision of Allah arrives and they are dominant over the people.” – narrated by Muslim from Mu’awiyah (ra).

And He(saw) said: “And this Religion (Deen) will never cease to be established; a faction (‘Isabah) from the Muslims will fight upon it until the Hour arrives.” – narrated by Muslim from Jabir Ibn Samurah(ra).

The Hadith are Muttawatir through 15 Companions. The party has the characteristic of fighting (Al-Qital). They are also an exception to the Rule of ‘avoiding all those Sects’ in the absence of the Jama’ah and its’ Imam.

Unless there is evidence to substantiate all these “state-only” restrictions it just amounts to diluting and trivialising the continuous Jihad that will not have any break until the Day of Judgement.

I challenge you to bring just one Ayah or Hadith Sahih which categorically restricts Jihad to the state-only to the exclusion of Jihad in any other situation where a state would not exist.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

QUICK QUESTION...
IS IT FARD FOR US MUSLIMS LIVING HERE TO GO TO PLACES LIKE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN TO FIGHT...???
AND WHAT ABOUT THESE VIRTUAL JIHADDI'S WHO LOVE TALKING ABOUT IT...AND THATS ALL THEY DO....

[Abu-Musa]

It is Fard, dependent on capability. Where one does not have the capability, then he should try to attain it where this is possible.

And there is no need to go around telling people about it or disclosing it openly.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

so all muslims in the uk who are capable of going to iraq should go and fight?????

[Abu-Musa]

so all muslims in the uk who are capable of going to iraq should go and fight?????

lol... some even fight in the UK

:)

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

SALAAM...

WHAT WILL FIGHTING IN THE UK ACHIEVE???

[Abu-Musa]

Assuming theoretically that any country was responsibile for killing Muslims, occupying Muslim Lands, propping-up Agents in the Muslim World, responsible for destroying the Khilafah, carving up the lands, dividing and ruling it, creating an entity for outsiders to live in, subjugating and killing its original inhabitants... etc.


Assuming theoratically in the unlikely event that such a thing could ever happen(!). Muslims would have the right at the very least to fight against it wherever it has a presence and reak so much havoc, terrorising the hell out them that it wouldn't dare have the audacity to do such a thing ever again.


Hypothetically speaking of course.

:)


Remember when Firawn just wouldn't stop messing around... then the whole of Egypt got terrorised, with hails of fire raining down on it, the water supply being polluted, swarms of insects randomly attacking people with their poisonous chemicals being bitten into them, death being spread everywhere with at least one 'innocent' child being killed in every household!


And.... What did that achieve!?

[Psychotic]

brother just trying to get a grasp of what you are saying. So if a country held hatred for islam and wanted to destroy the isalmic state then muslims have a right to terrorise all citizens of that state?

How is this scenario different from the time of the prophet when the kuffar wanted an end to islam and have been doing so since then. yet the rules related to fighting are specific, even though the people the prophet was fighting held similar views to what you have described.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

i take it you think fighting is allowed in countries which arent a place of war???
even tho this has nothing to do with the method....and cannot be executed without the state....

(PS: I TAKE IT YOUR PARTICIPATING IN THE FIGHTING....WITH YOUR KEYBOARD...LOL...YOU
SHOULD AT LEAST PRACTICE WAT YOU PREACH!!!!!!!! OR ARE YOU ONE OF THESE IDIOTS WHO ONLY TALKS ABOUT IT????)

[Abu-Musa]

brother just trying to get a grasp of what you are saying. So if a country held hatred for islam and wanted to destroy the isalmic state then muslims have a right to terrorise all citizens of that state?

How is this scenario different from the time of the prophet when the kuffar wanted an end to islam and have been doing so since then. yet the rules related to fighting are specific, even though the people the prophet was fighting held similar views to what you have described.


If you are referring to the Age of Empires when the Muslims would go out and invite Nations to Islam and the leaders refused the invitation & jizyah... then the Muslim would fight them and terrorise them (terror being part of the war and fighting).

Then in such a case the Muslims will confront those who are the barriers in the way of Islam in order to remove them, and the territories annexed, ruled over, facilitating the message of Islam reaching the general masses of that particular empire, e.g. Roman Empire, Persian Empire... etc.

Empires, Dictatorsips and Monarchies are by their nature not based on people-power and tend to be run with brute force in a kind of totalitarian manner.


Today we do not live in the Age of Empires. In the non-Muslim world we largely deal with democracies, not empires.

