Do you guys celebrate Noruz?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

With regards to nawroz, shino bozano ad attan, it is entirely irrelevant how, when and who practiced them.

back in the ancient times, some scholars prohibited smoking because they deemed it as a custom of disbelievers. Others disagreed. However, lateron, modern science provided scholars sufficient reasons to consider smoking as haram based on a different ruling. Since smoking is harmful to human health, they issued fatwa's banning it based on health reasons. But those scholars who considered it as impermissible long before modern science held an equally valid opinion.

Similarly, early scholars regarded dancing and celebrating nawroz as impermissible. They relied on specific texts in Qur'an and Sunnah. Lateron, they saw other customs like Christmas and certain Hindu festivals. They applied the ruling of Nawroz on those other festivals because they were similarly: non-muslim custom/tradition/rituals.

What you are suggesting is that we should look deeper into nawroz celebrations ant try to find differences with zoroastrian customs in order to declare those alternative "spring festivals" as halal.

I don't understand why you would want to do that. Isn't it sufficient to know two basic facts: 1 nawroz is mentioned by name in hadith marfu', 2 all customs/tradtions/rituals of non-muslims are impermissible.

[HalloIsBack]

if nawrouz is kufr then attan too?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

@BarakzaiAbdali,

the author of the article you quoted said this:



My question to you is: what are you trying to prove here?

I am pointing out that in the early history of the companions it was not all static and not all the companions had one view on the most important subjects. Their views individually made sense, e.g. Abu Bakr's in enforcing the law of God so that people would understand the seriousness of the matter, and because he felt it was his obligation to do so, and that of Omar who sought to even suspend the tithe briefly to encourage growing support for an eventual need to possibly take on the worst of the renegade tribes.

The point to simply discuss that it is not so simple as to say, well a jurist or a scholar has pointed to a particular companion's view and decided the matter is forever closed to the point that no member of the public can bring the case forward for reconsideration or further discussion.

I am sure you are a very well educated and scholarly person. You occasionally state that you are not a scholar of Islam, but then in the next paragraph you interpret sources of law and even speculate on what a proper ruling "should" be.

Well, it is just that, speculation. We live an era where we are more divided than ever over minutae when the more important aspects of what would bring about success in the here and now involves having guys like yourself and Khushal thinking about a common goal. You both generally want what is ethically right, and you both possess strong communication skills and wordly knowledge... from an observor's vantage point, you diverge over matters that, if seized upon, cause unncessary division and infighting.

And the term kufr and its application, as I said, is akin to the accusation of treason against God and, in my opinion, the Muslim people.

I prefer to be extremely careful when using it.

The hadith you posted is btw misinterpreted by those who believe speech and action are not part of Imaan and thus, any person can be a Muslim by merely saying the shahada. This, of course contradicts hundreds of verses of the Qur'an.

I never disavowed the concept of amaano wa amislusalihaathaay (belief and good works) going hand in hand and the notion that a shahadaa alone defines a Muslim ... but my point, I think stands, which is simply that declaring someone renegade has a series of consequences that come into play... they are serious consequences, would you not agree? And in an era of not having a jury to make that decision, or the power to enforce punishments that would go along- passing that judgement with zeal and rapidity without a detailed discussion and a debate is a dangerous matter. It is what has caused Muslims in many corners of the world to label a group operating 20 miles down the road, despite an overlap in their interests that would be beneficial for all, as a "the enemy" and then acting in an aggressive, foolhardy way.

If you want me to post an extensive commentary of the hadith, let me know. But I do advice you, don't google stuff just to prove something

In the prior post I mentioned I recalled a saying I had read ( admittedly incorrectly). I have read the 6 hadith cannons and recalled some vague association with the saying and then searched it out - you can see this if you back a few posts. That is, I did not rely on googling something that would prove single shahada alone or something of that nature would save a person from hell. I merely found the hadith I meant.

.

x

[BarakzaiAbdali]

With regards to nawroz, shino bozano ad attan, it is entirely irrelevant how, when and who practiced them.

