Sunni Laws
qurans...@my-deja.com
There are actually people who answer this question "Yes"!
One Salafy website gives the following "action items" for Muslims"
"Take down that picture of Martin Luther King.
"Remove all pictures of animals and people from your walls, destroy any
idol
statues.
"If you have a job where your boss insists that you decorate, such as
is
often required for teachers, decorate with ribbons, colored cotton, and
other
creative decorations, but do not succumb to hanging up images.
"Take down that calendar with pictures of 'cute, cuddly' animals on it.
"Allow your child to play with dolls if you so desire. Keep in mind
that the
dolls during the Prophet's time were simple "rag" or "sock" dolls
without
animated human features or intricate 'life-like' detail.
"Do not hang up your child's pictures of animals, people, or anything
worshipable, and don't let the schools do it with your children,
either.
Limit drawing to educational purposes. . . ."
Omar Johnstone
Thank you, QS, for posting something other than sectarian spam. I
have taken the liberty to change the subject heading to reflect
this admirable new direction.
qmdc> ARE PHOTOGRAPHS AND PICTORIAL ART PROHIBITED IN ISLAM?
qmdc> There are actually people who answer this question "Yes"!
qmdc> One Salafy website gives the following "action items" for Muslims"
Well, not only Salafis. It also appears to be the agreed position
of the Nejdi scholars and this has been the case for years. Now,
I am aware that some of you will have difficulty distinguishing
between Nejdi, Saudi, and Salafi. You will have to take my word
for it that there are distinctions to be drawn here.
Recently I wrote an abstract for an Arabic research paper about
the journey of Barclay Raunkiaer, a Danish explorer, from Kuwait
to Bahrian via Qassim, Buraidah, and Riyadh. In his account,
Raunkiaer apologizes repeatedly for the lack of photographs to
illustrate his journey through Nejd - he was a poor draughtsman.
He explains that he dared not use his camera for fear of his
life. Raunkiaer does not mention why the locals might have killed
him for taking pictures, but the xenophobia and narrow-mindedness
of Nejd is legendary.
Raunkiaer, a Christian, traveled through this area in constant
fear of his life. He was forbidden even to enter Buraidah by the
local emir and the townspeople refused to provide a Christian
with any kind of assistance or supplies.
Well, aggressive xenophobia and narrow-mindedness should be no
stranger to anyone on this list.
Two weeks ago the imam of my local mosque devoted a Friday khutba
to the subject of photographs that people "put into frames and
hand on their walls". He quoted the usual hadith about /TaSwiir/.
There are very few pictures of Abdul Aziz b. Abdullah b. Baz, who
died a couple of years ago, most likely because he would not
permit anyone to photograph him. The few pictures of him I have
seen appear to have been taken paparazzi style. The same is true
for his friend and colleague, Muhammad b. Othaimeen. The present
Mufti, Abdul Aziz Aal al-Sheikh, is more frequently photographed,
but I am certain that if you asked him about this he would say
that it is forbidden. I can ask him if you like.
There is a perfunctory public compliance with this position here.
It is oddly not an issue with the obligatory and ubiquitous
photographs of King Fahd and assorted family members that hang in
supermarkets, government offices, barber shops, and fishmongers.
Human representations on billboards are usually rendered
permissible in a rather Hebraic way by obscuring the eyes fig
leaf style. (It appears that the greatest prohibition regards
images of eyes).
There was a large electronic sign in the centre of Riyadh that
displayed a huge image of King Fahd in attractive fairy lights
showing full frontal eyes. This mysteriously burned down shortly
after its erection and was never replaced. The owner most likely
regarded this as a sign of divine disfavor. Every cloud has a
silver lining, as they say.
Now to the Salafi peeve:
qmdc> "Take down that picture of Martin Luther King.
Alternately, you could draw dark glasses on him or replace him
with Stevie Wonder.
qmdc> "Remove all pictures of animals and people from your walls,
qmdc> destroy any idol statues.
Pictures of animals are permitted so long as you cover the eyes,
or preferably, lop off their heads. Instructional, educational
pictures are permitted so you can alternatively change to labels
on the pictures to something like "zoology illustration 999,
pheasants frolicking before being blasted to bits by Saxe-Coburg
Gotha et al."
