Paki Islamist, Ikhwani Sirajul Haq doesn't know how to preform Salah

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

So make me understand about this takfeer concept of you people. Siraj-ul-haq becomes a kafir or not by the mistakes in the video?. Is he wajib-ul-qatal? because i have seen videos of Salafi ISIS executing men for such kind of mistakes. (I know saudi regime has disowned ISIS, but school of thought remains same or ISIS is subscribed to some other ideology?)

First of all, takfeer is in the observation, not in judgement.

A judge declares a person wajibul qatal and the state carries out the punishment.

By saying, so and so is a kaafir, you are making an observation. Because definition of Imaan and Kufr are in the Qur'an and based on those definition anyone can make an observation.

For example: according to the Qur'an the Christians are kaafirs because they commit shirk by taking Jesus as a deity. They believe in trinity and therefore, their tawheed is no longer valid.

Similarly, In the Qur'an the Jews are declared kaafirs because they corrupted the Sharia of Musa and took their rabbi's as lawgivers. Allah declares them as kaafirs because their rabbi's would make laws contrary to the Sharia of Musa.

Today, when we say: Jews & Christians are kaafirs, we are not deciding, we are not judging, we are merely making an observation:
Jew = belief in Talmud = laws contrary to Sharia = Kafir.

Similarly, we know that the current parliament and constitution of Pakistan is based on British law and it mentions Islam only nominally. In reality, Pakistan's laws are based on man made laws. Which is similar to the kufr of the Jews who took their rabbi's as lawgivers beside Allah.

Therefore, any rational Muslim who knows this about Pakistan acknowledges that anyone involved in the system is by default a kaafir.

Whether all of them are waajibul qatal? That's not the concern of the individual. Because there is no Islamic state that governs all the people of Pakistan where people can be punished for apostasy.

Only a legitimate Islamic state with proper scholars can appoint judges who are capable of issuing rulings against criminals, sinners, apostates etc.

Since there is no government, the issue of waajibul qatal is totally out of order.

However, corrupt, criminal and deceiving groups and movements misguide people to justify their political interests by claiming certain people are waajibul qatal. As if individuals without any authority are allowed to carry out punishments against other individuals.

Islam is entirely based on laws and laws are there to be implemented by a legitimate government. We don't have vigilante systems and we are not allowed to become prosecutor, judge and executioner.

The problem with ISIS is that they are former secular Baathists who have adopted Al Qaeda style Islamism in order pursue their own political goals. In reality, they don't have any Islamic scholars, their understanding of religion is based on politics. They declare people as kafirs only because people won't accept their government and their political views.

ISIS applies the same reasoning as Al Qaeda: Ends justify the means. This corrupt concept was first made popularized by Ikhwanul Muslim in Egypt. Later it was imported in South Asia by Jamaatis. Today most Islamist groups in our region have some form of "ends justify the means" concept in their politics and dealings.

[Samandri]

First of all, takfeer is in the observation, not in judgement.

A judge declares a person wajibul qatal and the state carries out the punishment.

By saying, so and so is a kaafir, you are making an observation. Because definition of Imaan and Kufr are in the Qur'an and based on those definition anyone can make an observation.

For example: according to the Qur'an the Christians are kaafirs because they commit shirk by taking Jesus as a deity. They believe in trinity and therefore, their tawheed is no longer valid.

Similarly, In the Qur'an the Jews are declared kaafirs because they corrupted the Sharia of Musa and took their rabbi's as lawgivers. Allah declares them as kaafirs because their rabbi's would make laws contrary to the Sharia of Musa.

Today, when we say: Jews & Christians are kaafirs, we are not deciding, we are not judging, we are merely making an observation:
Jew = belief in Talmud = laws contrary to Sharia = Kafir.

Similarly, we know that the current parliament and constitution of Pakistan is based on British law and it mentions Islam only nominally. In reality, Pakistan's laws are based on man made laws. Which is similar to the kufr of the Jews who took their rabbi's as lawgivers beside Allah.

Therefore, any rational Muslim who knows this about Pakistan acknowledges that anyone involved in the system is by default a kaafir.

Whether all of them are waajibul qatal? That's not the concern of the individual. Because there is no Islamic state that governs all the people of Pakistan where people can be punished for apostasy.

Only a legitimate Islamic state with proper scholars can appoint judges who are capable of issuing rulings against criminals, sinners, apostates etc.

Since there is no government, the issue of waajibul qatal is totally out of order.

