SomaliNet Forums

abdalla11 wrote:

Who said i did? I just mentioned that the Islamic scholars in Somalia considered him a kaafir. There is a view in Islam that a leader who fights with the Kufaar against the Muslims has indeed apostaized.

As for the kufr duna kufr, this statement has been misinterperted. The khaariji came to ibn cabbas, asking him on his opinion of this ayaah with respect to the Ummayaads. The ummayads were indeed Muslim, but they transgessed in certain areas. You cannot compare them to the governments of today. This is what the talafis do today, the neo murjiah.

The wore entirely is a subjective term in this case. If say one leaves the less important aspects of Shariica and repeals the most important aspects, he is still considered a kaafir,

Well the khaariji that came to him didn't ask him about the ummayads, he asked him about the three verses in Maa'idah and ibn cabbaas gave the tafsiir of those ayaat, don't mistake the verses for the bani ummayah dynasty, do you see the differences? Besides the highly respected mufti Muhammed aal shaykh declares those who change the shariica completely as kafir, i am not aware of anyone changing the shariica in its entirely, except maybe for Ataturk.

They didn't ask him about the Ummayads, but that was the reason why they asked him. They were looking for an Islamic justification to declare takfiir upon the Ummayads. The 'kufr duuna kufr' is a concept that been manipulated by the Saudi salafis.

As for the mufti, please read their books or do a google search, They state that a government that removes the Shariica is completely a kaafir, while a government who mixes kufr with Islam need to be more analyzed more carefully. If the government believes the kufr laws are better than the Islamic laws, they are considered kaafirs. If they still acknowledge that the Islamic laws are superior, then they are still considered Muslims. This does not apply to people who dismantle the more important aspects of the Shariica however. Sheikh Ibn Baaz wrote about this extensively, which is interesting because he supported the sacuud regime.

Anyways, honestly, when it comes to issues like this, i tend to stay away from the Saudi Salafi establishment.

As for the mufti, please read their books or do a google search, They state that a government that removes the Shariica is completely a kaafir, while a government who mixes kufr with Islam need to be more analyzed more carefully. If the government believes the kufr laws are better than the Islamic laws, they are considered kaafirs. If they still acknowledge that the Islamic laws are superior, then they are still considered Muslims. This does not apply to people who dismantle the more important aspects of the Shariica however. Sheikh Ibn Baaz wrote about this extensively, which is interesting because he supported the sacuud regime.

Sax that's what i meant

Sxb if you have proof against the scholars wherever they might reside, put forward, lakiin don't spread doubts about them and their reasonings.

Habeen wanaagsan

abdalla11 wrote:

As for the mufti, please read their books or do a google search, They state that a government that removes the Shariica is completely a kaafir, while a government who mixes kufr with Islam need to be more analyzed more carefully. If the government believes the kufr laws are better than the Islamic laws, they are considered kaafirs. If they still acknowledge that the Islamic laws are superior, then they are still considered Muslims. This does not apply to people who dismantle the more important aspects of the Shariica however. Sheikh Ibn Baaz wrote about this extensively, which is interesting because he supported the sacuud regime.

Sax that's what i meant

Sxb if you have proof against the scholars wherever they might reside, put forward, lakiin don't spread doubts about them and their reasonings.

Habeen wanaagsan

Yeah, but you need to realize that these reservations do not apply to most of the "Islamic" governments today. Siyaad barre for instance explicitly stated that he thought the inheritence laws were unfair and outdated, belonging to a different time. He doesn't fall under the category of leaders who believe the Shariica is superior, but act against it. Siyaad barre was a denier of the pre-eminence of Islamic law and was hence a kaafir.

As for the Sacuudi scholars, safe to say our Nabi saws warned us about scholars who are close to the leaders, particularly tryants. They give the criminal sacuudi regime legitmacy, backing their every move. Sheikh Ibn Baaz for instance signed off on a fatwa (which he later regretted and wept over) that justified the American invasion of the Hijaaz. They are at the forefront of keeping down the true callers to Dacwa down. I respect their knowledge, but as far as sincerity goes, there is a big question mark over them.

Compare these scholars to Imaams like Axmed ibn Hanbal. The differences are clear.