Distinguish between idol statues and idle statues. The first are
for worship and the second are for contemplation and aesthetic
appreciation. Idol statues are rigorously prohibited regardless
of what they depict, except in educational contexts. Idle statues
are prohibited to a lesser degree and only if they depict animals
or other living things with their heads on and eyes peering.
qmdc> "Take down that calendar with pictures of 'cute, cuddly'
qmdc> animals on it.
Alternately, take a black marker and obscure the eyes, or dress
them up in dark glasses. Cuddly kittens at the beach.
qmdc> "Allow your child to play with dolls if you so desire. Keep
qmdc> in mind that the dolls during the Prophet's time were
qmdc> simple "rag" or "sock" dolls without animated human
qmdc> features or intricate 'life-like' detail.
No Tinkling Tipper dolls that pee on command or Chatty Cathys
that can spook children and invite satanic possession? This
sounds like an American fatwa to me. Some people here poke the
eyes out of dolls and stuffed animals and I have seen faceless
"Islamic" raggidy Anns in those shops that sell "Islamic stuff".
Eye poking strikes me as sadistic.
Headless Adam's Family style dolls are totally kosher. Wednesday
was obviously a Salafi, Gomaz was most likely a calculating
operative of the Hizb, Cadida, I have forgotten her name, seems
to have been a non-practicing Zaidi Shia, and Uncle Fester was
like me, a fun-loving eccentric misfit. The difference between
the Adams Family and SRI is that they did not constantly fight
and bicker.
qmdc> "Do not hang up your child's pictures of animals, people,
qmdc> or anything worshipable, and don't let the schools do it
qmdc> with your children, either. Limit drawing to educational
qmdc> purposes. . . ."
English is such a beautiful language, it really hurts to see it
butchered in this way. "Worshipable"?
No, I will not let the school hang my children on the wall, even
if photographs are prohibited. Please do not hang you children up
as an alternative to hanging photographs of them. Follow the rule
of fiqh, follow the lesser of the two evils. Condone no harm and
cause none.
I hope you have enjoyed this lesson in Nejdi fiqh.
Assalamu alaikum,
Omar in Nejd who keeps his camera in the bottom drawer.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
salafi...@my-deja.com
Omar Johnstone <omar...@operamail.com> wrote:
> Assalamu alaikum QS,
>
> Thank you, QS, for posting something other than sectarian spam. I
> have taken the liberty to change the subject heading to reflect
> this admirable new direction.
>
> qmdc> ARE PHOTOGRAPHS AND PICTORIAL ART PROHIBITED IN ISLAM?
>
> qmdc> There are actually people who answer this question "Yes"!
>
> qmdc> One Salafy website gives the following "action items" for
Muslims"
>
> Well, not only Salafis. It also appears to be the agreed position
> of the Nejdi scholars and this has been the case for years. Now,
> I am aware that some of you will have difficulty distinguishing
> between Nejdi, Saudi, and Salafi. You will have to take my word
> for it that there are distinctions to be drawn here.
>
> It is oddly not an issue with the obligatory and ubiquitous
> photographs of King Fahd and assorted family members that hang in
> supermarkets, government offices, barber shops, and fishmongers.
> Human representations on billboards are usually rendered
> permissible in a rather Hebraic way by obscuring the eyes fig
> leaf style. (It appears that the greatest prohibition regards
> images of eyes).
The king's pictures are unfortunately not an issue, but it should be.
The prohibition of pictures applies to everyone, king, scholar or
layman. I can also affirm that pictures of the past/present kings are
present in public places. But this does not mean it is permissible or
not an issue. If the scholars and students of the salafi da'wah had
their way, they would remove all the pictures, which can and have led
to shirk and disbelief, and would replace the king himself too with
someone better (maybe a scholar himself). Just not by lethal force,
which is what those the follow Sayyid Qutub want.
> There was a large electronic sign in the centre of Riyadh that
> displayed a huge image of King Fahd in attractive fairy lights
> showing full frontal eyes. This mysteriously burned down shortly
> after its erection and was never replaced. The owner most likely
> regarded this as a sign of divine disfavor. Every cloud has a
> silver lining, as they say.
>
> Now to the Salafi peeve:
>
> qmdc> "Take down that picture of Martin Luther King.
>
> Alternately, you could draw dark glasses on him or replace him
> with Stevie Wonder.
It's not the eyes only that are bad, but the whole face. People with
dark glasses and blind people still have a face (and eyes, for that
matter). I guess your joke didn't come through.
