Muslims ONLY: Types of Kufr

[AbuKhalid]

i've already said it for a few times that i do not come with personal ideas on verses or hadiths.

Then where does your understanding of them come from if they are not just your personal opinion? What Tasfeer do you actually refer to if you dont know Ibn Kathirs and what scholars of hadith do you go to, as we can't make judgements on the hadith ourselves.

If you are using sources then please link to them as not to do so implies that what you say is simply your opinion.

but that is not the case here, AbuKhalid. i am willing to follow footsteps of Mohammad (PBUH) hopefully. if scholars go against it, then i would not join them.

But on these issues its only your opinion that there opinion is wrong. Sometimes you have said this on issues on which the entire Ulamma are agreed upon such as the authenticity of Bukhari.

Secondly you can disagree with a scholar but you still have to respect them. The Scholars are the heirs to the Prophet and simply by holding that position they deserve or respect, even if we disagree with them.

OK maybe i was not clear enough. i was referring to your idea of forcing Sharia on people. even Mohammad (PBUH) did not do it.

Well we just have to disagree on this. I have said enough about it on this thread so there is no point going over it again. We will have to just agree to differ on this issue for now and pray that we will come to some form of better understanding in future.

 

[AbuKhalid]

As salaamu alaikum AbuKhalid,

I'm having a very difficult time trying to understand your points on the thread and I don't want to put words in your mouth so, in an effort for better clarification, I would like to ask you a few questions to grasp your understanding. My first question would be, do you believe that muslims are to start a war with a nation that doesn't apply the teachings of islam even when the nation is peaceful and just to both muslims and non-muslims?

Muslims cant just go to war. First there must by a Caliphate for offensive Jihad. Secondly it will depend on the particular circumstances of the nation. However to launch an offensive Jihad would be legitimate under the Sharia, though not possibly necessary or advisable. Again it depends on the conditions. I quotes a link to a fatwa on the issue a few pages back which explains it quite well.

 

[.lava]

Then where does your understanding of them come from if they are not just your personal opinion? What Tasfeer do you actually refer to if you dont know Ibn Kathirs and what scholars of hadith do you go to, as we can't make judgements on the hadith ourselves.

If you are using sources then please link to them as not to do so implies that what you say is simply your opinion.

here you can find many conversations, videos of my teacher;

www.mihr.com

But on these issues its only your opinion that there opinion is wrong. Sometimes you have said this on issues on which the entire Ulamma are agreed upon such as the authenticity of Bukhari.

my dear friend, i do respect Bukhari but there are hundreds of hadiths in them. every book has changed by men. people even did not mind to change word of Allah. the only book as a source for Islam that has no flaws AT ALL, is Qur'an. i am not saying Bukhari is all wrong. it can not be. Bible is not all wrong either but it has changed. same with any book on religion except for Qur'an. therefor we need to care for what Qur'an says first.

Secondly you can disagree with a scholar but you still have to respect them. The Scholars are the heirs to the Prophet and simply by holding that position they deserve or respect, even if we disagree with them.

everybody deserves respect. would you tell me where and how i disrespect scholars? how should i show respect?

Well we just have to disagree on this. I have said enough about it on this thread so there is no point going over it again. We will have to just agree to differ on this issue for now and pray that we will come to some form of better understanding in future.

yes, we disagree.

.

 

[AbuKhalid]

here you can find many conversations, videos of my teacher;

www.mihr.com

Ok i promise to give it a look some time soon

my dear friend, i do respect Bukhari but there are hundreds of hadiths in them. every book has changed by men. people even did not mind to change word of Allah. the only book as a source for Islam that has no flaws AT ALL, is Qur'an. i am not saying Bukhari is all wrong. it can not be. Bible is not all wrong either but it has changed. same with any book on religion except for Qur'an. therefor we need to care for what Qur'an says first.

Bukhari is classified as Sahih. I am not comparing it to the Quran but if you seek to criticise a hadith then you must do it through the methods of Usool ul Hadith. None of the Scholars thinks that even a single hadith in Bukhari contradicts the Quran and in fact other than the rafidah you are the only Muslim I have ever come across who has doubted it. You should ask your teacher on the issue.

everybody deserves respect. would you tell me where and how i disrespect scholars? how should i show respect?

You shouldnt say things such as " i hope those men who you call Ulama begin to realize becoming Islam starts from within hearts"or claim that they might be munafiqeen. You should give them the benefit of the doubt. They make mistakes as do we all but unless shown otherwise then we judge these as honest mistakes. We also can't just dismiss what they say without proofs and should respect their deep knowledge, especially because they are the inheritors of the Prophets.