Democracies are where the people elect their goverments. Where it is the rule of the people, by the people, for the people...

The people are part of or play a part in the goverment/governing.


So hypothetically speaking why can't they all be terrorised as a defensive response, if their nation aggresses another nation or block of people or an ummah other than theirs? A kind of "if you put an 'X' on the ballot-paper next to a war-monger you become a legitimate target".


Again, hypothetically speaking of course. (As if a normal human being would ever do such inhumane actions or vote for murderers - God-forbid!)

[saleem]

If the US decided that it would prefer groups calling for the peaceful establishment of the khilafah as compared to those using armed struggle, would this mean groups such as HT would be acting according to a US agenda?

Therefore, to go on about jihadis following US interests is nonsense. As long as the jihadis are using permitted means (which I know is separate debateble issue), and are not controlled by a non- muslim power then they have nothing to worry about.

[abdul-ali]

I think the last post should have been in the Muslim agents thread, however the point - 'as long as it is a permitted action then you have nothing to worry about' is short sighted and ignoring factors which Islam has taught e.g doing something to the best of your ability, avoiding harm to the muslims, applying practical principles to achieve required results and avoid serving the agenda of the kuffaar and many other related points.
If the US decided that it would prefer groups calling for the peaceful establishment of the khilafah as compared to those using armed struggle, would this mean groups such as HT would be acting according to a US agenda?
Tell us when where and how, rather than such a vague hypothetical scenario. The actions of some of jihadists have clearly had the Kuffaars hand behind it serving their schemes, that is what has been criticised

[Abu-Musa]

Quote:
If the US decided that it would prefer groups calling for the peaceful establishment of the khilafah as compared to those using armed struggle, would this mean groups such as HT would be acting according to a US agenda?

Tell us when where and how, rather than such a vague hypothetical scenario. The actions of some of jihadists have clearly had the Kuffaars hand behind it serving their schemes, that is what has been criticised


What do you mean hypothetical...


"A more representative and democratic government should come through peaceful means, not through violence."
Scott McClellan - White House spokesman [13/05/05]

“Hizb ut-Tahrir categorically rejects violence, militancy or armed struggle as a method to re-establish the Islamic State”
Dr Imran Waheed - Spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir, UK [14/05/05]



So simply deny that your position is contrary to HTB on this issue.

[neelu]

It is hyperthetical because the US would never accept or advocate the establishment of khilafah whether by violent means or otherwise!

[AbuNidaal]

Asalaam alaikum

Brothers, it is anticipated that the enemies of Allah will attempt to obstruct the reestablishment of the khilafah by erecting false khilafah states and "crowning" many khulafaa to confuse the Ummah. But they will only do this as a last defensive measure after suppression and propagation of their own ideology fails.

One should remember to look at America as an ideological leader bound to its ideology in Idea and Method. Its strategies of supporting dictatorships in the Muslim world is ideologically opposed to its political system of democracy, but it is consistent with its ideology of capitalism. In fact the method of Capitalism has always included oppressive regimes regardless of the idyllic lofty claims of 'democracy'.

Again, they will not support even the world "khilafah" until the Islamic resurgence for the Nahda moves them to that point of desparation and defense.

Here in America, there is a Muslim leader named Kabbani. He claims to be an adherent of the Naqshbandi order, but his organization is: Islamic Supreme Council for America. He is dutifully obedient to the Bush administration and America's global interests. He has secretly and publicly aided the enemies of Allah by calling all the masajid in America as run by extremists, by claiming the Muslim groups are potential terrorists, etc. He pridefully declares that he counsels in secret with Bush, Cheney etc. about Muslims and Islam. He also supported the term Islamofascism.

I envision a future American administration appointing someone like this sufi 'saint' Kabbani as a khalif who will in turn order Muslims to obey America's empire. In fact, I would not be surprised that Kabbani's plans are for him, or his superior to seek the American "talibin nusra" to be the next Khalif, but khalifatul shaytan, not khaliftul rasul.

[AbuNidaal]

http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/isca_inside_activities.html


link to Kabbani's activities in support of Bush. BTW, Kabbani and his ilk supported the Islam Karimov regime in Uzbekistan, even supporting his crackdown on shabab there..... Subhannah Allah.

Laa haula wa llah quwwat illa billah

[Abu-Musa]

It is hyperthetical because the US would never accept or advocate the establishment of khilafah whether by violent means or otherwise!

So are you saying the US will definately go to War with Muslims rather than see the Khilafah emerge?

