democracy = hypocrisy

[Mowhawk]

[quote="Beenlow"]On the other hand.... F*ck this democracy and may it burn in deepest Hell. Allah (SWT) gave us laws how to govern. If anyone believes that kaafir-made laws are better than Allah's, may Allah have mercy on his soul.

Sovereignty is for Allah (SWT) alone and replacing shari’a with democratic elections is an appeal to the Sheytaan and destruction of Allah’s rule. Democracy considers all people equal, knowledgeable and the ignorant and Muslim and kaafir alike, and that is just impossible.

One Q for pro-democratic people. Is man-made law better than Allah's? And if your answer is yes, do you consider yourself a muslim?[/quote]

Beenlow

Democracy and Sharia Laws are two seperate issues, and Sharia Laws vary from land to land (Malaysia, Saudi, Sudan and etc), why? Both Saudi Arabia and Iran claim to practice their own versions of Sharia Laws, but one is democractically elected and the other despotic. We all know the Saudis do not practice what they preach, while Iran doesn't lick up to Washington and Teleaviv's ass. Only 10% of the Qur'an is legislative and the rest of the Sharia Law sources comes from the SunnaH (based on the views of scholars revising), and the consensus of Ullemma. Say for example if we want to adopt Sharia-Laws in Somalia, will the scholars of various different schools of thought given their cosensus weight and have an input to the establishment of Sharia Law, or a few brainwashed Talibans (like Afghanistan) by the Saudis will impose their thoughts on Sharia Laws and on everyone?

[Beenlow]

Mow, there's really just one Islam and one Shari'ah. There are Qur'an and authentic Ahadeeth and muslims should cling on them. I really believe that the right path is easy to see, when 99% of these sects go clearly against Qur'an and Sunnah. And when we talk about Shari'a law, we talk about the whole package, not just a part of it. No one needs a "modern muslim" to whine how barbaric hand-cutting is. Shari'a should be taken straight from the Diin of Islam by Culema who are on the right path, no room for other people.

[optimist_1]

Beenta ma ahan

[Mowhawk]

[quote="Beenlow"]Mow, there's really just one Islam and one Shari'ah. There are Qur'an and authentic Ahadeeth and muslims should cling on them. I really believe that the right path is easy to see, when 99% of these sects go clearly against Qur'an and Sunnah. And when we talk about Shari'a law, we talk about the whole package, not just a part of it. No one needs a "modern muslim" to whine how barbaric hand-cutting is. Shari'a should be taken straight from the Diin of Islam by Culema who are on the right path, no room for other people.[/quote]

Beenlow (war magaca iska beddel )

Bro, I once heard a Hadith by our Prophet pbuh:

”Difference of opinion in my Community is a mercy for people”

Let me express to you sincerely that my comments are not intended to offend, so please don’t take them offensively. We have to love all our brothers and sisters, who love Allah and His messenger, and are working sincerely for this Diin, no matter which orientation they take. We must always remember that Allah has never given anyone special powers to be able to decide who is Muslim and who is not. Let us refrain from defamations and accusations and exchange opinions. Also, I do believe that the Salafis have every right to positively criticize the four schools of Sunnis and other Muslims.

Although you skipped to address the points that I raised, I hope that wasn't a public relations exercise just to appeal to the masses here by expecting a cheap emotional reaction, because of your absurd claims that 99% of Sunni Muslims follow other than authentic Hadiths and the Qur’an. Bro, unfortunately your accusation and explanations are a bit vague, because all (Sunnis) follow the Qur'an and authentic Hadith, and you are suggesting otherwise.