 

[Fatihah]

Muslims cant just go to war. First there must by a Caliphate for offensive Jihad. Secondly it will depend on the particular circumstances of the nation. However to launch an offensive Jihad would be legitimate under the Sharia, though not possibly necessary or advisable. Again it depends on the conditions. I quotes a link to a fatwa on the issue a few pages back which explains it quite well.

Response: Agreed. And in the post I have given you a particular circumstance and I would like to hear your answer in the matter. Again the situation is:
"do you believe that muslims are to start a war with a nation that doesn't apply the teachings of islam even when the nation is peaceful and just to both muslims and non-muslims"?. I'll give an example. The nation is fair and just to all people but they do not implement islamic teachings. They allow alcohol and and the celebration of non-islamic holidays like christmas and halloween as holidays. That's it. These are the circumstances. So is it allowed under islam for a muslim Caliphate to start a war with them? Yes or no? And why?

 

[AbuKhalid]

Yes it is allowed. The reasons is that Allah said:

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
[9:29]

Now this verse is fundamental to understanding offensive Jihad. I have brought it up several times on this thread and I also have gave the explanation from Tafseer Ibn Kathir. Those who say there is no offensive Jihad really need to then explain what they think this ayat means.

Now it clearly says to fight the disbelievers (who it labels as 4 kinds) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel subdued.

Now them paying the Jizyah with submission and feeling subdued means Islamic Law will be imposed. There is no other explanation for this.

So obviously the verse says to fight them until they are under Islamic Law.

Also we must note that this verse doesn't say fight them if they do such and such or such and such. It just says fight them until the end is achieved and that end is Islamic Law.

Now we also know that this Ayat was revealed in the 9th year of hijrah and was one of the latter ayats revealed, abrogating previous verses which say something other than this (such as only attack them after you have been attacked).

Now saying it is allowed does not mean it should happen. But its certainly legitimate.

Do you agree with this and if not how do you read the above and on what do you differ?

 

[Breathe]

Abu Khalid, how would you say this is to be enacted? When can a Muslim attack another nation because they disbelieve? Do they have to do something first and be at war with them, or can the nations who do not wish to fight with them, but wish for peace, also be subject to attack?

And do you take the "fight" to mean physical fighting, combatant warfare, or something else which could be wholly more spiritual than when taken literally?

 

[AbuKhalid]

Abu Khalid, how would you say this is to be enacted? When can a Muslim attack another nation because they disbelieve? Do they have to do something first and be at war with them, or can the nations who do not wish to fight with them, but wish for peace, also be subject to attack?

And do you take the "fight" to mean physical fighting, combatant warfare, or something else which could be wholly more spiritual than when taken literally?

Yes here I am talking about physical fighting. But again remember I am only arguing that it is legitimate to do so under Islamic Law, not that it would be the best thing to do at any given time. That would be a decision for the Caliph and his advisor's.

What would happen would be the same as what always happened. An emissary would be sent to the other nation and he would give them 3 choices

1)Islam (they convert)
2)Jizyah (They live under Islamic rule)
3)The sword

They would be given 3 days to decide. As far as I am aware war cannot be launched without giving these 3 options.

 

[Breathe]

Who would one pay the jizya to? And how would a nation, for example, of people who believe in X live under Islamic rule when there are little to no Muslims in the population?

 

[AbuKhalid]

Who would one pay the jizya to? And how would a nation, for example, of people who believe in X live under Islamic rule when there are little to no Muslims in the population?

Jizyah is a tax paid by non Muslims to the Islamic state. This isnt all one way however as they don't pay zakat which the Muslims must do and also the are excluded from conscription to the army.

The rule would be under the Caliph. This could not possibly happen in the absence of one.

 

[Fatihah]

Yes it is allowed. The reasons is that Allah said:

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
[9:29]

Now this verse is fundamental to understanding offensive Jihad. I have brought it up several times on this thread and I also have gave the explanation from Tafseer Ibn Kathir. Those who say there is no offensive Jihad really need to then explain what they think this ayat means.

Now it clearly says to fight the disbelievers (who it labels as 4 kinds) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel subdued.

Now them paying the Jizyah with submission and feeling subdued means Islamic Law will be imposed. There is no other explanation for this.

So obviously the verse says to fight them until they are under Islamic Law.

Also we must note that this verse doesn't say fight them if they do such and such or such and such. It just says fight them until the end is achieved and that end is Islamic Law.

Now we also know that this Ayat was revealed in the 9th year of hijrah and was one of the latter ayats revealed, abrogating previous verses which say something other than this (such as only attack them after you have been attacked).

Now saying it is allowed does not mean it should happen. But its certainly legitimate.