However, corrupt, criminal and deceiving groups and movements misguide people to justify their political interests by claiming certain people are waajibul qatal. As if individuals without any authority are allowed to carry out punishments against other individuals.

Islam is entirely based on laws and laws are there to be implemented by a legitimate government. We don't have vigilante systems and we are not allowed to become prosecutor, judge and executioner.

The problem with ISIS is that they are former secular Baathists who have adopted Al Qaeda style Islamism in order pursue their own political goals. In reality, they don't have any Islamic scholars, their understanding of religion is based on politics. They declare people as kafirs only because people won't accept their government and their political views.

ISIS applies the same reasoning as Al Qaeda: Ends justify the means. This corrupt concept was first made popularized by Ikhwanul Muslim in Egypt. Later it was imported in South Asia by Jamaatis. Today most Islamist groups in our region have some form of "ends justify the means" concept in their politics and dealings.

Thanks for proper and detailed explanation.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Most people have no problem with declaring Qadyanis as kaafirs because they believe in another prophet. However, when someone commits shirk, i.e takes another deity beside Allah, like sufi saints tombs, parliaments, nationality etc, everyone refrains from takfeer.

The kufr of shirk is worse than kufr of believing in another prophet. When a barelwi, a democrat or a shiite commits shirk, its worse than when a qadyani believes in a Punjabi false prophet.

People who can't grasp this reality have obviously no clue of what Islam means.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I always find it difficult to explain takfeer to people. Its because most people have been brainwashed by sects and can't think clearly about it.

Takfeer is quite simpel. Its what we are all doing all the time. When we see a christian, a hindu, a jew, an atheist, we make a distinction between them and us. We acknowledge that they do not believe in what we believe. Therefore, they are not Muslims.

This is in essence, what takfeer really means. It isn't some sort of insult or attack against anyone.

The only problem arrives when a person claims to be a Muslim, prays, goes to Hajj etc and yet is still considered a kaafir. This may be unjust. This may be based on sectarian bias or politics. But merely claiming to be Muslim and praying etc isn't enough to be considered a Muslim.

After the death of Prophet Muhammed, some Arab tribes refused to pay Zakat to the Khalifah Abu Bakr Siddiq, he declared those tribes as kaafirs and he faught them into submission. Those tribes didn't say we don't believe in Allah, they didn't say we are no longer Muslims, they neither claimed Zakat is not waajib. They just denied its obligation to the khalifah. That was sufficient for Abu Bakr siddiq to declare them as Kafirs.

Today, people deny many things and claim the opposite of what is known by necessity in Islam. Still, we are considered extremists by not calling them as Muslims.

The truth is, not making takfeer is by itself a type of kufr. Because definitions of Kufr and Imaan are explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an. Anyone who claims to believe in Islam must know what is kufr and what is imaan. In the Qur'an Allah declares those who believe in something different as kaafirs. So the ultimate decision of who is a Muslim and who is a kafir is taken by Allah.

By denying takfeer, and by refusing to consider people as kaafirs, we are rejecting Allah's ruling. This is why, a person who doesn't make takfeer is also a kaafir.

[Samandri]

I always find it difficult to explain takfeer to people. Its because most people have been brainwashed by sects and can't think clearly about it.

Takfeer is quite simpel. Its what we are all doing all the time. When we see a christian, a hindu, a jew, an atheist, we make a distinction between them and us. We acknowledge that they do not believe in what we believe. Therefore, they are not Muslims.

This is in essence, what takfeer really means. It isn't some sort of insult or attack against anyone.

The only problem arrives when a person claims to be a Muslim, prays, goes to Hajj etc and yet is still considered a kaafir. This may be unjust. This may be based on sectarian bias or politics. But merely claiming to be Muslim and praying etc isn't enough to be considered a Muslim.

After the death of Prophet Muhammed, some Arab tribes refused to pay Zakat to the Khalifah Abu Bakr Siddiq, he declared those tribes as kaafirs and he faught them into submission. Those tribes didn't say we don't believe in Allah, they didn't say we are no longer Muslims, they neither claimed Zakat is not waajib. They just denied its obligation to the khalifah. That was sufficient for Abu Bakr siddiq to declare them as Kafirs.

Today, people deny many things and claim the opposite of what is known by necessity in Islam. Still, we are considered extremists by not calling them as Muslims.

The truth is, not making takfeer is by itself a type of kufr. Because definitions of Kufr and Imaan are explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an. Anyone who claims to believe in Islam must know what is kufr and what is imaan. In the Qur'an Allah declares those who believe in something different as kaafirs. So the ultimate decision of who is a Muslim and who is a kafir is taken by Allah.