Let me ask you this, did the Hadith collectors follow a Sunni Mad-hab, and did Imam Bukhari ra, for example, follow the Shafi' Madhab? Most of us are not scholars capable of legal and accepted (by legal standards) interpretation. Islamic Law also derives from scholars such as, the Sheikhs you follow (madhab) whom deduce judgments from the Primary Sources of Islamic Jurisprudence Qur’an and the secondary sources authentic Ahadiths, just like any other Sunnis who follow the different Sunni schools. If I’m correct you do follow the teachings of Sheekh Bin Baz (rahimu-Allah). So, when you “talk about the whole package” about Sharia-Laws, does this article below include? See the link below:

http://www.arabnews.com/services/print/ ... ardianship

Islamic Fiqh (opinions of scholars like the above one) is not the same all over, because there are different interpretations, and obviously I hope that you don’t think that the above interpretation is divine, and we know that people make mistakes, I’m not doubting that, but how about if the 99% of Sunnis see this interpretation to be “barbaric” and not acceptable to them? Does that mean they are not “on the right path”? Don’t you think in Saudi Arabia, you have a country full of people debating that kind of cruel and trivial issues, in comparison to the lack of practice in the bigger and more fundamental issues? If that is part of the Islamic Law that you propose to be "by Culema who are on the right path", then how do you verify the validity of the consensus they offer on the issue above?

We all know that the concept of a constitution for an Islamic state is old for the Muslim world. Old because the concept of a contract between the people and the gov’t wherein certain legal principles are adopted during that particular administration and certain legal limitations are recognized to be originated from our Prophet's pact with the people of Madinah. That is the only constitution that our prophet left for us (see the link below), and that is why Islam’s political theory relies heavily on the ideas of a social contract and a constitution. It is amazing to see how our prophet’s interpretation of the Qur'an and the Maqasid al-Shariah was so democratic, so tolerant and compassionate, while the Saudi (the old Saudi lady example above) interpretation of the same deducement is so harsh, so authoritarian and so intolerant. We must learn from our prophet not only the principles of faith, but also human virtues of mercy, compassion, equality, justice and tolerance. The constitution of Medina is an excellent manifestation of our Prophet's virtuous personality.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/macharter.htm

“No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.”

(from the above point, what will “modern Muslims” think of the Prophet’s constitution, in this day and age? Different political realites today!!!)

“When you differ on anything (regarding this Document) the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).”

(this reminds me of the old saying of scholars because it is quite poignant here: "I am right with the possibility of being wrong, and they are wrong with the possibility of being right."

Allah knows best.

[The Law26]

Mohawk

Nice post mate, and although I agree with the wahabis aka salafis that Ijtihad is urgently required in-order that we get out this mess, but as far as I am concerned, the philosophy of Ibn Baz and co is flawed and “not a true path”.

Beenaale [quote]

{there's really just one Islam and one Shari'ah. There are Qur'an and authentic Ahadeeth and muslims should cling on them. I really believe that the right path is easy to see, when 99% of these sects go clearly against Qur'an and Sunnah. And when we talk about Shari'a law, we talk about the whole package, not just a part of it. No one needs a "modern muslim" to whine how barbaric hand-cutting is. Shari'a should be taken straight from the Diin of Islam by Culema who are on the right path, no room for other people.}

You fit perfectly your nick and don’t listen to Mohawk and change it. Indeed if you really believe the crap that you wrote, you are a Liar with a capital L.

Mohawk has presented a flaw of the myth that wahabism aka salafi is solely based on Hadith and Qur’an, let me add a bit more and spin your head to the right direction, so you may able to see the facts for yourself, that wahabism is not based on “one Islam and Quraan” derived solely from Quraan sources and authentic Hadith. First Read this article:

“Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers. In a rare criticism of the kingdom's powerful "mutaween" police, the Saudi media has accused them of hindering attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire on Monday.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 874471.stm

Is this Law derived only from the Quraan and Authentic Hadiths? While those poor victims (Muslim girls) perished because they were refused assistances, and desperately attempted to rescue their lives, every given week, there are 10's of thousands of saudi males who come to Thailand for sex tourism, and openly flaunt fornication and indecency in public with their lady-boys/tranvestites and hookers. Is that the sort of the“right path” you were sold to?

