IdisuleOurOwn:


Not all of the lecture talks about democracy.

So a Muslim who defends his lands, a Muslim who refuses occupation, a Muslim who wants to live according to Islamic rule, is an extremist. And the moderate Muslim is a Muslim, who invites the US army to come and invade his land, and is happy to follow manmade laws and is a person who has no honor and dignity to defend himself against aggression. This is a moderate Muslim!

The above didn't relate to democracy.

These are people who defend their land from oppressors and they are tagged terrorists, extremists and fundamentalists.

And here from the lecture

I seems like you don't understand or may be still you are not ready to comprehend my message to you

Fundamentalist:


I seems like you don't understand or may be still you are not ready to comprehend my message to you

# Don't come here and sugarcoated comments for us as if there is any difference between you and your brothers in ISIS, BOKO HARAM et al. And strangely, you are making references to Sunni rejected ones like terrorists Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahab, spewing rubbish that they followed Prophet's methodology. Subhan'allah!

ISIS, BOKO HARAM, AL-QAEDA et al as a matter of fact followed the dictates of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdulwahab. The latter's Kitab al-Tawheed is widely used by the ISIS. That's an undeniable facts. You even sugarcoated the terrorist Ibn Abdulwahab as if he never murdered whom he considered as murtad (apostates)?!


FOLLOWING IS YOUR EVIL MANHAJ

# According to Salafīsm, being a non-Muslim is a sufficient reason to be legitimately attacked with the sword. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says in his Majmu’ al-Fatawa, vol. 28, p. 349:

"The punishments brought by the Shari'ah for those who disobey Allah and His Messenger are of two types: the punishment of the one who is overpowered – whether a single individual or a group – as previously discussed; and the second type is the punishment of the stubborn group, like the one which cannot be overpowered except through fighting. The root of this is the jihad against the disbelievers, the enemies of Allah and His Messenger. So, everyone who knows about the call of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, to the religion of Allah which he was sent with, but does not answer him, it is obligatory to fight him until there is no more sedition and religion becomes for Allah Alone."
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/375.html


Please note that the word “disbelievers,” in the language of Salafism, refers all non-Salafis, including Sufis, Shi’ah and non-Muslims generally. To Salafism, you have not answered the call of the Prophet as long as you remain a non-Salafi.


The Shaykh, in Majmu’ al-Fatawa, vol. 28, p. 264, further emphasizes that all non-Salafis must be brought to Salafism through the sword:

"Whoever turns away from the Book (i.e. the Qur'an) is to be corrected with the iron. This is why the soundness of the religion is based on the mushaf (i.e. the Qur’ān) and the sword. It was narrated that Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, commanded us to strike with this, meaning the sword, whoever turns away from this, meaning the mushaf.”
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/374.html


In the eyes of Salafis, all non-Salafi Muslims and all non-Muslims have turned away from the Qur'an. So, Salafis have an obligation to strike them with the sword. For instance, as the Shaykh says in his Majmu’ al-Fatawa, vol. 28, pp. 499-500: it is permissible for the Salafi to kill any Shi'i Muslim who is a soft target:

"As for the killing of the single, overpowered individual from the Khawarij like the Haruriyyah and the Rafidah (i.e. Shi’ah), the fuqaha have two opinions about it. They are two reports from Imam Ahmad. The correct opinion is that it is permissible to kill the single individual from them, like the one who invites to his sect and other similar corrupt elements, for the Prophet said: “Wherever you meet them, kill them.”
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/376.html

He also says in the same Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 28, p. 500:

"If their corruption cannot be stopped except through killing, then they should be killed. But, it is not obligatory to kill every single one of them if he does not publicly show this opinion, or if there is greater disadvantage in killing him."


Their “corruption,” of course, is their rejection of the Salafi misinterpretation of the Qur'an. But, then, why do Salafis think that the best way to convert a person to Salafism is to kill him? This methodology of theirs does not seem to have much logic behind it. In any case, in order to be killed by Salafis, you do not need to fight them. As long as you fail or refuse to accept their version of Islam, you are a legitimate target according to their jurisprudential law.

AlBaqir:



# Don't come here and sugarcoated comments for us as if there is any difference between you and your brothers in ISIS, BOKO HARAM et al. And strangely, you are making references to Sunni rejected ones like terrorists Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahab, spewing rubbish that they followed Prophet's methodology. Subhan'allah!

ISIS, BOKO HARAM, AL-QAEDA et al as a matter of fact followed the dictates of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdulwahab. The latter's Kitab al-Tawheed is widely used by the ISIS. That's an undeniable facts. You even sugarcoated the terrorist Ibn Abdulwahab as if he never murdered whom he considered as murtad (apostates)?!