Well, but it is relevant right? As I said, if Afghan tribes were dancing the attan and adapted it to drums, etc. and it has no religious association/worship of a pagan diety, etc. Why should someone come into the area with force and with an army and start focusing on such a thing to ban when there are bigger fish to fry? I think that is a fair question.

And I am repeating that from the get go I have agreed with you that Nawruz is a separate category issue since it is proven to be associated with Magian/Zoroastrian religious context.

back in the ancient times, some scholars prohibited smoking because they deemed it as a custom of disbelievers. Others disagreed. However, lateron, modern science provided scholars sufficient reasons to consider smoking as haram based on a different ruling. Since smoking is harmful to human health, they issued fatwa's banning it based on health reasons. But those scholars who considered it as impermissible long before modern science held an equally valid opinion.

I agree, but what about those that disagreed? Should one not read the literature in its totality and understand the opinions as a whole and the evidence basis? When we talk about executive branch function and law enforcement, we are also talking about punishments and consequences. I take these things very seriously because as I said, we want to be extremely careful and avoid depriving anyone of their due rights.

Similarly, early scholars regarded dancing and celebrating nawroz as impermissible. They relied on specific texts in Qur'an and Sunnah. Lateron, they saw other customs like Christmas and certain Hindu festivals. They applied the ruling of Nawroz on those other festivals because they were similarly: non-muslim custom/tradition/rituals.

What you are suggesting is that we should look deeper into nawroz celebrations

No, I am not suggesting this bro. I am saying that the possibility clearly exists that A) Nawroz was not as widely celebrated in Pashtun lands based on a plethora of evidence, in Pashtun lands as Nationalists and RANDists claim.

and B) That if there are local celebrations of anything, or of any sort, or local customs of any sort (for example, local wedding customs that are age-old, etc) that we cannot ipso facto assume that they have pagan god attachments or religious attachments. I gave the example of the Superbowl, or for instance, we could think about the Baseball World Series etc. These are sporting events that have absolutely no link whatsoever to pagan principles. So if an American baseball player converts, I would think its unreasonable to ask him to abandon his profession based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

By the same token, I am merely saying that if Khushal and whoever else can prove for whatever reason, that there is some associated custom within their tribe that cannot be definitively liked to pagan or shamaanistic (pir) principles, I think the better part of valor is to not antagonize these people by assuming that what they are celebrating is Nawruz or its local equivalent.

That is all I am alleging/saying.

ant try to find differences with zoroastrian customs in order to declare those alternative "spring festivals" as halal.

I don't understand why you would want to do that. Isn't it sufficient to know two basic facts: 1 nawroz is mentioned by name in hadith marfu', 2 all customs/tradtions/rituals of non-muslims are impermissible.

So it is the above I am trying to discuss. Take Tae Kwon Do, or other martial fighting arts, or spelling bees, or a host of other activities that are generally "rituals" in the West - Do you view these things as impermissable? Is organizing a curriculum with grade levels or modeling a higher education system off non- Muslim standards impermissable?

I think it is a fair question, because as I said, more and more people are converting to Islam in the West. So if a caucasian American Muslim convert asks someone tomorrow whether his son can be a high school quarterback - since this is purely an American sport (hence a cultural or ritualistic aspect of American identity) does that mean his son and he would be out of the fold if they decide to let him play high school football (American football)?

And then this is something we should, as I said, think about when discussing matters within Afghan circles, because there are Afghans in the West who love their native lands, people, and religion. If a group of Wazir men want to spend an hour or two a week crafting their attan skills... and there is no female voice, or whatnot, or females observing, does this mean that one should tell these tribal men that attan is haraam for the possible reason that our pre Islamic ancestors may have done it? And by extension, if in response they look into it and there is no proof of its association with anything other than their Pashtun tribe and identity, is it even fair to ask them to quit it or be considered renegade?

x

[Afghanfootball]

Attan comes from Zorastrianism should we ban that too?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION],

I want to respond to you appropriately. But my job is exhausting me. I type all day, then I drive straight into a traffic jam. When I finally reach my home, I lack the energy to type any more.

