Muslims ONLY: Types of Kufr

[AbuKhalid]

Even scholars, when they use the same verses and same hadiths differ in their interpretations and differ on the applications of them. Are you telling me that just because you are quoting the verses and hadiths, that would make you a legitimate scholar who speaks in the name of Islam?

We should follow the learned scholars of today because they know best how to apply this deen.

No I am not TashaN and if you read through the thread I have not said anything myself but rather gave interpretation of the scholars. For this ayat I used IbN Kathirs Tafseer to explain it.

So what scholars say otherwise concerning the ayat and what do they say? What do you think it means?

 

[AbuKhalid]

Muslims are not ashamed of Islam, but only some of them are, and some others think when they become extreme, they would feel proud that they were strict in the religion, so it goes both ways. Try to think carefully of this hadith, because so many Muslims today fell under this category which Prophet Mohammed has described.

Ali said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (SallAllah-u-Alaihi-wa-Sallam) as saying: There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the Deen as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgment. [Sahih Muslim: Book 005, Number 2328]

So, this hadith proves that speaking loud and throwing verses and hadiths here and there isn't the way to deal with things. We should think before that of the way Prophet Mohammed was taking matters on a daily basis and we should ask the current trust worthy scholars for advice, and follow them. Not everyone who use Quran and Hadith is right.

Now, please read the following hadiths as well, and try to ponder them well.

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded; and gain strength by worshipping in the mornings, the nights." (See Fath-ul-Bari, Page 102, Vol 1). (Book #2, Hadith #38)

Narrated Abu Burda: The Prophet sent my father and Mu'adh bin Jabal to Yemen and said (to them), "Make things easy for the people and do not put hurdles in their way, and give them glad tiding, and don't let them have aversion (i.e. to make people to hate good deeds) and you both should work in cooperation and mutual understanding" Abu Musa said to Allah's Apostle, "In our country a special alcoholic drink called Al-Bit', is prepared (for drinking)." The Prophet said, "Every intoxicant is prohibited. " (Book #89, Hadith #284)

I agree completely with the hadith. Again, read over the thread and you will see I am not saying anything which is of my own thinking. I have given numerous ayats and other evidences and I have asked repeatedly those opposed to me what was there interpretation of them and where does this come from?

I really don't see how the ahadith are related to this issue.

 

[Fatihah]

AbuKhalid, I have yet to get an answer to this post. Perhaps you missed it. So allow me to reiterate.

[QUOTE AbuKhalid]Its not religious compulsion but thats beside the issue. Clearly you find nothing wrong with my explanation of the verse of the Quran above i.e that it is clearly stating to fight them until they are subdued and pay the Jizyah. If not could you please tell me what you do think it means.


Response: I asked you a question in post 85 to which you responded in post 86 saying that it is o.k. according to islam to start a war under the circumstances mentioned in post 85. Your answer as I explained in post 91 is compulsion and thus contridicting the qur'an.(Ch.256) If you are telling me that it isn't, then define the word "compulsion" and explain how your response in post 86 to post 85 is not compulsion.[/QUOTE]

 

[AbuKhalid]

AbuKhalid, I have yet to get an answer to this post. Perhaps you missed it. So allow me to reiterate.

[QUOTE AbuKhalid]Its not religious compulsion but thats beside the issue. Clearly you find nothing wrong with my explanation of the verse of the Quran above i.e that it is clearly stating to fight them until they are subdued and pay the Jizyah. If not could you please tell me what you do think it means.


Response: I asked you a question in post 85 to which you responded in post 86 saying that it is o.k. according to islam to start a war under the circumstances mentioned in post 85. Your answer as I explained in post 91 is compulsion and thus contridicting the qur'an.(Ch.256) If you are telling me that it isn't, then define the word "compulsion" and explain how your response to post 85 is not compulsion.

[/quote]

Sorry I did miss it. The verse in the Quran does not say that there should be no compulsion full stop, but that there should be no compulsion in religion. This ayat refers specifically to forcing people to become Muslim. Tafseer Ibn Kathir says:

(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''

It is unrelated to the expansion of the Islamic state. Even we as Muslims are compelled to pray and not to commit zina etc. So I think the ayat is quite clear.

Is this explanation ok for you akhi?

 

[Fatihah]

Sorry I did miss it. The verse in the Quran does not say that there should be no compulsion full stop, but that there should be no compulsion in religion. This ayat refers specifically to forcing people to become Muslim. Tafseer Ibn Kathir says:

(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''

It is unrelated to the expansion of the Islamic state. Even we as Muslims are compelled to pray and not to commit zina etc. So I think the ayat is quite clear.