Do you agree with this and if not how do you read the above and on what do you differ?

Response: For one, it could not possibly mean to start a fight with them because verse 2:256 of the qur'an clearly says that there is no compulsion in islam. We also find in ch.9:4, "Except those of the disbelievers with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you".

From these two verses, it is clear that if the non-believers ask for peace, then no compulsion is to be used and war is to cease. By starting a war with a nation simply because they do not follow islam is compulsion because they are being forced to obey against their will.

As for the hadith in question, if this is the evidence to start a war with those who wish for peace and are not being injust, than you are saying the qur'an has a contridiction because this is compulsion. The ayat as well as the hadith is in reference to those who broke the treaty with the muslims. If you read the full context of the hadith, you will see that the order of Abu Bakr was to those non-muslims who broke the treay by not paying the jizyah. So to those who broke the treaty, he waged war. He did not go about starting wars with every non-muslim nation who did not pay jizyah or were not apply islam in their teachings, the order was specifically to those who broke the treaty.

Lastly, the word "fight" does not meant to wage war in all cases. The word. "Jihad" literally means "to stuggle or strive". When Martin Luther King used to "fight" for the rights of african americans, did he wage a war? Of course not. He strived (jihad) for their rights by speaking up and organizing marches. So the term "fight" and "jihad" does not necessarily mean war. In the US where I live, you are punished for not paying taxes like any other nation. However, the punishment isn't war.

 

[Breathe]

Jizyah is a tax paid by non Muslims to the Islamic state. This isnt all one way however as they don't pay zakat which the Muslims must do and also the are excluded from conscription to the army.

But this doesn't answer the question; how would one pay it? To whom would it go? Would it have to be transported to a Muslim nation, or would Muslim rulers begin to live in the land?

The rule would be under the Caliph. This could not possibly happen in the absence of one.

I'm pretty glad there isn't a caliph now then. If this your conception of Islam with a caliphate, being able to declare war on any innocent, albeit kuffar nation, it may be for the best.

However, I don't think your idea is very popular. (I am so glad it's not.)
What would happen if this Muslim attack was launched on a kuffar nation, who did not defend their nation due to either no army, or their lack of wish to fight? Who would be killed?

 

[AbuKhalid]

Response: For one, it could not possibly mean to start a fight with them because verse 2:256 of the qur'an clearly says that there is no compulsion in islam. We also find in ch.9:4, "Except those of the disbelievers with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you".

From these two verses, it is clear that if the non-believers ask for peace, then no compulsion is to be used and war is to cease. By starting a war with a nation simply because they do not follow islam is compulsion because they are being forced to obey against their will.

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.

So basically what you are opposing me on is that the Quran says otherwise in a different place. That doesnt deal with my verse however.

As I explained previously the verse which I have quoted came after all the ones which you quoted (9 AH to be exact) and so it abrogated these previous verses as clearly it is saying different to what they say.

Now if you dont think it abrogated these verses could you explain why and could you deal with what now seems to be a contradiction in the Quran as it says to fight them and not to fight them.

This issue of having to know when verses came is one of the reasons we cant just make uneducated judgments on the Quran and need the Ulamma.

As for the hadith in question, if this is the evidence to start a war with those who wish for peace and are not being injust, than you are saying the qur'an has a contridiction because this is compulsion. The ayat as well as the hadith is in reference to those who broke the treaty with the muslims. If you read the full context of the hadith, you will see that the order of Abu Bakr was to those non-muslims who broke the treay by not paying the jizyah. So to those who broke the treaty, he waged war. He did not go about starting wars with every non-muslim nation who did not pay jizyah or were not apply islam in their teachings, the order was specifically to those who broke the treaty.

What hadith? Sorry I have lost you. The ayat I quoted is a general rule and accepted as such by the Scholars. If you read back over the thread you will see I provided proof for this from the tasfeer of Ibn Kathir.

If you are saying the ayat is specific to a single group then please expand. Which group and why does it not state this, but rather state to fight (those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture).

Quite clearly it is refering to a much larger group than you think. Where is it said that this is refering to a specific group? And again who is this group?

Lastly, the word "fight" does not meant to wage war in all cases. The word. "Jihad" literally means "to stuggle or strive". When Martin Luther King used to "fight" for the rights of african americans, did he wage a war? Of course not. He strived (jihad) for their rights by speaking up and organizing marches. So the term "fight" and "jihad" does not necessarily mean war. In the US where I live, you are punished for not paying taxes like any other nation. However, the punishment isn't war.

But we are Muslims so we dont use the linguistic meanings of words but the Sharia meaning. Salat for example literally means supplication, but would you ever use this as an argument? No, you use the Sharia meaning. In Sharia Jihad means physical fighting unless specifically stated otherwise.