But since we are discussing a very important topic, I do want to continue this discussion. So I will just share some of my thoughts. Maybe at a later time I can respond more appropriately.
First of all, when we deal with matters regarding ikhtilaaf (difference of opinion) we have to know the basics. In Sharia, difference of opinion is a legal term. It is not the same as difference of opinion elsewhere.
If we find an authentic narration where a companion of the Prophet sal allahu alayhi wasalam or one of the great Imams held an odd view, we don't call that difference of opinion. Because difference of opinion in Sharia suggests that the matter is not settled and thus, both views could be valid. Some of the companions and lateron, some of the great jurists held extremely odd views. We call that “Shaadh”. Basically, it means that the person in question was either ignorant of the dominantly held view or he may have interpreted the matter in a different way.
This is closely tied to another major issue: the notion of Jama'ah. Mainstream Islam is Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah. Most sects claim to be mainstream, but the title ahlus sunnah wal jama'ah is not some sort of a label or name of a party or a group. It has a very specific meaning. Ahlus Sunnah means, people who follow the way of the Prophet. Jama'ah means first and foremost, the companions of the prophet sal allahu alayhi wasalam. The community who followed the Prophet sal allahu alayhi wasalam, despite their personal flaws, imperfections and differences were still a blessed group who are praised in the Qur'an in more than 20 different verses.
The jama'ah did not differ with one another on major issues of religion. Which means, some of them may have held an odd view, but the community never reached consensus one a matter which was in essence misguidance.
This is a core principle of mainstream Islam. Those who believe that the Sahaba gathered upon misguidance are not mainstream Muslims.
So when someone says, Abu Bakr Siddiq killed renegade tribes and he may have been wrong, it basically means that the prophecy in hadith where it is said: my ummah will not gather upon falsehood" is false. It also means that the verses of Qur’an praising the community of companions are also false. And finally, it means that the Qur’an itself, which was collected and compiled into one book by companions is also flawed. Because the consensus of the companions made the compiling of the Qur’an possible. Even when major scholars among them like Abdullah ibn Mas’ud held odd views regarding important surah’as like al Ikhlas.
So suppose, Abu Bakr siddiq was wrong and Umar was right, then the whole idea of Jama'ah goes straight out of the window.
Along with it, we lose numerous verses of Qur'an and ahadith which support the position of Abu Bakr siddiq in his decision to kill apostate tribesmen.
Let us not forget, Abu Bakr Siddiq was the most intelligent, most wise and most experienced of all companions. Even if he did err, other companions were there to correct him. But they didn't. The war against apostates did occur and those wars teach us allot about how the sahaba dealt with apostasy.
Now, 1400 years later, if anyone suggests that Abu Bakr was wrong and Umar was right, then it means that all companions agreed to obey Abu Bakr siddiq in killing fellow Muslims because they refused to pay Zakat. Even suggesting that Umar considered those tribes as Muslims and disagreed with Abu Bakr implies that Sahaba committed fratricide.
Furthermore, it means that 1400 years of jurisprudence is based on misguidance and all books of fiqh dealing with these matters are worthless.
So when you google and find some strange figure spreading ideas which go against mainstream Islam, know that you are casting doubt on very important matters of our religion.
With regards to labeling people as kafirs, I do agree that we should be very careful in labeling people as kafirs. However, considering kafirs as Muslims is probably worse. Because we have the Qur’an with explicit verses describing beliefs and actions of kufr. If we observe these things in human beings, we are supposed to consider them as kafirs. Faith in Allah and his book requires from us to affirm what we see and accept it to be so based on what we know from the Qur’an.
Not considering a kafir as a kafir, is an act of kufr. Because beliefs and actions described as Kufr in Qur’an are there for a purpose. The verses describing hypocrites are there for a purpose. The verses describing the believers are there also, for a purpose.
By refraining to judge people by Qur’an we fall into kufr which means we will go to hellfire. So if you see a person mocking, ridiculing or simply denying anything from the Qur’an you are supposed to consider that person as a kafir. When you don’t you are disbelieving in Qur’an.
One of the main reasons why apostasy and misguidance is so widespread in the Muslim world is this. People don’t want to judge themselves and others by the Qur’an.