Is this explanation ok for you akhi?[/QUOTE]

Response: I agree. You can not force someone to embrace islam. So my question to you is, what does it mean when it says that you can not use force? Give an example.

 

[AbuKhalid]

Sorry I did miss it. The verse in the Quran does not say that there should be no compulsion full stop, but that there should be no compulsion in religion. This ayat refers specifically to forcing people to become Muslim. Tafseer Ibn Kathir says:

(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''

It is unrelated to the expansion of the Islamic state. Even we as Muslims are compelled to pray and not to commit zina etc. So I think the ayat is quite clear.

Is this explanation ok for you akhi?

Response: I agree. You can not force someone to embrace islam. So my question to you is, what does it mean when it says that you can not use force? Give an example.

It means you cannot use any force whatsoever just as it says. Sword ,gun etc.

 

[Fatihah]

It means you cannot use any force whatsoever just as it says. Sword ,gun etc.

Response: And how do you use a gun or sword by force?

 

[AbuKhalid]

Response: I how is a gun or sword used by force?

I am not sure what you are asking here. Could you clarify?

 

[Fatihah]

I am not sure what you are asking here. Could you clarify?

Response:I asked, " And how do you use a gun or sword by force"? What part are you not understanding?

 

[AbuKhalid]

Response:I asked, " And how do you use a gun or sword by force"? What part are you not understanding?

Are you asking about the mechanics of it or what?

Any use of a gun or sword against a person is force. Even the threat of using it could be said to be force.

 

[Fatihah]

Any use of a gun or sword against a person is force. Even the threat of using it could be said to be force.

Response:O.K. And in what way can a person use a gun or sword in religion that would fall under compulsion? In other words, how does one use a gun or sword in religion to make someone embrace islam? Give an example.

 

[AbuKhalid]

Response:O.K. And in what way can a person use a gun or sword in religion that would fall under compulsion? In other words, how does one use a gun or sword in religion to make someone embrace islam? Give an example.

You can't, its impossible. You cannot compel someone to believe something. You might be able to compel them to say they believe it but you can't compel them to believe.

I don't really get your point here because we are both in agreement that there is no compulsion in religion.

 

[TashaN]

**MOD POST**​

Please guys, this thread is in the Same Faith Debate Forum, so only Muslims are allowed to post here. So, some posts have been deleted.​

You can start a thread somewhere else based on some of the things you saw here and would like to discuss about it in depth. ​

 

[TashaN]

No I am not TashaN and if you read through the thread I have not said anything myself but rather gave interpretation of the scholars. For this ayat I used IbN Kathirs Tafseer to explain it.

So what scholars say otherwise concerning the ayat and what do they say? What do you think it means?

I agree completely with the hadith. Again, read over the thread and you will see I am not saying anything which is of my own thinking. I have given numerous ayats and other evidences and I have asked repeatedly those opposed to me what was there interpretation of them and where does this come from?

I really don't see how the ahadith are related to this issue.

I already have said:

We should follow the learned scholars of today because they know best how to apply this deen.

The interpretation differ from a time to another, so don't snatch explainations from Tafseers without referring to a saying of the current scholars, especially when it comes to critical issues like wars, etc. Shedding blood is not as easy as you think. Allah said that, the blood of one Muslim is much more important than destroying the ka'aba itself.

When i asked you to provide evidence from current scholars, you started quoting the old scholars in the past and you are trying to apply what they have said today. This is plain wrong. Only scholars of TODAY can take these opinions of the previous scholars and put them in context to fit to our current affairs.

So, i hope from now on you would be able to provide proofs based on the sayings of the CURRENT scholars.

Thank you.

 

[AbuKhalid]

I already have said:

We should follow the learned scholars of today because they know best how to apply this deen.

The interpretation differ from a time to another, so don't snatch explainations from Tafseers without referring to a saying of the current scholars, especially when it comes to critical issues like wars, etc. Shedding blood is not as easy as you think. Allah said that, the blood of one Muslim is much more important than destroying the ka'aba itself.

When i asked you to provide evidence from current scholars, you started quoting the old scholars in the past and you are trying to apply what they have said today. This is plain wrong. Only scholars of TODAY can take these opinions of the previous scholars and put them in context to fit to our current affairs.

So, i hope from now on you would be able to provide proofs based on the sayings of the CURRENT scholars.

Thank you.

