Preaching Christianity should be stopped in Afghanistan.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

the prohibition is in amr bil maruf wa al nail bil munkar. Promotion of virtue and prevention of vice as Akbar khan posted.

SWince false religions are munkar, why should Muslims allow the spread of munkar?

Fine, let us take this verse.

Where does it say that you do it only in Muslim countries? What about prohibiting the spread of Christianity around the world?

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

I have not concluded anything nor do I have the authority to conclude anything unlike yourself and many other 'intellectuals' on this forum!

Allah swt says enjoin Al-Ma'ruf i.e. Islamic Monotheism and forbid Al-Munkar polytheism or disbelief.

Christianity propagates Trinity which is polytheism/shirk, now when Christians try to propagate the falsehood (al munkar) then it is the duty of the Islamic state to forbid such propagations! Because the duty of the state is Amr bil Ma'ruf wa Nahy an al Munkar!

Sorry to break to you, you have already concluded.

Please don't fake humility.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Sahih al-Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:

Narrated Abu Musa:
A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.

Bring me the Quranic verse that goes hand in hand with this. The sunnah of the Prophet (saw) stemmed from the Quran.

If you can't, then you would either have to re-interpret these ahadith in light of the its Arabic or discard them as a fake.

[akbarkhan]

Sorry to break to you, you have already concluded.

Please don't fake humility.

Look I am not here to convince you, ask your trusted scholar. As far as faking humility is concerned, since when did you have knowledge about that which is in hearts of men?

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Look I am not here to convince you, ask your trusted scholar. As far as faking humility is concerned, since when did you have knowledge about that which is in hearts of men?

When I said that you have faked humility is because you are humbly resorting to the scholar of your choice. Hence, you have concluded. Otherwise, how would you have a stance?

Don't tell others what do to do when you don't do that.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Fine, let us take this verse.

Where does it say that you do it only in Muslim countries? What about prohibiting the spread of Christianity around the world?

You have to know the Shari'i ruling of prevention of vice.

When you fight al munkar, you can't go around the world and burn churches and kill priests because you are preventing munkar. In islam we weigh the options. If preventing munkar can cause more harm dan the harm already is being caused, then it is best to leave it untill you have enough power to fight munkar without the spill-over effect.

So for example, people worshipped idols in the Kaaba. Did the prophet saww brake the idols and punish the polytheists in mekkah or did he leave them alone only to return and prevent them once he was powerful enough to take them on without causing unnecessary bloodshed.

As I explained you in another thread fighting munkar is based on hikmah. You have to apply hikmah when you want to please allah.

If you have no authority in a land and you are a mere civilian like everybody else, your vigilante action will only cause more harm.

Why do you think acts of terrorism in the lands of kuffaar are unanimously condemned by the scholars? Why do you think the scholars have condemned the killing of the dutch producer Theo Van Gogh? Its because the people who do such things have a disregard for shari'i ruling of how to fight munkar.

In an Islamic country where the rulers have the highest authority and the resources to fight munkar, they can do see freely.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

You have to know the Shari'i ruling of prevention of vice.

When you fight al munkar, you can't go around the world and burn mosques and kill priests because you are preventing munkar. In islam we weigh the options. If preventing munkar can cause more harm dan the harm already is being caused, then it is best to leave it untill you have enough power to fight munkar without the spill-over effect.

So for example, people worshipped idols in the Kaaba. Did the prophet saww brake the idols and punish the polytheists in mekkah or did he leave them alone only to return and prevent them once he was powerful enough to take them on without causing unnecessary bloodshed.

As I explained you in another thread fighting munkar is based on hikmah. You have to apply hikmah when you want to please allah.

If you have no authority in a land and you are a mere civilian like everybody else, your vigilante action will only cause more harm.

Why do you think acts of terrorism in the lands of kuffaar are unanimously condemned by the scholars? Why do you think the scholars have condemned the killing of the dutch producer Theo Van Gogh? Its because the people who do such things have a disregard for shari'i ruling of how to fight munkar.

In an Islamic country where the rulers have the highest authority and the resources to fight munkar, they can do see freely.

You are all over the place.

You have good points, but they are all contradictory to each other.

[شمله ور خراساني]

So you guys preach in our country without limits, But we are on deathbed if we mention Christianity in your country?

Yes. Because you have a false religion where you worship the prophet jesus instead of worshipping his creater god almighty. Therefore we have every right to preach the correct religion of monotheism and prevent christians from spreading their false religion in the lands of Islam.

[akbarkhan]

When I said that you have faked humility is because you are humbly resorting to the scholar of your choice. Hence, you have concluded. Otherwise, how would you have a stance?

I have stated over and over again that you should consult an scholar, not a scholar of 'my choice' but a scholar - any qualified person who you find trustworthy.

You have made conclusions not me, if that wasn't the case then you would have consulted a trustworthy scholar first and if his consultation went against what I have related then you would have informed me so. But no, like all other afghan 'intellectuals' you rather argue for the sake of argument without knowing the crux of the matter.

[akbarkhan]

So you guys preach in our country without limits, But we are on deathbed if we mention Christianity in your country?

If it is against your constitutional law then we wouldn't, however if you allow it then why shouldn't we? If you outlaw it then as law abiding citizens we will obey it.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Yes. Because you have a false religion where you worship the prophet jesus instead of worshipping his creater god almighty. Therefore we have every right to preach the correct religion of monotheism and prevent christians from spreading their false religion in the lands of Islam.

If it is against your constitutional law then we wouldn't, however if you allow it then why shouldn't we? If you outlaw it then as law abiding citizens we will obey it.

Two contradictory statements.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

I have stated over and over again that you should consult an scholar, not a scholar of 'my choice' but a scholar - any qualified person who you find trustworthy.

You have made conclusions not me, if that wasn't the case then you would have consulted a trustworthy scholar first and if his consultation went against what I have related then you would have informed me so. But no, like all other afghan 'intellectuals' you rather argue for the sake of argument without knowing the crux of the matter.

Actually, I don't argue for the sake of arguing.

I know what I am talking about. You are just blindly following your scholar.

You don't have a brain to think for yourself.

[akbarkhan]

Two contradictory statements.

Am I being held responsible for what someone else has said?

[akbarkhan]

Actually, I don't argue for the sake of arguing.

I know what I am talking about. You are just blindly following your scholar.

You don't have a brain to think for yourself.

If you know what you are talking about then prove me wrong by providing evidence.