JK.Mr. Yungnfresh wrote:I agree with 99% of what you wrote here, and despite what anyone on this site thinks, I think your intentions are genuine. The only part I disagree with u on is the takfiir part, and it's something I disagree with strongly. Takfiir should be reserved only for the most learned of our Ummah, the Culemaa, because there's a science behind it and isn't always as simple as making takfiir according to who the Prophet SAW made takfiir upon, because laymen might not understand the reasons why takfiir was made upon them by the Prophet SAW. Making takfiir upon someone is a slippery slope, and one where the utmost amount of caution must be exercised, lest u err and unknowingly leave the folds of Islam through it.
and do i for the most part agree with you that takfeer should be for reserved for the learned ulama because, as you said, there is a science behind it. but here is where i must disagree with you: it can't entirely be reserved for the ulama, for there are at times/situations where making takfeer is called for and made obligatory upon the children of adam, as. i'm sure you're aware that, according to the najdi scholars, one of the ten things that negates one's islam is refraining from making takfeer of the polytheists or having an atom of doubt of their shirk/kufr in one's heart. so if takfeer is exclusively left to the domain of the ulama then there is no way for the laymen to completely fulfill their duty towards allah swt as monotheists. also, irjaa, which is somewhat the opposite of takfeer (because it tends to result in a person abstaining from the practice of takfeer (at least in theory)), is worse than a takfeer which is made for a reason other than for the sake of allah swt, i.e. someone who never makes takfeer is worse than a kharijee. irjaa simply distorts and waters down the deen to point where everyone would be considered believers, even the worst of the mushrikeen. moreover, in the times we live in, takfeer, though its a big taboo and no-no, is among the least of this ummah's calamities. in fact, along with jihad, its the the duty most neglected by this ummah and reason why humiliation and oppression has been send down upon us. etc...
As for the scholars that have passed which u said u take from, do they include Ibn Baaz, Uthaymiin and Albaani (Raxiimahumullah)? And for active scholars, do you take from Shaykh Al-Ashaykh, the current Mufti of Saudi Arabia?
first of all, of the first three scholars that you've mentioned, there can't be no doubt that, when it comes to islamic knowledge, they were first-rate scholars, unlike the fraud and embarrassment that's the impostor tantawi. on their knowledge of islam and related sciences, they were truly throwbacks to the era of the classic scholars.
secondly, i do rely heavily on their work. for example, i've noticed that many of the hadheet which i rely upon have been authenticated by shaykh albani, and in the manner which i pray has also been strongly influenced by him; or when i'm trying to prove something to someone i know i tend to research, first, what the classic scholars have to say on the issue, then shaykh bin baz, then shaykh uthaymeen or shaykh albani, and then finally all other legitimate scholars, and i do this because of the authority and legitimacy which these three have acquired throughout their life time in the eyes of many laymen who're sincere about the deen.
however, i don't trust with them the parts of the deen which my emaan rests upon (like kufr-bit-taghut, wala/bara, takfeer) or when it comes to the affairs of the ummah (like the shariah, jihad, the rulers, the enemy). shaykh bin baz less so than the other two other shuyookh due to his closeness and importance of his service rendered to the criminals of house of saud.