This is a factual quote of Bin Baz’s fatwa, and below I have given you the source and page number (check it for yourself).

"If the earth is rotating as they claim, the countries, the mountains, the trees, the rivers, and the oceans will have no bottom and the people will see the eastern countries move to the west and the western countries move to the east, whoever claims"

Source

Title of the Book: "Evidence that the Earth is Standing Still."
Author: Sheikh Abdul Aziz Ben Baz.
Editor: Islamic University of Medina.
Year: 1395 AH [1974 CE]
City: Medina, Saudi Arabia.
Page: 23.

If we deduce this fatwa, it means to believe that the earth rotates is a sin, deserving punishment. Do you believe that crap is based on Islamic teachings and is accurate? It is scientifically flawed, and not a single learned Muslim that I know believes in that crap, and that is according to the Quraan, but for the hypnotized people, they believe their rote learned literature to be “the right path”. That is why not long ago, the Wahabi school curriculum forbade the study of Geography, English, Philosophy, and Art because it compliments the Fatwa of Bin Baz who stated that the planet Earth does not rotate. I have been told by a Saudi colleague that when he was a young guy, his wahabi sheikh warned them not to learn and speak English. He said, that after wetting his lips the Sheikh swallowed his saliva, and screamed and made the sound 'blease' ['please'], which is derived from iblis [Satan], and told them that it is the language of the infidels, and the devil. Does that sound to you “the right path”.

Bin Baz and his followers, always passed judgment on others who disagreed with his quasi madhab and called them a kafir or heretic. At least the four Sunni Imams (Abu Hanifa, Shafi, Malik, Hambal) disagreed on things like (saying amen loud, rafadayn etc), if they lived today, wahabi literature wouldn’t have only accused them to be wrong, but would have labelled them the same like the “99% of these sects" who in your own words who "go clearly against Qur'an and Sunnah”. Is that what you call the “true path”?

Bin Baz passed Fatwas in the 60’s (check it for yourself) against Gemal Abdinasir on behalf of the Al-Saud House and the Americans, accusing him of letting infidels into Egypt (few 100's Russians civilians for the re-construction of Suez Canal). Well, surprise, suprise, his hypocorism was exposed when he issued a fatwa supporting the US forces coming to Saudi during the 1st gulf war, and their presence till today. Is that what you call the “true path”?

The only people Bin Baz defended were the corrupt and treacherous al Saud family. His job was to give them religious credibility and defend them. Well, he showed no respect even to Saudi muslims who rightfully questioned the al-Saud house, and once again puppet Bin Baz justified their incarceration and mistreatment by the authorities. Did he show them respect according to the Quraan and authentic Hadith? He issued fatwas saying these people deserved punishments by the corrupt regime. Respect should be earned not granted. Look at the oppressive way that he and the other wahabis ruled Saudi Arabia in coalition with the corrupt al-Saud family. Is that what you call “the true path”?

He had an oppressive and backward way of looking at women issues, and condoned massive oppression against them (see those poor girls whose blood is in their hands). Let me remind you that during our Prophet’s time pbuh, women rode camels, and took part of Muslim wars, while he prohibited woman from working, forbade them to drive cars, and banned democracy on behalf of the Al-Saud dynasty (Hamas and Muslim brotherhood in Egypt disagree with him). I know what you, Beards and co like about him. His philosophy attributes huge importance to the [outward] forms of Islam, growing a beard, ankle-length garments for men, and the requirement to use toothpicks instead of the “satanic” toothbrush. Sheikh bin 'Athimein, prohibited praying behind a smoker, praying behind a clean-shaven man, and wearing European clothing because it is polytheists' clothing. Is that what you call a “true path and Islamic Law”

That is not a “true path”, it is a philosophy incapable of establishing a “modern state” and incapable of spreading the values of tolerance that Islam has set out. On the contrary, it only leads, as we have seen, to the birth of extremist, ignorance, illiteracy, closed mind, fanatical streams, and backwardness that accuse others of heresy, with the mindset of abolish and destroy them. In your hypnotized state of mind call me a modern Muslim or a kaafir, but the truth is that Bin Baz’s way is not the “true path”, and keep the Saudi Shari Laws to yourself. Beenaale, just like your nick, keep spreading the lies you been told, but as an advice, read the remaining 99% of the Sunni literature and maybe that will open up your closed hypnotized mind. Like Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt), I opt for democracy.