[Psychotic]

If you are referring to the Age of Empires when the Muslims would go out and invite Nations to Islam and the leaders refused the invitation & jizyah... then the Muslim would fight them and terrorise them (terror being part of the war and fighting).

Then in such a case the Muslims will confront those who are the barriers in the way of Islam in order to remove them, and the territories annexed, ruled over, facilitating the message of Islam reaching the general masses of that particular empire, e.g. Roman Empire, Persian Empire... etc.

Empires, Dictatorsips and Monarchies are by their nature not based on people-power and tend to be run with brute force in a kind of totalitarian manner.


Today we do not live in the Age of Empires. In the non-Muslim world we largely deal with democracies, not empires.

Democracies are where the people elect their goverments. Where it is the rule of the people, by the people, for the people...

The people are part of or play a part in the goverment/governing.


So hypothetically speaking why can't they all be terrorised as a defensive response, if their nation aggresses another nation or block of people or an ummah other than theirs? A kind of "if you put an 'X' on the ballot-paper next to a war-monger you become a legitimate target".


Again, hypothetically speaking of course. (As if a normal human being would ever do such inhumane actions or vote for murderers - God-forbid!)

Be it empires or be it local tribal structures, each structure was there with the consent of the people, hence they recruited from the people the people needed to go fight.

So these representatives were there by the consent of the people as they would use them to go and settle disputes, and they also accepted their legislation over them. So with regards to what you are saying about the democratic countries now is similar to the likes of quraish etc at the times of the prophet. However only the people directly related to the fighting were targeted. So please help me establish how you come to your opinion.

[Abu-Musa]

Each structure was not there with the consent of the people. I do not agree that the realities are the same.

Anyone who gives 1 Penny, 1 Letter (i.e. "X" on the ballot paper), or any physical effort, towards the Fighting is a combatant.

Since the Prophet(saw) already informed us fighting is by money, words, and body.


So they would all be combatants (directly related to the fighting) if they aggressed against Muslims.


You can always find out what the Islamic Punishment is for killing a Kafir non-Combatant who is not bound to a treaty, for further enlightenment.

[neelu]

So are you saying the US will definately go to War with Muslims rather than see the Khilafah emerge?

I don't know whether the US would "definitely" go to war or not but nevertheless we have to accept that it is highly likely as we certainly know that the Kufaar would not sit back quietly whilst Muslim lands are transformed from Dar al Kufr to lands ruled by Islam.

[Abu-Musa]

All the more reason for Muslims to get up and Fight, rather than wait like sitting ducks.

Why establish a State 'peacefully' when our enemies will not allow it to emerge peacefully.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

GET UP AND FIGHT WHERE?? UNDER WHO'S AUTHORITY???
FAIR ENOUGH IN THE OCCUPIED MUSLIM LANDS BUT HERE IN THE UK???

[Abu-Musa]

If you can't find someone with a legitimate authority to fight behind. Then appoint someone and start fighting.

If Allahs'(swt) has given the hukm, whose authority do we need?

Its very simple the minute there is 3 or more, appoint one Amir, and you will have your authority right there.

Just like you don't wait for the Khaleef for your Salah, and if there is 3 or more, you put forward an Imam to lead the prayer.


I'm surprised Salah isn't suspended too, as their is no Khaleef to appoint the Imam for Salah!?


What is meant by 'fair enough' in the Muslim Lands? Is OK to fight there now? (all of Muslim Lands are occupied apart from a bits of Iraq and Afghanistan)

As far as UK or any other non-muslim land is concerned, there is only an issue IF it is an aggressor nation.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

the rules on salah and jihad are different...so dont get confused and stop making logical deductions as this is not allowed.....

for the muslims who have been occupied then it is their duty to fight them...
we need the state to execute the orders of fighting.....

[ubaydullah]

All the more reason for Muslims to get up and Fight, rather than wait like sitting ducks.

Why establish a State 'peacefully' when our enemies will not allow it to emerge peacefully.

Obviously for some the example of our beloved Messenger (saws) isn't good enough!

[Psychotic]

Each structure was not there with the consent of the people. I do not agree that the realities are the same.

Anyone who gives 1 Penny, 1 Letter (i.e. "X" on the ballot paper), or any physical effort, towards the Fighting is a combatant.

Since the Prophet(saw) already informed us fighting is by money, words, and body.


So they would all be combatants (directly related to the fighting) if they aggressed against Muslims.