> qmdc> "Remove all pictures of animals and people from your walls,
> qmdc> destroy any idol statues.
>
> Pictures of animals are permitted so long as you cover the eyes,
> or preferably, lop off their heads. Instructional, educational
> pictures are permitted so you can alternatively change to labels
> on the pictures to something like "zoology illustration 999,
> pheasants frolicking before being blasted to bits by Saxe-Coburg
> Gotha et al."
>
> Distinguish between idol statues and idle statues. The first are
> for worship and the second are for contemplation and aesthetic
> appreciation. Idol statues are rigorously prohibited regardless
> of what they depict, except in educational contexts. Idle statues
> are prohibited to a lesser degree and only if they depict animals
> or other living things with their heads on and eyes peering.
Wrong. Idle statues lead to idol statues/pictures.
> qmdc> "Take down that calendar with pictures of 'cute, cuddly'
> qmdc> animals on it.
>
> Alternately, take a black marker and obscure the eyes, or dress
> them up in dark glasses. Cuddly kittens at the beach.
Your humor is sickening.
> qmdc> "Allow your child to play with dolls if you so desire. Keep
> qmdc> in mind that the dolls during the Prophet's time were
> qmdc> simple "rag" or "sock" dolls without animated human
> qmdc> features or intricate 'life-like' detail.
> No Tinkling Tipper dolls that pee on command or Chatty Cathys
> that can spook children and invite satanic possession? This
> sounds like an American fatwa to me. Some people here poke the
> eyes out of dolls and stuffed animals and I have seen faceless
> "Islamic" raggidy Anns in those shops that sell "Islamic stuff".
> Eye poking strikes me as sadistic.
>
> Headless Adam's Family style dolls are totally kosher. Wednesday
> was obviously a Salafi, Gomaz was most likely a calculating
> operative of the Hizb, Cadida, I have forgotten her name, seems
> to have been a non-practicing Zaidi Shia, and Uncle Fester was
> like me, a fun-loving eccentric misfit. The difference between
> the Adams Family and SRI is that they did not constantly fight
> and bicker.
I'm laughing. Really. At your hollow humor.
> qmdc> "Do not hang up your child's pictures of animals, people,
> qmdc> or anything worshipable, and don't let the schools do it
> qmdc> with your children, either. Limit drawing to educational
> qmdc> purposes. . . ."
>
> English is such a beautiful language, it really hurts to see it
> butchered in this way. "Worshipable"?
>
> No, I will not let the school hang my children on the wall, even
> if photographs are prohibited. Please do not hang you children up
> as an alternative to hanging photographs of them. Follow the rule
> of fiqh, follow the lesser of the two evils. Condone no harm and
> cause none.
>
> I hope you have enjoyed this lesson in Nejdi fiqh.
The premier scholar of the salafi dawah of the last century, Shaikh
Nasir addeen albanee, raheemahullah, was from ALbania, no where near
najd. What about bukhaaree? ibn Taymiyah? Many of the salafi da'ees
of today are from egypt, India, Hijaaz, Jordan, Yemen, Najd, Ameircan,
and the Caribbean. So do not make false analogies.
> Assalamu alaikum,
>
> Omar in Nejd who keeps his camera in the bottom drawer.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Shaikh salih al munajjid (yes, from present day najd, not najd of old
(iraq) says:
Praise be to Allaah.
Photography (tasweer) means the taking of pictures of living, animate
moving beings, like people, animals, birds, etc. The ruling is that it
is forbidden on the basis of a number of reports, such as the following:
'Abdullaah ibn Mas'ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that
the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Those
who will be most severely punished by Allaah on the Day of Resurrection
will be the image-makers." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, see al-Fath,
10/382).
Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Allaah, may
He be exalted, says: 'Who does more wrong than the one who tries to
create something like My creation? Let him create a grain of wheat or a
kernel of corn.'" (Reported by al-Bukhaari, see Fath al-Baari, 10/385).
'Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: "Shall I not send you on
the same mission as the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) sent me? Do not leave any built-up tomb without
levelling it, and do not leave any picture in any house without erasing
it." (Reported by Muslim and al-Nisaa'i; this is the version narrated
by al-Nisaa'i).