[Google [Bot2]]

Mowhawk, you claim that “all (Sunnis) follow the Qur'an and authentic Hadith” I beg to differ with you and I don’t mean to be rude here but you start off your post with a well known weak hadith which is “baseless” in hadith terminology. This hadith has no chain of narration and the scholars of hadith are in agreement that this narration is beyond weak and is mawdoo (fabricated). It is also not true that imam Bukhari followed the shafi madhab (not that there is anything wrong with following that madhab), rather he was a mujtahid and imam of ahlu sunnah. You hear all sorts of claims that he was a shafi or hanbali, if you were forced to peg him into a school than he would be closer to hanbalism because he actually benefited from studying with imam Ahmed bin Hanbel.

[Beenlow]

Mow, bro I never said that Saudia was perfect country, far from it. There's not one perfect human in this world so how could a country be perfect. There are so many shortcomings, but still I believe it is most Islamic led country in the world today if you look at the big picture, not only details. Of course there is still lot of work to be done, but the course looks good. May Allah show muslim rulers the right path so it would effect all muslims. Aamiin.

When I talked about 99% are on a wrong path, I only meant people from different sects, not people who follow for example shaafici-madhab, hanbali madhab etc. 'Ulema should consist of most learned sunni scholars and they should use Fiqh only based on clear evidence and look examples from Khilafaat ruled by Muhammad (scws), Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, Ali and Umar ibn AbdulAziiz. But they can't never prefer any man-made law if there's clear rule from Sunnah or Qur'an.
When I first read your writing I wrongly thought that you didn't mean only ahl us-Sunnah, I thought you meant all muslims including all sects and "modern muslims" who say Hadd-punishment is barbaric or promote gay-rights etc.

The Law26, when did I say that saudians are on the right path or they are the best people? They are like you and me and that khamriste sleeping in the park. I've only said that they are among the few ones who prefer Islamic rules over kuffar rules and they have most Islamic laws in the world today in my opinion. That doesn't mean they are perfect or they have no faults. They have lots of. And I'm talking about the constitution and law of the country, not about homos, or those pedophiles in Thailand. I don't think that saudis are better humans than rest of us, so no need to tell me about something that some saudi-people do.
After that I need to tell you that kuffar-propaganda really messed up your head. Don't believe everything Fox news and George W. Bush tell you. I won't say bad word about Ibn Baaz (raxmahullah) because he is dead, Allah will judge him not me. Nobody is perfect but scholars still get ajar if they are wrong as was said by our Prophet (scws). And half of those things you said are made up.
"prohibited praying behind a smoker, praying behind a clean-shaven man, and wearing European clothing because it is polytheists' clothing. Is that what you call a “true path and Islamic Law"
Actually yes. 'Umar ibn al-Khattab was one of the best and knowledgeable man from muslim ummah and he forbade muslims wearing foreign clothes and sahaba didn't accept testimony from someone who shaved his beard. These are not just some fataawaa made up from imagination. Muslims should take example from sahaba because they were the best generation from muslims and they lived with the Prophet (scws) and understood religion.
Oh, about the earth, fatwa from Ibn Baaz
http://www.fatwa-online.com/fataawa/mis ... 040819.htm

[Mowhawk]

J.B

Just came back from the mosque and it is regrettable that this board became a venue for an Islamic scholar bashing exercises. Yesterday it was the marxuum Sheikh Zaki Badawi, and today it is Sheikh Bin Baz (Illaah ha u wada naxariisto) by Muslims who should have known better. Anyway that is their own prerogative and personal responsibility. I appreciate your Good Will and sincerity, because we are in a board that indicates many of us are struggling to cure ourselves of excessive pride and arrogance.