You can always find out what the Islamic Punishment is for killing a Kafir non-Combatant who is not bound to a treaty, for further enlightenment.

so can you give an example of when the armies of the kuffar fought muslims, that their relative people were against it? women from quraish used to go with the armies to encourage men, yet that didnt mean that the muslims went and targeted all of quraish. YOu fail to appreciate that the armies dont just come from thin air they are from the people and the people support them with money and words, as was the case at the time of the prophet. So please give a clear example of how this differs form the scenario you are describing today. Just because you dont think they are identical doesnt mean that they are not.

[Abu-Musa]

the rules on salah and jihad are different...so dont get confused and stop making logical deductions as this is not allowed.....

for the muslims who have been occupied then it is their duty to fight them...
we need the state to execute the orders of fighting.....


What about the Khilafah that got occupied and got turned into 55 client-states?

Whose going to fight and get that back?


As for insisting on a state as pre-requisute for everything, do you have evidence for this restriction or is that one of your 'logical deductions'?

[Abu-Musa]

Obviously for some the example of our beloved Messenger (saws) isn't good enough!


so can you give an example of when the armies of the kuffar fought muslims, that their relative people were against it? women from quraish used to go with the armies to encourage men, yet that didnt mean that the muslims went and targeted all of quraish. YOu fail to appreciate that the armies dont just come from thin air they are from the people and the people support them with money and words, as was the case at the time of the prophet. So please give a clear example of how this differs form the scenario you are describing today. Just because you dont think they are identical doesnt mean that they are not.


Just because you 'think' they are identical, does not mean it is.


I have asked when at the Prophets(saw) time in Makkah was the Khilafah colonised, divided and ruled... then handed over to agents to rule over.

The fact is never. So the situation is not identical.

You guys never want to get drawn into things when I mention this example... but keep putting your own examples and insist an answer from me on every point!?

It is what armies DO, who they support/ally with, and the seats they cement, that needs to be looked at, regardles of whether they came out of thin air or not.

Tactics of War vary, it is down to those on the ground to determine how to conduct it. It is not for those not on the ground to tell them how to do it.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

you fail to understand yet again that there is a method for every action which is fard....
to fight an army you need an army...NOT VIRTUAL JIHADDI'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
what is the method from islam to take back our lands???
I'll tel you for a fact...were not going to get our lands back with virtual/keyboard jihadd's who only talk aboout it and not act upon in what they believe in!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Abu-Musa]

Try Again...


What about the Khilafah that got occupied and got turned into 55 client-states?

Whose going to fight and get that back?


As for insisting on a state as pre-requisute for everything, do you have evidence for this restriction or is that one of your 'logical deductions'?

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

WHATS THE METHOD FROM ISLAM TO GET OUR LANDS BACK??!!

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

WELL YOURE OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO FIGHT THATS WHY YOURE HERE ON THIS FORUM AND NOT OVER THERE!!!

[kingadris]

blood thirsty is completely right

for every fard there is a method...if you dont go by the method then the fard is incomplete

youcant pray while doing a headstand because your fard wont be accepted

in the same you u aint gna get 55 peices of land by strikeing keys on a keybourd

you seriously need an army abu musa...

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

army?? more like a bit of sense...!!!

[kingadris]

when islam first came to the prophet...he started doing dawah to his freinds and family

he didn't start fighting the kafir staright away cuz then he wud be on his own. there were no muslims untill they converted...

so looking at what the prophet did...he first did dawah, worked towards a state, and then used the armies to carry out expeditions on takeing over lands...

but before the state was there...did he try and fight the kafar? even those who were walking around the kabah naked????

[Abu-Musa]

when islam first came to the prophet...he started doing dawah to his freinds and family

he didn't start fighting the kafir staright away cuz then he wud be on his own. there were no muslims untill they converted...

so looking at what the prophet did...he first did dawah, worked towards a state, and then used the armies to carry out expeditions on takeing over lands...

but before the state was there...did he try and fight the kafar? even those who were walking around the kabah naked????

If you can prove all the Qur'an was completely revealed in Makkah, I'll agree with you.

[kingadris]

i dont understand your point.. plz can you elaborate...

[Psychotic]

Obviously for some the example of our beloved Messenger (saws) isn't good enough!


so can you give an example of when the armies of the kuffar fought muslims, that their relative people were against it? women from quraish used to go with the armies to encourage men, yet that didnt mean that the muslims went and targeted all of quraish. YOu fail to appreciate that the armies dont just come from thin air they are from the people and the people support them with money and words, as was the case at the time of the prophet. So please give a clear example of how this differs form the scenario you are describing today. Just because you dont think they are identical doesnt mean that they are not.