With regards to imitation of disbelievers, what you have to bare in mind is that some issues are not specifically mentioned in Qur’an & Hadith. Some things are observed by scholars and then they apply the ruling of similar matters to them. A scholar can reach an incorrect conclusion. However, merely the knowledge that some scholar once upon a time held a different view is not sufficient to disqualify the dominant view as merely another “opnion”.
We are not discussing something new here. We are not discussing matters that we haven’t heard of before. We have AUTHENTIC texts from a prominent companion dealing with this specific topic. We have libraries filled with books of scholars of all 4 schools agreeing that imitation of kafirs is haram and can lead to apostasy.
The hypothetical questions like, what if people didn’t celebrate nawroz because its Zoroastrian, what if Abu bakr was wrong and Umar was right are of no benefit. We live in a world with many practical challenges. We should deal with the problems we have in front of us. Nawroz is a closed chapter. Ruling on imitation of disbelievers is a closed chapter. Nothing can change the ruling of these matters.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION],

I want to respond to you appropriately. But my job is exhausting me. I type all day, then I drive straight into a traffic jam. When I finally reach my home, I lack the energy to type any more.

But since we are discussing a very important topic, I do want to continue this discussion. So I will just share some of my thoughts. Maybe at a later time I can respond more appropriately.
First of all, when we deal with matters regarding ikhtilaaf (difference of opinion) we have to know the basics. In Sharia, difference of opinion is a legal term. It is not the same as difference of opinion elsewhere.
If we find an authentic narration where a companion of the Prophet sal allahu alayhi wasalam or one of the great Imams held an odd view, we don't call that difference of opinion. Because difference of opinion in Sharia suggests that the matter is not settled and thus, both views could be valid. Some of the companions and lateron, some of the great jurists held extremely odd views. We call that “Shaadh”. Basically, it means that the person in question was either ignorant of the dominantly held view or he may have interpreted the matter in a different way.
This is closely tied to another major issue: the notion of Jama'ah. Mainstream Islam is Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah. Most sects claim to be mainstream, but the title ahlus sunnah wal jama'ah is not some sort of a label or name of a party or a group. It has a very specific meaning. Ahlus Sunnah means, people who follow the way of the Prophet. Jama'ah means first and foremost, the companions of the prophet sal allahu alayhi wasalam. The community who followed the Prophet sal allahu alayhi wasalam, despite their personal flaws, imperfections and differences were still a blessed group who are praised in the Qur'an in more than 20 different verses.
The jama'ah did not differ with one another on major issues of religion. Which means, some of them may have held an odd view, but the community never reached consensus one a matter which was in essence misguidance.
This is a core principle of mainstream Islam. Those who believe that the Sahaba gathered upon misguidance are not mainstream Muslims.
So when someone says, Abu Bakr Siddiq killed renegade tribes and he may have been wrong, it basically means that the prophecy in hadith where it is said: my ummah will not gather upon falsehood" is false. It also means that the verses of Qur’an praising the community of companions are also false. And finally, it means that the Qur’an itself, which was collected and compiled into one book by companions is also flawed. Because the consensus of the companions made the compiling of the Qur’an possible. Even when major scholars among them like Abdullah ibn Mas’ud held odd views regarding important surah’as like al Ikhlas.
So suppose, Abu Bakr siddiq was wrong and Umar was right, then the whole idea of Jama'ah goes straight out of the window.
Along with it, we lose numerous verses of Qur'an and ahadith which support the position of Abu Bakr siddiq in his decision to kill apostate tribesmen.
Let us not forget, Abu Bakr Siddiq was the most intelligent, most wise and most experienced of all companions. Even if he did err, other companions were there to correct him. But they didn't. The war against apostates did occur and those wars teach us allot about how the sahaba dealt with apostasy.
Now, 1400 years later, if anyone suggests that Abu Bakr was wrong and Umar was right, then it means that all companions agreed to obey Abu Bakr siddiq in killing fellow Muslims because they refused to pay Zakat. Even suggesting that Umar considered those tribes as Muslims and disagreed with Abu Bakr implies that Sahaba committed fratricide.
Furthermore, it means that 1400 years of jurisprudence is based on misguidance and all books of fiqh dealing with these matters are worthless.
So when you google and find some strange figure spreading ideas which go against mainstream Islam, know that you are casting doubt on very important matters of our religion.
With regards to labeling people as kafirs, I do agree that we should be very careful in labeling people as kafirs. However, considering kafirs as Muslims is probably worse. Because we have the Qur’an with explicit verses describing beliefs and actions of kufr. If we observe these things in human beings, we are supposed to consider them as kafirs. Faith in Allah and his book requires from us to affirm what we see and accept it to be so based on what we know from the Qur’an.
Not considering a kafir as a kafir, is an act of kufr. Because beliefs and actions described as Kufr in Qur’an are there for a purpose. The verses describing hypocrites are there for a purpose. The verses describing the believers are there also, for a purpose.
By refraining to judge people by Qur’an we fall into kufr which means we will go to hellfire. So if you see a person mocking, ridiculing or simply denying anything from the Qur’an you are supposed to consider that person as a kafir. When you don’t you are disbelieving in Qur’an.
One of the main reasons why apostasy and misguidance is so widespread in the Muslim world is this. People don’t want to judge themselves and others by the Qur’an.