Back to he topic. Bro, I know it is a weak hadith, and I heard salafi brothers constructively criticize “other” Sunnis (the Four Mad-habs) in arguing that they lent on weak ahadith to build the foundational arguments, However, I remembered this particular hadith, because I attended a debate where two sheikhs from differing perspectives eloquently debated this hadith. You are right that it is a weak hadith. One took your line and raised an interesting question, “if it is a weak isnad, then why use it? The other Shiekh’s argument was based if it doesn't contradict the Koran, then why not? However, he admitted that you can't use a da'if hadith in matter of sacred law or aqeedah unless other evidence can buttress it; they both agreed that a hadith classified as da'if doesn't mean that it isn't true. It simply means that it fails certain criteria the muhadiths have instituted to classify a hadith as Sahih, Hasan or Dai'f. As such you can't use a da'if hadith in matter of sacred law or aqeedah. In most cases weak hadiths are used to illustrate a point, and not to issue an edict. Furthermore a weak hadith doesn't mean that it is false, spurious or a lie. There's another term for a fabricated hadith. Weak hadiths aren't fabrications.

You can have a weak hadith by virtue of an unknown reciter in a chain of known reciters. That is why can have a weak hadith in someone mentioning that so and so relates on the authority of so and so but it is known that so and so never met this individual. What they agreed was the most important thing is the sentiment in the hadith that may be of benefit and value for all Muslims, and that is why I used as an example to illustrate of the great beauty in our differences. But you can't legislate off of it. In my humble opinion I came to the conclusion that weak hadiths don't equal falsehood, but you just can't base hukm on them. That's one of the times when you can use a weak hadith. Let me add the adoption of this hadith by Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali, "The difference in opinion in the Community is a mercy, and their agreement is a proof." I’m not so sure if you think the differences are a negative thing, then the focus swings to our difference than the basic fundamental similarities that we all Muslims share, if it is not a too much of an ask, I would like to hear from you, on both issues. The affirmative or the negative conclusion of your response of the issue will not alter the zest of the major point of discussion here.

Before we get discussing the major issue of this discussion of who practices Sharia Laws based on the Quraan and authentic hadiths, can you please share with us your views of the sources of Islamic Law? Then we can take our discussion from there. On the Issue of Imam Bukhari and his affiliation with the Shafi Madhab, I also heard quiet different stories (it shows how well respected he was among Sunnis), but to be quiet honest with you, I was convinced by a Malaysian Shafi scholar who “penned” the Imaam to the Shafi Madhab, and Insha-Allah, I will get back to you with his arguments in detail.

Beenlow

Bro, you are right, we are all fallible humans and no one is perfect whether individuals, communities or countries. I’m pleased that we put to rest our misunderstandings.

Allah knows best.

[The Law26]

Beenaale

“The Law26, when did I say that saudians are on the right path or they are the best people? They are like you and me and that khamriste sleeping in the park. I've only said that they are among the few ones who prefer Islamic rules over kuffar rules and they have most Islamic laws in the world today in my opinion.”

I will say this once and listen carefully. If you want to implement Islam, you either do it fully or abandon it, otherwise there are no one-third measures, that has no resemblance to Islam. What they practice looks to me and many people as Voodoo Laws, (Hudud or Criminal Law is just a fraction of the comprehensive Islamic laws, and even those laws the way the Saudis practice, have very little to do with Islam).

“That doesn't mean they are perfect or they have no faults. They have lots of. And I'm talking about the constitution and law of the country, not about homos, or those pedophiles in Thailand. I don't think that Saudis are better humans than rest of us, so no need to tell me about something that some Saudi-people do. After that I need to tell you that kuffar-propaganda really messed up your head. Don't believe everything Fox news and George W. Bush tell you. I won't say bad word about Ibn Baaz (raxmahullah) because he is dead, Allah will judge him not me. Nobody is perfect but scholars still get ajar if they are wrong as was said by our Prophet (scws). And half of those things you said are made up.”