Brother I think you know perfectly well that its not an argument to say you should provide modern scholars. What we are talking about here is not a modern issue but an unchanging issue of Islam - is offensive Jihad allowed and under what circumstances?

As it is a general principle then I cannot see why you believe that current scholars would should be taken over classical scholars on this issue.

Also in relation to the previous issue in which you say I provided only older scholars, well I provided Bin Baz as an example. Certainly he is not a classical scholar.

But anyway here is a modern scholar saying exactly what I am saying: Islam Question and Answer - The difference between jihad and qitaal, and the types of jihad for the sake of Allaah

 

[TashaN]

Brother I think you know perfectly well that its not an argument to say you should provide modern scholars. What we are talking about here is not a modern issue but an unchanging issue of Islam - is offensive Jihad allowed and under what circumstances?

Who told you it's unchanging?

Did Prophet Mohammed made these classifications?

Did Prophet Mohammed say go for a full offensive jihad till the last day?

Jihad is up to the ruler. I think that's none of your or our business. Even if they didn't do offensive jihad it's their choice as rulers. They won't become kuffar for not going for offensive jihad.

And hey, what's the point now in invading countries? huh? you tell me!

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam/81105-jihad-conquest.html

Also in relation to the previous issue in which you say I provided only older scholars, well I provided Bin Baz as an example. Certainly he is not a classical scholar.

Sorry, which post?

But anyway here is a modern scholar saying exactly what I am saying: Islam Question and Answer - The difference between jihad and qitaal, and the types of jihad for the sake of Allaah

What are you trying to prove by giving me this link? what's your point?

 

[AbuKhalid]

Who told you it's unchanging?

Did Prophet Mohammed made these classifications?

Did Prophet Mohammed say go for a full offensive jihad till the last day?

Jihad is up to the ruler. I think that's none of your or our business. Even if they didn't do offensive jihad it's their choice as rulers. They won't become kuffar for not going for offensive jihad.

And hey, what's the point now in invading countries? huh? you tell me!

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam/81105-jihad-conquest.html

Its unchanging because it is a rule based on the Quran. Do you really think if offensive Jihad was legitimate in previous times based on the Quran then that principle has changed with time? The issue of whether or not offensive Jihad is allowed (not have to be done) is not something which can change.

If you read over the thread then you would see that this is exactly what I have said. Nowhere have I said that offensive Jihad should be engaged in today. Repeatedly I have said that this can only be done by an Islamic State and under a ruler. My argument is simply that it is legitimate to do so under Islamic law so I really dont get your point here.

What are you trying to prove by giving me this link? what's your point?

You asked for a modern scholar who said what I was saying.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE AbuKhalid]You can't, its impossible. You cannot compel someone to believe something. You might be able to compel them to say they believe it but you can't compel them to believe.


Response: So you are not able to give an example of how a person can use a gun or sword to force someone to embrace islam?

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

I just have to jump in and say that the concept of Jihad can be applies both offensively and defensively. However, the purpose of jihad never changes. The purpose of jihad is to protect Muslims and their lands, protect people who are under the protection of the Islamic state which includes Non-Muslims, to remove a tyrant or oppressor, or remove that type of regime/government, to remove obstacles in the way of spreading dawah. If none of these conditions exist jihad, neither offensive or defensive, will be necessary nor permissible. We are not permitted to shed blood for any illegitimate reason. Contrary to popular belief and peaceful but non-Muslim group of people, country, nation or state, are not ripe for the kill based on the fact of their disbelief. If it is possible to spread the message of dawah to them peacefully we CANNOT kill them. We cannot shed blood in the world without the necessary circumstances, period.

 

[TashaN]

I just have to jump in and say that the concept of Jihad can be applies both offensively and defensively. However, the purpose of jihad never changes. The purpose of jihad is to protect Muslims and their lands, protect people who are under the protection of the Islamic state which includes Non-Muslims, to remove a tyrant or oppressor, or remove that type of regime/government, to remove obstacles in the way of spreading dawah. If none of these conditions exist jihad, neither offensive or defensive, will be necessary nor permissible. We are not permitted to shed blood for any illegitimate reason. Contrary to popular belief and peaceful but non-Muslim group of people, country, nation or state, are not ripe for the kill based on the fact of their disbelief. If it is possible to spread the message of dawah to them peacefully we CANNOT kill them. We cannot shed blood in the world without the necessary circumstances, period.

Exactly. There is a purpose behind the things we do. If there was no purpose, then what's the point?