Ibn 'Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him and his father) reported
that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
said: "Every image-maker will be in the Fire, and for every image that
he made a soul will be created for him, which will be punished in the
Fire." Ibn 'Abbaas said: "If you must do that, make pictures of trees
and other inanimate objects." (Reported by Muslim, 3/1871)
These ahaadeeth indicate that pictures of animate beings are haraam,
whether they are humans or other creatures, whether they are three-
dimensional or two-dimensional, whether they are printed, drawn,
etched, engraved, carved, cast in moulds, etc. These ahaadeeth include
all of these types of pictures.
The Muslim should submit to the teachings of Islam and not argue with
them by saying, "But I am not worshipping them or prostrating to them!"
If we think about just one aspect of the evil caused by the prevalence
of photographs and pictures in our times, we will understand something
of the wisdom behind this prohibition: that aspect is the great
corruption caused by the provoking of physical desires and subsequent
spread of immorality caused by these pictures.
The Muslim should not keep any pictures of animate beings in his house,
because they will prevent the angels from entering. The Prophet (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "The angels do not enter a
house in which there is a dog or pictures." (Reported by al-Bukhaari,
see al-Fath, 10/380).
But nowadays, unfortunately, one can even find in some Muslim homes
statues of gods worshipped by the kuffaar (such as Buddha etc.) which
they keep on the basis that they are antiques or decorative pieces.
These things are more strictly prohibited than others, just as pictures
which are hung up are worse than pictures which are not hung up, for
how easily they can lead to glorification, and cause grief or be a
source of boasting! We cannot say that these pictures are kept for
memory's sake, because true memories of a Muslim relative or friend
reside in the heart, and we remember them by praying for mercy and
forgiveness for them.
Taking pictures with a camera involves human actions such as focusing,
pressing the shutter, developing, printing, and so on. We cannot call
it anything other than "picture-making" or tasweer, which is the
expression used by all Arabic-speakers to describe this action.
In the book Al-I'laam bi naqd kitaab al-halaal wa'l-haraam, the author
says: "Photography is even more of an imitation of the creation of
Allaah than pictures which are engraved or drawn, so it is even more
deserving of being prohibitedů There is nothing that could exclude
photography from the general meaning of the reports." (p. 42, see also
Fataawa Islamiyyah, 4/355).
Among the scholars who have discussed the issue of photography is
Shaykh Naasir al-Deen al-Albaani, who said: "Some of them differentiate
between hand-drawn pictures and photographic images by claiming that
the latter are not products of human effort, and that no more is
involved than the mere capturing of the image. This is what they claim.
The tremendous energy invested the one who invented this machine that
can do in few seconds what otherwise could not be done in hours does
not count as human effort, according to these people! Pointing the
camera, focusing it, and taking the picture, preceded by installation
of the film and followed by developing and whatever else that I may not
know aboutů none of this is the result of human effort, according to
them!
Some of them explain how this photography is done, and summarize that
no less than eleven different actions are involved in the making of a
picture. In spite of all this, they say that this picture is not the
result of human action! Can it be permissible to hang up a picture of a
man, for example, if it is produced by photography, but not if it is
drawn by hand?
Those who say that photography is permitted have "frozen" the meaning
of the word "tasweer," restriciting it only to the meaning known at the
time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and
not adding the meaning of photography, which is "tasweer" or "picture-
making" in every sense - linguistic, legal, and in its harmful effects,
and as is clear from the definition mentioned above. Years ago, I said
to one of them, By the same token, you could allow idols which have not
been carved but have been made by pressing a button on some machine
that turns out idols by the dozen. What do you say to that?"
(Aadaab al-Zafaaf by al-Albaani, p. 38)
It is also worth quoting the opinion of some contemporary scholars who
allow the taking of photographs but say that the pictures should not be
kept: "The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or
pictures." (See al-Sharh al-Mumti', 2/198).
There are many bad things involved in the making of pictures. Besides
the element of imitating the creation of Allaah - which is an
accusation denied by many of those who make pictures - reality bears
witness to the great extent of immorality and provocation of desires
caused by the prevalence of pictures and picture-making nowadays. We
must remove or blot out every picture, except when it is too difficult
to do so, like the pictures which are overwhelmingly prevalent in food
packaging, or pictures used in encyclopaedias and reference books. We
should remove what we can, and be careful about any provocative
pictures that may be found.