With regards to imitation of disbelievers, what you have to bare in mind is that some issues are not specifically mentioned in Qur’an & Hadith. Some things are observed by scholars and then they apply the ruling of similar matters to them. A scholar can reach an incorrect conclusion. However, merely the knowledge that some scholar once upon a time held a different view is not sufficient to disqualify the dominant view as merely another “opnion”.
We are not discussing something new here. We are not discussing matters that we haven’t heard of before. We have AUTHENTIC texts from a prominent companion dealing with this specific topic. We have libraries filled with books of scholars of all 4 schools agreeing that imitation of kafirs is haram and can lead to apostasy.
The hypothetical questions like, what if people didn’t celebrate nawroz because its Zoroastrian, what if Abu bakr was wrong and Umar was right are of no benefit. We live in a world with many practical challenges. We should deal with the problems we have in front of us. Nawroz is a closed chapter. Ruling on imitation of disbelievers is a closed chapter. Nothing can change the ruling of these matters.

Bro,

Thanks for the detailed response. The thing is, these are real practical matters that are occurring. They may not be occurring in Europe, or they may be, I am not sure.

The reality is that Islam's popularity and conversion rate is actually increasing:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/living/pew-study-religion/

They do not discuss attrition rates. But I have seen some rather horrid behavior toward converts that I think is not helpful.

It often involves a group of people who utilize religion as a control tool to further their own self worth and inflate their self-esteem. These folks take it upon themselves to be the "mentor" "guide" or teacher to a person that is in an environment with lots of signal to noise ratio. Day in and day out they are trying to resist the dominant culture that is blasted at them on the radio on TV and at work, etc.

I have actually heard visiting Muftis, in the masjid, start long lectures on making sure children stay away from various sports since they are "distractive" etc. and also "part of the non Muslim" culture.

Take the case of Michael Muhammad Knight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Muhammad_Knight

He was a convert, sort of seemed to have an unstable personality at the get-go, and became apparently overwhelmed with the random things that many cultural Muslims without hekmah through at these guys.

I decided to read his book the Taqwacores to see why he "sort of" turned his back on Islam. He describes incidents of being utterly terrified of going to he-ll because one of the mosque goers warned him about drops of urine on his clothes. He would go back and perform the wudhu many many times and eventually got overwhelmed. This is despite the fact that some people may sit on the toilet for some time, wait for the urine to leave the urethra, but still have some very minute retention.... its somewhat a medical reality.