FOLLOWING IS YOUR EVIL MANHAJ

# According to Salafīsm, being a non-Muslim is a sufficient reason to be legitimately attacked with the sword. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says in his Majmu’ al-Fatawa, vol. 28, p. 349:

"The punishments brought by the Shari'ah for those who disobey Allah and His Messenger are of two types: the punishment of the one who is overpowered – whether a single individual or a group – as previously discussed; and the second type is the punishment of the stubborn group, like the one which cannot be overpowered except through fighting. The root of this is the jihad against the disbelievers, the enemies of Allah and His Messenger. So, everyone who knows about the call of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, to the religion of Allah which he was sent with, but does not answer him, it is obligatory to fight him until there is no more sedition and religion becomes for Allah Alone."
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/375.html


Please note that the word “disbelievers,” in the language of Salafism, refers all non-Salafis, including Sufis, Shi’ah and non-Muslims generally. To Salafism, you have not answered the call of the Prophet as long as you remain a non-Salafi.


The Shaykh, in Majmu’ al-Fatawa, vol. 28, p. 264, further emphasizes that all non-Salafis must be brought to Salafism through the sword:

"Whoever turns away from the Book (i.e. the Qur'an) is to be corrected with the iron. This is why the soundness of the religion is based on the mushaf (i.e. the Qur’ān) and the sword. It was narrated that Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, commanded us to strike with this, meaning the sword, whoever turns away from this, meaning the mushaf.”
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/374.html


In the eyes of Salafis, all non-Salafi Muslims and all non-Muslims have turned away from the Qur'an. So, Salafis have an obligation to strike them with the sword. For instance, as the Shaykh says in his Majmu’ al-Fatawa, vol. 28, pp. 499-500: it is permissible for the Salafi to kill any Shi'i Muslim who is a soft target:

"As for the killing of the single, overpowered individual from the Khawarij like the Haruriyyah and the Rafidah (i.e. Shi’ah), the fuqaha have two opinions about it. They are two reports from Imam Ahmad. The correct opinion is that it is permissible to kill the single individual from them, like the one who invites to his sect and other similar corrupt elements, for the Prophet said: “Wherever you meet them, kill them.”
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/376.html

He also says in the same Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 28, p. 500:

"If their corruption cannot be stopped except through killing, then they should be killed. But, it is not obligatory to kill every single one of them if he does not publicly show this opinion, or if there is greater disadvantage in killing him."


Their “corruption,” of course, is their rejection of the Salafi misinterpretation of the Qur'an. But, then, why do Salafis think that the best way to convert a person to Salafism is to kill him? This methodology of theirs does not seem to have much logic behind it. In any case, in order to be killed by Salafis, you do not need to fight them. As long as you fail or refuse to accept their version of Islam, you are a legitimate target according to their jurisprudential law.

Albaqir and lies are like 5 and 6

I need not comment further

I hope my brothers will understand

Fundamentalist:



Albaqir and lies are like 5 and 6

I need not comment further

I hope my brothers will understand

We do

Fundamentalist:


I seems like you don't understand or may be still you are not ready to comprehend my message to you

It seems you skip these parts or you are just trying to be mischievous...

This lecture was talking about those who live in Islamic counties and not does who live in a secular country

"Does it make any exceptions? For example, regarding freedom of religion"
So if you want to enforce the law of Riddah then that's extremism!
"Does it believe that changing religions is an individual right?"


So if a Muslim wants to become a Jew, if a Muslim wants to become a Christian, if a Muslim wants to worship a cow, or a monkey or a snake, they should have the right to do so! If a Muslim who was guided to the straight path and honored by becoming Muslim and he knew Allah the Almighty and he followed Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be on him), if such a person whom Allah Almighty has blessed, wants to worship a cow after that, he should have the right to do so !

"Does it believe that the state should enforce the criminal law component of Sharia?"
So there should be no Hudood!

"Does it believe that the state should believe the civil law component of Sharia?"
Regarding for example, marriage issues, polygamy.
"Or does it believe there should be non-Sharia options?"


Praise is to Allahl What are we talking about here? In a vegetable market buying potatoes and onions?! What are you talking about non-Sharia options? No country in the world, gives you options regarding law. There is one law, regarding every issue. Here they want us to have options, so you walk in to court and you are handed out a multiple-choice question 'Which law do you want to follow' ! ! !

Allah Almighty says,
Allah Almighty says in this ayah (verse)
"But no, by thy Lord, they can have no real faith until they make you judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions but accept them
with the fullest conviction"

No Muslim is a Muslim, if he does not accept the law of Allah Almighty. No Muslim, is a Muslim if he refuses to accept the Sunnah of the Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

of course, as far as you live in Islamic countries where Shariaa is applied.

Fundamentalist, incase you skip this...

"The struggle under way throughout much of the Muslim world is essentially a war of ideas, its outcome will determine the future direction of the Muslim world".

"In at least two dozen countries,[b] (muslim countries)[/b]Washington has quietly funded Islamic radio and TV shows, course work in Muslim schools, Muslim think tanks, political workshops or other programs that promote moderate Islam. Federal aid is going to restore Mosques, even build Islamic schools".

[s]

Fundamentalist:



Albaqir and lies are like 5 and 6

I need not comment further

I hope my brothers will understand

[/s]

This are not lies. Can you prove the guy wrong by explaining the quoted Hadiths?

These hadiths are the ones Anwar use to quote which are mainly from medieval scholars such as Ibn Jawsi and co.

Cc: demmzy15