"So keep your duty to Allaah and fear Him as much as you canů" [al-
Taghaabun 64:16 - interpretation of the meaning]
Photographs which are essential are permitted - such as those required
for identity documents, or for identifying or pursuing criminals
[e.g. "wanted" posters and the like - translator's note], or for
educational purposes which cannot be achieved otherwise. The principle
in sharee'ah is that we should not exaggerate about what is necessary.
We ask Allaah to accept our repentance and have mercy on us, and to
forgive our excesses, for He is the All-Hearing Who answers prayers.
May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.
Allah knows best
Seeraj
salafi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> to shirk and disbelief, and would replace the king himself too with
> someone better (maybe a scholar himself). Just not by lethal force,
> which is what those the follow Sayyid Qutub want.
"O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any
news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly,
and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have
done" [Qur'an 49:6]
Where did this "Salafi-dawah" found that Sayyid Qutub ordered
his "followers" to use lethal-force to replace the king??
Could he name the reference where he found that news?
W'assallam,
Seeraj
Omar Johnstone
Thank you for the copy of your fatwa on photography. Unfortunately,
you provide no source or publisher's reference, no dar al-ifta number,
no date, no translators' source, indeed, nothing at all to verify its
authorship.
In this case I could rely upon your own reputation as a reliable
informant but unfortunately you do not reveal your name and are as
faceless as your fatwa.
Anonymous postings to newsgroups are evidence of nothing at all. This
should not be strange to you: I am certain you know what the Salafis
say about hadith that cannot be traced through a contiguous line of
reliable transmitters to the Prophet, upon whom be peace.
Not only do you ignore this important principle of accountability but
you also read carelessly. My posting about photography was not a
criticism of our scholars nor did I challenge any of the carefully
considered conclusions that they have drawn.
My posting was nothing more than a comment on the rather Jewish
contortions that ordinary people commit to comply with the letter
rather than the spirit a the law. While this is common enough it
appears to be particularly endemic among the rigidly righteous who
call themselves "salafis", with a small "s".
Once again the stereotype of the salafi as a humourless and severe
acolyte with a chip on his shoulder is confirmed.
"Salafi dawa" is an ironic handle for anyone to choose. My experience
is that those who facelessly refuse to accept responsibility for their
words do not have anything of value to say. This is the opposite of
dawa.
Assalamu alaikum
Omar Johnstone
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
mailto:omar...@naseej.com.sa
salafi...@my-deja.com
The references which you ask for are fee dilaal al qur'aan, Adaalah al-
Ijtimaa’iyyah and other of Sayyid Qutb's small writings. (see below)
Sayyid Qutub was a mubtadi' in aqeedah (innovator). He has labeled
most of the ummah as kaafirs. Shaikh albanee raheemahullah has called
his followers the takfeeris and qutubis "the khawaarij of the era".
His ideas led to groups like ikwaan al muslimeen al hizb at tahreer,
and revolts contrary to the sunnah. His followers haved tried to
assasinate the misguided and ignorant leaders of Muslim countries, like
egypt. He innovated in calling all muslim leaders and those who do not
war against them kaafirs, mo matter what the case may be. He has said
that all leaders who do not rule according tot he shari'ah are guilty
of kufr that makes them non Muslim. In reality, leaders are not to be
called kaafirs until they are guilty of kufr al kabeer, that kufr with
juhood and kibr, that takes one out of Islam. This means when a muslim
leader goes against islam and thinks there is nothing wrong with that,
or thinks that kufr is better than islam, or, according to the
following hadith of the messenger of ALlah sallalahu alayhe wasallam,
those who prevent the people from doing salah. (‘Awf ibn Maalik (may
Allaah be pleased with him), according to which the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The best of your leaders are
those whom you love and who love you, who pray for you and you pray for
them. The worst of your leaders are those whom you hate and who hate
you, and you send curses on them and they send curses on you.” He was
asked, “O Messenger of Allaah, should we not fight them by the sword?”
He said, “Not as long as they are establishing prayer amongst you.”)
Otherwise, the leader who does not rule according to the shari'ah out
of weakness or fear or other reasons, is a sinner guilty of kufr-as-
sagheer, that kufr that does not take one out of Islam. In addition,
Qutb labelled tawheed al ibaadah "tawheed al haakimiyyah", stating that
any ruler who does not rule according to Islam as a person who is
challenging Allah most high, therefore guilty of raaaddah and
punishible by death. This is all based on innovation. These beliefs
are not from the sunnah.