Again listen carefully. I gave you most of my sources and check it for yourself. Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of neo-salafism, otherwise known as wahabi. The salafis claim that they are the saved sect and practice only Qur'an and Hadith, and Bin Baz was their spiritual leader and now through his fatwas and works, more of like the pope is to Catholics. His writings, opinions, interpretations and fatwas are highly observed and acted upon by most salafis. The Saudi’s bankrolled and spread that philosophy all corners of the world, probably including your own masjid and Imaam (if they call themselves salafis). They won’t call themselves Muslim Sunnis, but use and successfully deceive simple-minded souls like you and others, and call themselves salafi or Ahlu Sunnah. If Salafism is “pure Islam”, then why is Saudi Arabia's (the only model in action in the world) salafism aka wahabis is corrupted to the core and bankrupted? Why do we have to believe that it is a cure for all and all Muslim countries should adopt that model? Becareful of the word salafi=wahabi.

"prohibited praying behind a smoker, praying behind a clean-shaven man, and wearing European clothing because it is polytheists' clothing. Is that what you call a “true path and Islamic Law" Actually yes. 'Umar ibn al-Khattab was one of the best and knowledgeable man from muslim ummah and he forbade muslims wearing foreign clothes and sahaba didn't accept testimony from someone who shaved his beard. These are not just some fataawaa made up from imagination. Muslims should take example from sahaba because they were the best generation from muslims and they lived with the Prophet (scws) and understood religion.

In regards to the above comment, you are talking from your ass. It is not even worthy of my comment, it is just a fart.

Oh, about the earth, fatwa from
Ibn Baaz http://www.fatwa-online.com/fataawa/mis ... htmLastly,

listen carefully again. The salafis aka wahabis regard Bin Baz as their spiritual leader, and to them, he was viewed as their supreme scholar. He wrote many incorrect fatwas on many issues, and in particular science and technology. The one you posted was about the flat earth, but the one I posted related to the rotation of the earth. It is in that book I gave you above. If you read, it gets funnier because he sounds like the Bushmen in that movie “God’s must be crazy.” When you have powerful people like that who are spreading lies from Timbuktu to Toronto, and are only trained within the limits of their traditional cultural wahabi Islam, that finds science and technology very hard to grasp and challenging, then what sort of society, or minds will the salafi philosophy produce?. He even issued a fatwa against the introduction of radio in Saudi Arabia. (Read the history of Radio in Saudi Arabia). That is why their overseas followers are mostly former prisoners, disaffected youth like you, and losers like Richard, the shoe bomber. That is why I prefer democracy to a rotten wahabi philosophy.

Mohawk

Don’t expect me to be passive like you around those parrots. It is “al-casaa Mark-3”, those guys won’t get your point without the whip. They have been hypnotized, and my method is only to awaken them to reality. Let them get off the high horse of "we are the only saved sect".

Good question to J.B.

[Nimble]

Democracy will bring Islam into power in the Muslim world. Let's embrace it. Western style democracy (with Conservatives, Workers, Lberal parties etc) is good only for westerners who have different societal hierarchies than the rest of the developing world. Islamic party and Secular Party will be the only platforms in other societies, who haven't gone the route: feudalism, Robbery of world resources, Industrialisation, Capitalism and lastly robbery of world resources.