 

[AbuKhalid]

But this doesn't answer the question; how would one pay it? To whom would it go? Would it have to be transported to a Muslim nation, or would Muslim rulers begin to live in the land?

I dont know. This isnt something which is specifically laid out. It ould be to decide at the time.

I'm pretty glad there isn't a caliph now then. If this your conception of Islam with a caliphate, being able to declare war on any innocent, albeit kuffar nation, it may be for the best.

Well you are entitled to your opinion.

However, I don't think your idea is very popular. (I am so glad it's not.)

I think its the truth which is more important than it being popular. Though I think it may be much more popular than you think and an understanding which is growing.

What would happen if this Muslim attack was launched on a kuffar nation, who did not defend their nation due to either no army, or their lack of wish to fight? Who would be killed?

Again this is talking about the future and no one can tell. Sharia would forbid anyone from being killed in such a situation. A comparison to this in history would be the conquest of Makkah.

 

[Breathe]

I think its the truth which is more important than it being popular.

Everyone thinks their belief is true (but not necessarily "the only truth") though. Nobody would ever follow something they believed is not true, unless they were forced to.

If I may ask another question, why do you think that kuffar should be despised so much, though? What have they done to warrant attack, humiliation, submission and forced submission (because "convert, fight, or give money" is force)? Where did you hear such words that are at odds with every other Muslim on the site whom I've spoken to?

And, you were Christian, correct? What is your feelings regarding your mother and father and siblings? Are they still kuffar?

 

[AbuKhalid]

Everyone thinks their belief is true (but not necessarily "the only truth") though. Nobody would ever follow something they believed is not true, unless they were forced to.

Of course.

If I may ask another question, why do you think that kuffar should be despised so much, though? What have they done to warrant attack, humiliation, submission and forced submission (because "convert, fight, or give money" is force)?

They are not despised. Their kufr (disbelief) is hated. Fight is to force. To give money is the force all states use. I never suggested to convert.

Our belief is that this is Allahs earth and it is His right that it be governed by His Law.

Where did you hear such words that are at odds with every other Muslim on the site whom I've spoken to?

The Quran, the Sunnah, the scholars. I gave references for everything I say and none of this is just my own opinion.

And, you were Christian, correct? What is your feelings regarding your mother and father and siblings? Are they still kuffar?

Yes they are kuffar. My feelings are the same as always. They are my family. I just agree with their beliefs as they agree with mine.

 

[Fatihah]

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.

 

[Sahar]

Abu Khalid, how would you say this is to be enacted? When can a Muslim attack another nation because they disbelieve? Do they have to do something first and be at war with them, or can the nations who do not wish to fight with them, but wish for peace, also be subject to attack?

And do you take the "fight" to mean physical fighting, combatant warfare, or something else which could be wholly more spiritual than when taken literally?

Odion, I am afraid this is a same faith only debate only but there is a thread about this in the Islam Forum if you're interested: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam/81338-jihad-renegotiated.html

 

[Breathe]

Odion, I am afraid this is a same faith only debate only but there is a thread about this in the Islam Forum if you're interested: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam/81338-jihad-renegotiated.html

Oh, sorry, I thought one was allowed to ask questions in here. My bad.

 

[TashaN]

As for dawah, I am not going to hide some parts of Islam just so as the dawah isnt harmed which seems to be what you are suggesting. It seems some Muslims are ashamed of Islam and Islamic history.

There is nothing extreme about what I say at all. Islam is not extreme and what I say is Islam as I have shown and given evidences for.

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)

Yes it is allowed. The reasons is that Allah said:

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
[9:29]

Now this verse is fundamental to understanding offensive Jihad. I have brought it up several times on this thread and I also have gave the explanation from Tafseer Ibn Kathir. Those who say there is no offensive Jihad really need to then explain what they think this ayat means.

Now it clearly says to fight the disbelievers (who it labels as 4 kinds) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel subdued.

Now them paying the Jizyah with submission and feeling subdued means Islamic Law will be imposed. There is no other explanation for this.

So obviously the verse says to fight them until they are under Islamic Law.

Also we must note that this verse doesn't say fight them if they do such and such or such and such. It just says fight them until the end is achieved and that end is Islamic Law.

Now we also know that this Ayat was revealed in the 9th year of hijrah and was one of the latter ayats revealed, abrogating previous verses which say something other than this (such as only attack them after you have been attacked).

Now saying it is allowed does not mean it should happen. But its certainly legitimate.

Do you agree with this and if not how do you read the above and on what do you differ?

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.