Just because you 'think' they are identical, does not mean it is.


I have asked when at the Prophets(saw) time in Makkah was the Khilafah colonised, divided and ruled... then handed over to agents to rule over.

The fact is never. So the situation is not identical.

You guys never want to get drawn into things when I mention this example... but keep putting your own examples and insist an answer from me on every point!?

It is what armies DO, who they support/ally with, and the seats they cement, that needs to be looked at, regardles of whether they came out of thin air or not.

Tactics of War vary, it is down to those on the ground to determine how to conduct it. It is not for those not on the ground to tell them how to do it.


here we go again, you guys do this and you guys do that. Perhaps if you stuck to the topic we are discussing you wouldnt get frustrated lets start again and ill try and break my question down for you cos obviously there is something you are missing or choosing not to answer.

Obviously we accept islam as the crieteria so whenever we are passing judgement orgiving a hukm for the "reality" it needs to come from islam.

The subject that we were discussing is that who are legitimate targets during war.

And you dont want to seem to answer this point. therefore going back to what you said yourself and your justification for targeting civillians in this country is that you thin they are supportive of their respective armies. My question to you is (and try and digest the question before you go off on one, as it is pretty specific) that how is the kufar now any diferent to the reality of the kuffar back then when it comes to supporting their armies. Im explaining to you that the way you claim they support thewir armies now is no differnt to how they supported their armies back in the day, yet only those directly related to the fighting were targeted. So if you could explain with any example through the time of the prophet when this was not the case to support your point.

[Abu-Musa]

You can always find out what the Islamic Punishment is for killing a Kafir non-Combatant who is not bound to a treaty, for further enlightenment.


I mentioned this for a reason. So please find this out and get back to me.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

a very good point by psychotic...it is true that there is no difference between the kuffar back in the days who supported their armies and the kuffar now who support their armies....this doesn't make them legitimate targets.....

and what a shallow response by abu musa....YET AGAIN!!

whats that supposed to mean???!!!

for what reason did you mention it??

it seems that yet again you are avoiding and diverting the real matter in hand....

[Abu-Musa]

It ain't Haram to kill a Kafir non-Combatant not bound by treaty. Neither is there a punishment for killing one.

Those who support the combat, physically, verbally, financially are worse than this.

Which is why the point was probably ignored.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

SO MUSLIMS (OBVIOUSLY THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY PUT THEIR WORDS INTO ACTIONS NOT SOME MUPPETS WHO TALK ABOUT IT) CAN GO AROUND KILLING RANDOM KAFFIR???

[Abu-Musa]

Whats the point asking another question. Either you can read or you cannot.

[ubaydullah]

Whats the point asking another question. Either you can read or you cannot.
Once again it appears you can't give a clear-cut answer when you are asked to explain the implications of your statements regarding the blood, wealth and honour of the kuffar. The brother simply asked for clarification. It's a simple question:



SO MUSLIMS (OBVIOUSLY THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY PUT THEIR WORDS INTO ACTIONS NOT SOME MUPPETS WHO TALK ABOUT IT) CAN GO AROUND KILLING RANDOM KAFFIR???
All you need to do is answer is yes or no.

Or are you going to look like you're too gutless to provide a straight answer like on this thread http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=1121&start=15 where you will not provide a answer when asked for evidence of how you can say angels helped in 9/11?[/url]

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

well either your all mouth or your a thief (as you confessed on the other thread)

before we ask you the question about the angels....

answer the above with a simple yes or no....

[Abu-Musa]

The questioner does not reserve the right to determine how the question should be answered!? Thats simply absurd, you may as well answer it yourself.

My answer as far as the Islamic Law is concerned is :

It ain't Haram to kill a Kafir non-Combatant not bound by treaty. Neither is there a punishment for killing one.


Also as a Muslim and hence a Believer in Angels (you know, one of the pillars of Imaan), I simply entertained a possibility.

Obviously if people were to suggesst that they do not believe angels exist, then they can go into the impossibility.

[ubaydullah]

SO MUSLIMS (OBVIOUSLY THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY PUT THEIR WORDS INTO ACTIONS NOT SOME MUPPETS WHO TALK ABOUT IT) CAN GO AROUND KILLING RANDOM KAFFIR???

Come on Abu-Musa, provide the brother with an answer. Either you can or you can't go around randomly killing kaffir according to what you follow.