Although each man is responsible for his own acts, when you read this book, you as a fellow Muslim will also definitely see some familiar things we have all encountered regarding those various personality types that relish "guiding" a new convert but who themselves are in need of improving their religion (not that I do not need my own improvement).

This is why these matters and discussions, in the here in now, where nationalism and secularism and nativeism and recent converted culturalism are running up against heavy handedness that results in a plethora of confusion.

This is why I persevarate on being absolutely certain when making such pronouncements regarding cultural issues and their potential role in the lives of Muslims who are human beings with their own personal, tribal, ethnic, and family histories.

In my opinion, there is a hekmah or a wisdom in approach, tact, and execution of getting people to a point of what some may believe is literal perfection.

Human beings are combined logical and emotional creatures. We have all seen this and at times run up against this. You have very very logical beings like Michael Scheuer who operate and execute their lives based on "a just the facts ma'am" approach... but the majority of human beings are emotional creatures and cling to things that provide them solace and comfort.

So in this way, I think that the questions I posed regarding what is kuffar culture and what is not (e.g. some sports and martial training are pan cultural motifs) is going to be very very important in the coming decades. It is the proposed wedge issue that is being capitalized by media figures and think tanks to denigrate Muslims and Islam. One must avoid falling into this trap.

Islam has a rich juristic history and vibrant literature of correspondences between the early jurists etc. My point was not to debunk or call Abu Bakr wrong... my point was that individually, had Umar been in Abu Bakr's place having to make the decision, that some might have reached variant conclusions and that these men were thoughtful, pragmatic, knowledgeable, capable, and diplomatic to the best of their abilities - had they done so it was not to subvert God or his Prophet. I guess my point is that they were not all carbon copies. Even when it came to collecting the Quran (Jamaa Al Quran) you see Zaid intially being hesitant to the extent of questioning doing something that the Prophet himself had not done in the form of an official recension... but the companions prevailed upon him for the greater good.

We live in very delicate, unfortunate, and trying times - we must not compromise our faith or fall into the trap of the Nazarenes or the Yahudyaan in making our faith fit our comfort zone... but rather intellectually submitting and accepting our faith and molding our lives toward it. However, this realization and the motivations of various people are distinct, one person to another- and just as the Prophet gave more maal to various converts because they knew that they needed something more material to remain happy and united with the general community - I believe that we have to take every opportunity we can to focus on big picture, important issues of our day and age and do we what we are doing here - discussing the classical texts, informing ourselves, and coaxing people toward an opinion if possible.

[Kushan Prince]

Attan comes from Zorastrianism should we ban that too?

Since when?

[Kushan Prince]

[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION],

I want to respond to you appropriately. But my job is exhausting me. I type all day, then I drive straight into a traffic jam. When I finally reach my home, I lack the energy to type any more.