By denying takfeer, and by refusing to consider people as kaafirs, we are rejecting Allah's ruling. This is why, a person who doesn't make takfeer is also a kaafir.

Then i guess 'Khwarij' were on the right path. They made the same arguments. I recall from a read they used to give this example of Hazrat Abdu Bakar.

If i scan myself through Wahabi arguments, i would be a very big kafir i guess.

But again, i am not a scholar neither so knowledgeable on these matters. I would consult some Aalim of Deoband on this Takfeer and Khwarij matter and see what he has to say about it.I

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Then i guess 'Khwarij' were on the right path. They made the same arguments. I recall from a read they used to give this example of Hazrat Abdu Bakar.

If i scan myself through Wahabi arguments, i would be a very big kafir i guess.

But again, i am not a scholar neither so knowledgeable on these matters. I would consult some Aalim of Deoband on this Takfeer and Khwarij matter and see what he has to say about it.I

You have probably read literature written by Murj'ah and jahmiyyah.

These are not wahhabi warguments.

Khawarij declared people kafir for major sins. And they declared sahaba as kafirs for ruling against Quran which was a false accusation. Mu3awiyah and Ali didn't make any laws contrary to Quran and Sunnah. They made an agreement, which some elements disaproved of. They couldnt make the leaders accept their criticism so they escalated by making takfeer.

Today, Isis does the exact same thing: they accuse other Syrian rebels, including Al Qaeda of being kafirs. They wanted all rebels to accept their leadership. When everyone refused they invented all sorts of excuses to declare people kaafir.

This happens when people take advantage of religion for political and personal interests.

You may think this is wahhabism, but I can show you quotes from books from all 4 schools, the consencus of companions and famous fuqaha where these fundamental matters of Aqeeda are all based on.

Only people who never venture into studying and reading, and limit themselves to their own cult, party of favorite preacher, assume all of this is wahhabism or some sort of new religion.

In reality, this is Islam how it was revealed 1400 years ago. People today are following other ideologies, not Islam.

[Khostai]

These Ikhwanis claim they want to spread Sharia and promote Islam, yet, they don't even know the basics of Islam.

LOL this is also how you and the likes of you on this forum are. Living in kafir countries drink alcohol and party, you rarely do any Islamic things but still preach for shariah and Islamic law in Afghanistan. If you lived in a country with a sharia law you would be already beheaded for you homosexual acts and alcohol/drugs use. So you should be the last person who critisise others about Islam.

[marwat]

Siraj ul haq is not a kafir because he makes mistakes during prayer.

His kufr is his loyalty to a secular state and his approval of a secular government. His kufr is membership of a democratic political party. His kufr is the fact his party along with other political parties knowingly take part in a system where laws of sharia are violated and replaced by man made laws.


This is why his party is not jamaat e Islami but jamaat e shaitani.

politically i am very anti jumati, but according to them they believe they can change the system within the system. it is what they call it using wisdom,ballot paper and knowledge to topple the government. in theory they are not loyal to the secular government. their whole loyalty is a part of deception but they had to work within the system.
what you said about them can be applied to you. living abroad you respect a secular constitution and abode by it, they gave you a nationality because you declared your allegiance and loyalty to their kufar government. may be not wholeheartedly but on paper.
also what would you sya of the charter of madinah where prophet approved the kufar government of makkah and settled on rules according to their wishes?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

politically i am very anti jumati, but according to them they believe they can change the system within the system. it is what they call it using wisdom,ballot paper and knowledge to topple the government. in theory they are not loyal to the secular government. their whole loyalty is a part of deception but they had to work within the system.
what you said about them can be applied to you. living abroad you respect a secular constitution and abode by it, they gave you a nationality because you declared your allegiance and loyalty to their kufar government. may be not wholeheartedly but on paper.
also what would you sya of the charter of madinah where prophet approved the kufar government of makkah and settled on rules according to their wishes?

I don't believe I am here in Europe to change the system from withing. I don't believe Islam teaches me to go in a kafir majority country and blend in in order to change the system slowly from within.

Many countries where Muslims are a majority are legally un-Islamic. For example, Afghanistan and Pakistan are Muslim countries but their government, their laws and the way things are organized are un-Islamic.

In essence, there is no difference between Europe and Pakistan.

I am not politically active and I don't vote. But I don't go out violating laws because its an un-Islamic country.

Similarly, many Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan don't vote. They don't take part in government etc because they don't believe they are able to change the system.