I'm sure that a jihadi like you who is a brave warrior fighting away for Islam is not too gutless to provide a straight forward answer to a straight forward question on an anonymous internet forum to your muslim brother?

[abdul-ali]

It is what armies DO, who they support/ally with, and the seats they cement, that needs to be looked at, regardles of whether they came out of thin air or not.

Tactics of War vary, it is down to those on the ground to determine how to conduct it. It is not for those not on the ground to tell them how to do it.
The point about the armies which Abu Musa doesn't grasp is that they are not foreign armies but from the people. The setup of our lands includes government linked institutions in almost every facet of life, in which the general muslims play a part in; inlcuding e.g. the teachers in the general schools, the national (electrical) grid workers, the road builders, the clerk who checks your passport at the airports, the tax collectors, trafic wardens, and dustbin cleaners to mention a few.

According to the argument of Abu Musa, since they all "support/cement" the 'Taghut government' that would make them apostates and therefore targets of attack since they are now "occupying the khilafah". And since the general people support their fellow people/relatives in these institutions (including the armies and police), whether by word or finance, then they also are supporters of taghut/apostates.

Since Abu Musa is at war with all these apostates everywhere, then he can justify any action under war tactics, whether stealing, killing, even honour is not an issue, under his logics, and only people like him can have a say as they are on Jihad right!

[abdul-ali]

Sorry the above post was maybe more relevant here:

http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=9856#9856

however I would like Abu Musa to not avoid the questions posed earlier, and a very good point made by psychotic that civilians have never generally been targeted by the Messenger even though they supported their armies who were from them espeially as Abu Musa says he robbed from 250 and lost count of how many he killed etc.

[BLOOD_THIRSTY]

The setup of our lands includes government linked institutions in almost every facet of life, in which the general muslims play a part in; inlcuding e.g. the teachers in the general schools, the national (electrical) grid workers, the road builders, the clerk who checks your passport at the airports, the tax collectors, trafic wardens, and dustbin cleaners to mention a few.


this is an excellent point by the brother...

so abu musa are the above also legitimate targets??
can we kill kaffir in this country??

a simple yes or no will do to the above questions....

[Abu-Musa]

It is what armies DO, who they support/ally with, and the seats they cement, that needs to be looked at, regardles of whether they came out of thin air or not.

Tactics of War vary, it is down to those on the ground to determine how to conduct it. It is not for those not on the ground to tell them how to do it.
The point about the armies which Abu Musa doesn't grasp is that they are not foreign armies but from the people. The setup of our lands includes government linked institutions in almost every facet of life, in which the general muslims play a part in; inlcuding e.g. the teachers in the general schools, the national (electrical) grid workers, the road builders, the clerk who checks your passport at the airports, the tax collectors, trafic wardens, and dustbin cleaners to mention a few.

According to the argument of Abu Musa, since they all "support/cement" the 'Taghut government' that would make them apostates and therefore targets of attack since they are now "occupying the khilafah". And since the general people support their fellow people/relatives in these institutions (including the armies and police), whether by word or finance, then they also are supporters of taghut/apostates.

Since Abu Musa is at war with all these apostates everywhere, then he can justify any action under war tactics, whether stealing, killing, even honour is not an issue, under his logics, and only people like him can have a say as they are on Jihad right!

The armies are foreign if ones brain isn't tainted with the Kufr concept of Nationalism.

The Taghut-Rulers and the Armies who cement their thrones are Apostate Kufr Entities.

Hence they are Foreign to the Ideology of Islam.

Maybe you made a mistake and don't really take a nationalistic approach to the term 'foreign' as far as Islam is concerned. Otherwise it might be suggested that Bilal(ra) was a 'foreigner' in the Madinan Islamic State!?

So these Tawagheet are occupying the territories of the former-Khilafah (Muslim Lands) and Jihad is hence Fard Ayn until every inch of that land is liberated back again.

As for your statements about the general people this is the way you guys always like to play it... I say some do give support and others do not.

In my opinion most do not.

As for what is and is not my logic, you are the last person who'd be in a position to accurately reflect it. If you want to discuss specifics then do so.


Just to clarify the exact point about individual cases...

If a person supports the Taghut Apostate Ruler, Armies, or the Political Parties in the Taghut Parliament... with their own free will, without any duress, knowing fully well, that they are Taghut and rule by Kufr (not ruling by what Allah[swt] has revealed). Then such a person who falls into this category is an Apostate-Kafir.