But since we are discussing a very important topic, I do want to continue this discussion. So I will just share some of my thoughts. Maybe at a later time I can respond more appropriately.
First of all, when we deal with matters regarding ikhtilaaf (difference of opinion) we have to know the basics. In Sharia, difference of opinion is a legal term. It is not the same as difference of opinion elsewhere.
If we find an authentic narration where a companion of the Prophet sal allahu alayhi wasalam or one of the great Imams held an odd view, we don't call that difference of opinion. Because difference of opinion in Sharia suggests that the matter is not settled and thus, both views could be valid. Some of the companions and lateron, some of the great jurists held extremely odd views. We call that “Shaadh”. Basically, it means that the person in question was either ignorant of the dominantly held view or he may have interpreted the matter in a different way.
This is closely tied to another major issue: the notion of Jama'ah. Mainstream Islam is Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah. Most sects claim to be mainstream, but the title ahlus sunnah wal jama'ah is not some sort of a label or name of a party or a group. It has a very specific meaning. Ahlus Sunnah means, people who follow the way of the Prophet. Jama'ah means first and foremost, the companions of the prophet sal allahu alayhi wasalam. The community who followed the Prophet sal allahu alayhi wasalam, despite their personal flaws, imperfections and differences were still a blessed group who are praised in the Qur'an in more than 20 different verses.
The jama'ah did not differ with one another on major issues of religion. Which means, some of them may have held an odd view, but the community never reached consensus one a matter which was in essence misguidance.
This is a core principle of mainstream Islam. Those who believe that the Sahaba gathered upon misguidance are not mainstream Muslims.
So when someone says, Abu Bakr Siddiq killed renegade tribes and he may have been wrong, it basically means that the prophecy in hadith where it is said: my ummah will not gather upon falsehood" is false. It also means that the verses of Qur’an praising the community of companions are also false. And finally, it means that the Qur’an itself, which was collected and compiled into one book by companions is also flawed. Because the consensus of the companions made the compiling of the Qur’an possible. Even when major scholars among them like Abdullah ibn Mas’ud held odd views regarding important surah’as like al Ikhlas.
So suppose, Abu Bakr siddiq was wrong and Umar was right, then the whole idea of Jama'ah goes straight out of the window.
Along with it, we lose numerous verses of Qur'an and ahadith which support the position of Abu Bakr siddiq in his decision to kill apostate tribesmen.
Let us not forget, Abu Bakr Siddiq was the most intelligent, most wise and most experienced of all companions. Even if he did err, other companions were there to correct him. But they didn't. The war against apostates did occur and those wars teach us allot about how the sahaba dealt with apostasy.
Now, 1400 years later, if anyone suggests that Abu Bakr was wrong and Umar was right, then it means that all companions agreed to obey Abu Bakr siddiq in killing fellow Muslims because they refused to pay Zakat. Even suggesting that Umar considered those tribes as Muslims and disagreed with Abu Bakr implies that Sahaba committed fratricide.
Furthermore, it means that 1400 years of jurisprudence is based on misguidance and all books of fiqh dealing with these matters are worthless.
So when you google and find some strange figure spreading ideas which go against mainstream Islam, know that you are casting doubt on very important matters of our religion.
With regards to labeling people as kafirs, I do agree that we should be very careful in labeling people as kafirs. However, considering kafirs as Muslims is probably worse. Because we have the Qur’an with explicit verses describing beliefs and actions of kufr. If we observe these things in human beings, we are supposed to consider them as kafirs. Faith in Allah and his book requires from us to affirm what we see and accept it to be so based on what we know from the Qur’an.
Not considering a kafir as a kafir, is an act of kufr. Because beliefs and actions described as Kufr in Qur’an are there for a purpose. The verses describing hypocrites are there for a purpose. The verses describing the believers are there also, for a purpose.
By refraining to judge people by Qur’an we fall into kufr which means we will go to hellfire. So if you see a person mocking, ridiculing or simply denying anything from the Qur’an you are supposed to consider that person as a kafir. When you don’t you are disbelieving in Qur’an.
One of the main reasons why apostasy and misguidance is so widespread in the Muslim world is this. People don’t want to judge themselves and others by the Qur’an.

With regards to imitation of disbelievers, what you have to bare in mind is that some issues are not specifically mentioned in Qur’an & Hadith. Some things are observed by scholars and then they apply the ruling of similar matters to them. A scholar can reach an incorrect conclusion. However, merely the knowledge that some scholar once upon a time held a different view is not sufficient to disqualify the dominant view as merely another “opnion”.
We are not discussing something new here. We are not discussing matters that we haven’t heard of before. We have AUTHENTIC texts from a prominent companion dealing with this specific topic. We have libraries filled with books of scholars of all 4 schools agreeing that imitation of kafirs is haram and can lead to apostasy.
The hypothetical questions like, what if people didn’t celebrate nawroz because its Zoroastrian, what if Abu bakr was wrong and Umar was right are of no benefit. We live in a world with many practical challenges. We should deal with the problems we have in front of us. Nawroz is a closed chapter. Ruling on imitation of disbelievers is a closed chapter. Nothing can change the ruling of these matters.

Very will written post.

[Badlun]

Islam is just faith in supernatural beings, worship and ethicss,hence nothing to do with nowroz etc which is culture, not religion. Enjoy life, forget about these dry, dull and dullards mullahs.