This is a rational and realistic view of life in a society based on idea which contradicts your own beliefs.

Let's say I move out of Europe because it's un-Islamic, where should I go to? Afghanistan, where sodomites and mass murders sit with communists in parliament created and paid for by Europeans and Americans? How does that make any difference?

I am better of living in this "daarul kufr" than the "daarul kufr" where I am from because here, at least I am safer, and secure.

I acknowledge the good in this country but I disapprove of the evil. I help and assist in activities that don't conflict with my religion, for instance, education. I also take part in activities that help humanity in general which is due to my own Islamic ethics. I am commanded to enjoin in good and forbid evil. Since I am not in position of authority, I can't pohibit the evil in a society. Best I can do is live by example given to me in life of Prophet Muhammed and his companions when they use to be a Muslim minority in Mecca.

If living in a non-Muslim society is haram, then Sahaba who migrated to Ethiopia during the life of Prophet Muhammed woud have been considered sinners.

Since there is no Islamic state that can provide me safety, I have the option of living where I am safe.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Btw, [MENTION=18475]marwat[/MENTION], you are wrong. I never gave allegiance to any constitution. Thats not how it Works here. I came to Holland when I was a minor. After 5 years of residency, I received a passport without declaring anything because I was granted asylum before.

If you think my situation is similar to that of Jamaatis, then you have a very different picture of what it's like here.

[Manzareh]

Btw, [MENTION=18475]marwat[/MENTION], you are wrong. I never gave allegiance to any constitution. Thats not how it Works here. I came to Holland when I was a minor. After 5 years of residency, I received a passport without declaring anything because I was granted asylum before.

If you think my situation is similar to that of Jamaatis, then you have a very different picture of what it's like here.

You are entitled to surrender your passport if you want, which is a symbol of allegence to that country. Strictly speaking if you want to disassociate yourself with any kufaar system you can declare yourself a 'free man'.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

You are entitled to surrender your passport if you want, which is a symbol of allegence to that country. Strictly speaking if you want to disassociate yourself with any kufaar system you can declare yourself a 'free man'.

Please explain why having a pasport means one is not free from an Islamic perspective. Explain having a passport conflicts with Islam.

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

I don't believe I am here in Europe to change the system from withing. I don't believe Islam teaches me to go in a kafir majority country and blend in in order to change the system slowly from within.

Many countries where Muslims are a majority are legally un-Islamic. For example, Afghanistan and Pakistan are Muslim countries but their government, their laws and the way things are organized are un-Islamic.

In essence, there is no difference between Europe and Pakistan.

I am not politically active and I don't vote. But I don't go out violating laws because its an un-Islamic country.

Similarly, many Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan don't vote. They don't take part in government etc because they don't believe they are able to change the system.

This is a rational and realistic view of life in a society based on idea which contradicts your own beliefs.

Let's say I move out of Europe because it's un-Islamic, where should I go to? Afghanistan, where sodomites and mass murders sit with communists in parliament created and paid for by Europeans and Americans? How does that make any difference?

I am better of living in this "daarul kufr" than the "daarul kufr" where I am from because here, at least I am safer, and secure.

I acknowledge the good in this country but I disapprove of the evil. I help and assist in activities that don't conflict with my religion, for instance, education. I also take part in activities that help humanity in general which is due to my own Islamic ethics. I am commanded to enjoin in good and forbid evil. Since I am not in position of authority, I can't pohibit the evil in a society. Best I can do is live by example given to me in life of Prophet Muhammed and his companions when they use to be a Muslim minority in Mecca.

If living in a non-Muslim society is haram, then Sahaba who migrated to Ethiopia during the life of Prophet Muhammed woud have been considered sinners.

Since there is no Islamic state that can provide me safety, I have the option of living where I am safe.

damn you hypocrite loser.People like you are worse than pigs.

Is this your explanation of living in the west?

if your a man and a true muslim like us,come back to Afghanistan or stop being a dirty takfiri

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

damn you hypocrite loser.People like you are worse than pigs.

Is this your explanation of living in the west?

if your a man and a true muslim like us,come back to Afghanistan or stop being a dirty takfiri

Am I a hypocrite for choosing one Daarul kufr over the other?

Did you know how many former pak military and policemen are here working as dish washers and street sweepers?

Trust me, you could, you would be here in Europe rather than there in Pakistan.

It's not bravery that keeps people in afpak. Especially if you are serving the corrupt and criminal regimes there.

[Khostai]

God you people are so basic.