The scholars of the salafi da'wah have written about him:
SHAIKH SAALIH IBN SA’D AS-SUHAIMEE - hafizahullaah - was asked about a
man who fell into many innovations, such as the saying that the Qur’aan
is made by Allah and not made by man. *
[‘az-Zilaal’ : 4/2249, 2250; 5/2719, 3006 : 12th edition, Daarul -
‘Ilm, 1406 H],
and who says about Moosaa - ‘alaihis - Salaam - that he is an example
for the leader who is excitable and emotional in nature. *
[‘az-Zilaal’ : 4/2280, 2347, 2348; 5/2682, 2683, 2684, 2685, 2690,
2692. 12th edition. Daarul - ‘Ilm, 1406 H ; ‘at - tasweerul - Fannee
fil-Qur’aan’ : pp. 200 - 203 : 13th edition, Daarul - Shurooq : 1413 H],
and who holds the saying of Wahdatul - Wujood *
[‘az-Zilaal’ : 6/3479, 3480, 4002, 4033, 4012 : 12th edition, Daarul -
‘Ilm, 1406 H],
and he attacks ‘Uthmaan - radiyallaahu ‘anhu - with many attacks in
this book: ‘al - ‘Adaalah al-Ijtimaa’iyyah’ *
[pp. 159, 160, 161, 172, 174, 175, 176 : 9th edition, Daarush -
Saurooq, 1403 H]
and doubts about the Paradise and the Fire *
[‘az’zilaal’ : 1/53, 397; 2/805; 6/3679, 3680, 3771, 3805, 3806, 3906 :
12th edition, Daarul - ‘Ilm : 1406H],
and who denies some of the attributes in the manner of the Jahmiyyah
and in the manner of the Ash’arees *
[‘az-Zilaal’ : 1/47, 48, 2/805, 929; 3/1762 ; 5/2575, 2807, 3028,
3114 : 12th edition. Daarul - ‘Ilm : 1406 H].
*****And who declares all of the Ummah to be Unbelievers, and does not
make any exception in that except for his own Jamaa’ah *
[‘az-Zilaal’ : 4/2122 : 12th edition, Daarul - ‘Ilm, 1406 H ; ‘al-
‘Adaalah al-Ijtimaa’iyyah’ : pp. 182, 183 - 9th edition. Daarush
Shurooq, 1403 H ; ‘Ma’aalim fit - Tareeq’ pp. 8, 10, 11, 12, 20 21, 26,
38, 39, 44, 48 : 15th edition , Daarush - Shurooq,
and who says that Tawheed - Ruboobiyyah is that which the Messenger
called to, and for which the Books were sent down - opposite to the
words of the Salaf -, and he explained ‘Laa ilaaha illallaah’ to mean
al-Haakimiyyah.
Then the question, O noble Shaikh, is what should ones stance be with
regard to him. Is he himself to be declared an innovator, since I have
criticised some of the youth for their saying: Do not declare him to be
an innovator - since the proof was not established against him. But I
have seen in his book ‘Fee Zilaalil - Qur’aan’ that he quotes speech
from the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer - rahimahullaah - so is the fact that
he quotes from the books of the Salafus - Saalih to be taken as proof
that the proof was established upon him, since he was aware of the
books of the Salaf. We would like you to clarify this matter in
details - and may Allah reward you with good."
So the Shaikh replied:
"The matter does not require great detail: establishment of the proof
and knowledge of the evidence and understanding - there is no doubt
that this is essential with regard to one who lives in Islaam and
testifies that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah and
that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and then falls into some of
these very serious matters mentioned by the questioner. However, I make
a distinction between one who has innovation as the basic manhaj that
he follows - and upon which he bases all of his affairs - like the
manhaj indicated by the questioner, and between one who falls into some
innovation - without that being from the bases of his da’wah and his
manhaj. So whoever has innovation of the basis of his manhaj and
da’wah - then there is not doubt that he is an innovator (mubtadi’) -
indeed he would be counted due to this description as being one of the
worst types of innovation - and if it were not for his ignorance, then
he would be judged to be guilty of what is worse than innovation -
however it appears that he was an ignorant person (Jaahil).