[Google [Bot2]]

Mowhawk thanks for the reply Bro. It is true that some scholars are of the view that it is permissible to use weak hadith (not mawdoo hadith ) in some instances to encourage good deeds. However they have laid out a number of conditions prior to using weak ahadith; this is a complicated and long issue but breifly; among the conditions are 1) its weakness cannot be great 2) it cannot set a precedent (meaning it shouldn’t be establishing new ibaadah/rituals) 3) it cannot contradict the Quran and other stronger ahadith. Many of the old scholars who permitted using da’eef ahadith used the word da'eef to mean Hassan. Prior to imam Trimidhi (Rahimul Allah) there were only two types of ahadith, sahih and da’eef. So when imam Ahmed (Rahimul Allah) says its okey to use some da’eef ahadiths, he is in fact referring to what later scholars classify as Hassan. Not to mention there are many scholars who reject the use of da’eef hadith all together. Let us push this topic off to one side cuz it is not relevant in this instance because the hadith you quoted goes against logic, Sunnah and the Quran so how are we to accept it? If ikhitlaf (differing) is Rahman (mercy) than unity by logic must be Adaab (punishment). The Prophet (SAW) said "…Do not differ, indeed the nations before you differed and perished (due of their differences)” Bukhari And if we read the Quran you will note that Allah (SWT) always talks ill about ikhtilaf (Differing) and that the Quran was sent as a mercy to unite people and eliminate ikhtilah.

“Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differed. And only those unto whom (the Scripture) was given differed concerning it, after clear proofs had come unto them, through hatred one of another. And Allah by His Will guided those who believe unto the truth of that concerning which they differed. Allah guideth whom He will unto a straight path.” (2:113)

Law26 Sheikh Bin Baz (Rahimul Allah) has what he earned and if you keep up with your slander he will have what you earned. Do you not have anything better to offer besides talking ill about deceased scholars. It’s fine that you don’t agree sheikh Bin Baz (Rahimul Allah) but please for your own good, employ better etiquettes. Sheikh Bin Baz (Rahimul Allah) never said anyone who believes that the earth is rotating is “committing a sin” or “deserves punishment”. Where did you get this from “If we deduce this fatwa, it means to believe that the earth rotates is a sin, deserving punishment.” ? Did you read his fatwa or were you regurgitating BS of the web? If you read his fatawas sheikh bin Baaz (Rahimul Allah) affirms that the earth is round, that the sun rotates and travels a fixed course however he PERSONALLY doesn’t affirm that the earth rotates. And he clearly states that there is no sin in affirming or denying the earths rotation. The sheikh goes on to say that we shouldn’t affirm a matter which we are not capable of affirming. You have clearly lied about the sheikhs stance by tagging on your own biased propaganda. Unlike you sheikh Bin Baaz (Rahimul Allah) is in need of Allahs mercy so continue with your slander.

[The Law26]

J.B

You seem to be more of a sane wahabi (salafi) than the sheep who frequent here and reguirgitate what their sheikh or Imam told them about sunni Muslims without further investigation, or a clear understanding of the issue at hand. They insult any Muslim scholar who doesn’t believe their wahabi bird-view of Islam. Marxuum Zaki Badawi was their latest victim. Their attacks on 90% of Muslims (non-salafis) are similar to the kind of attacks of atheists on Islam. I hope that you remind those lost sheep, “If you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones at others”. What I stated above about puppet Bin Baz is on the public records based on his own writings, and please don’t make me throw up with your lame attempts of spinning him. Either refute what I wrote with sources or be a blind follower to him. He reminds me of Jim Jones, or the Japanese Asihari guy, what a cult personality!! I studied as an adherent, and was forced to memorize all his fatwas during my lost days with the Wahabi sect. I know very well their mindset. What is to come will be more devastating, if those little Saudi slaves whom call themselves “Salafi” don’t cease their attacks on other Sunni Muslim scholars. I was just trying to prove to them, that they are not the saved sect, but are following or endorsing a Najd (Riyadh province) cultural Islam led by the above charismatic leader.

By the way, you didn’t answer Mohawk’s question in relation to your (salafi aka wahbi) sources of Sharia Laws. Is it a time-bomb? I would have liked those illiterate wahabi (salafi) Somali followers here who falsely being led to believe that the notion of a salafi “Islamic state” is ONLY BASED on the Quraan and hadith, to understand that is not the case. Let us de-mystify that myth.