You are aware of the words of the Salaf with regards to the ignorance
of those who do not know the Sharee’ah - like this man, and like those
unfortunate writers whom it may be that they intended good but they
were not granted the success of attaining it. So they stumbled blindly
and erroneously in their judgements upon people, and in their
mentioning matters which they do not have the ability to deal with, and
they rashly entered themselves into matters which are beyond them. They
should have left these matters to the people of knowledge, and the
scholars instead, instead of delving into them themselves. Then there
is not doubt that this manhaj - whether the manhaj of this man who is
spoken of, or those like, as an innovated manhaj and one upon it is an
innovator (mubtadi’).
As for the matter of establishment of proof - then that pertains to
what is between him and Allah. As for his action then it is an
innovation, and he is an innovator - there is not doubt. Then with
regard to what is between him and Allah - then if he was ignorant - and
that appears to be the case with him - then he is to be joined along
with the ignorant and those having excuses and those whose affair is
for Allah - the Perfect and Most High -.
But many of these matters are calamitously serious, it is not fitting,
indeed it is not permissible for any Muslim... meaning that whoever
believes them is in great danger... so in summary this manhaj that has
been indicated is, all of it, innovatioin - whether it is the saying of
this man or other than him. Also this manhaj - establishing the call to
Allah upon other than the manhj of the Salaf - is upon a foundation of
Hizbiyyah (group partisanship), whatever the case - and therefore they
fell into these errors due to this manhaj which they do not wish to
divert from.
So there is not doubt that they are innovators and are to be judged
guilty of innovation. All that remains is to look are some of the
followers who do not reach that level: then with regard to them, the
judgement of innovation will depend upon the type of innovation that
proceeds from them, and upon establishment of the proof also -, and
upon the manhaj which they are upon.
So those of them who fell into it due to their being influenced by it,
but not believing all of these matters - or who free themselves from
these things, except that they fell into affiliation with these
Jamaa’ahs - then such a person should be taught and given knowledge and
understanding, and do not hasten and to call him an innovator. As for
one who then persists in this state - then he is an innovator, no
doubt, even if the proof is not established upon him - since that is a
matter between him and Allah - the Perfect and Most High -..."*
[Shar at-Tahaawiyyh’ - after completion of the chapter on Israa and
Mi’raaj. Al-Masjid an-Nabawee cassette tapes: 1413 H]
__________
Brother seeraj, I ask that you do not belittle people on this forum
(including me). This sort of da'wah is not from the sunnah. May Allah
guide us all to the sunnah and the siraat al mustaqeem. ameen
In article <8voji1$fq1$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
Seeraj <seer...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8vl6ve$p57$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
> salafi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > to shirk and disbelief, and would replace the king himself too with
> > someone better (maybe a scholar himself). Just not by lethal force,
> > which is what those the follow Sayyid Qutub want.
>
> "O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any
> news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly,
> and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have
> done" [Qur'an 49:6]
>
> Where did this "Salafi-dawah" found that Sayyid Qutub ordered
> his "followers" to use lethal-force to replace the king??
> Could he name the reference where he found that news?
>
> W'assallam,
> Seeraj
>
salafi...@my-deja.com
In article <8vsfff$8js$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
Omar Johnstone <omar...@operamail.com> wrote:
> Assalamu alaikum salafi dawa,
Wa alaykum assalam akhi
> Thank you for the copy of your fatwa on photography. Unfortunately,
> you provide no source or publisher's reference, no dar al-ifta number,
> no date, no translators' source, indeed, nothing at all to verify its
> authorship.
>
> In this case I could rely upon your own reputation as a reliable
> informant but unfortunately you do not reveal your name and are as
> faceless as your fatwa.
I am sorry brother I should have referenced it. I pasted it from
Shaikh salih al munajjid's own site, www.islam-qa.com. You may go see
shaikh munajjid, hafeedahullaahu ta'ala, who is the imam of masjid umar
ibn abdul-azeez, in al-khubar, saudi arabia. At least he was imam last
time I heard. Go to his website and do a search on photographs and you
will find the fatwah.
> Anonymous postings to newsgroups are evidence of nothing at all. This
> should not be strange to you: I am certain you know what the Salafis
> say about hadith that cannot be traced through a contiguous line of
> reliable transmitters to the Prophet, upon whom be peace.
Even though I did not reference his fatwah, it did have references
which were authentic and tracable. Allah knows best, as I swear by
Allah I would not invent or transmit a lie against the messnger of
Allah sallalahu alayhe wasallam.
> Not only do you ignore this important principle of accountability but
> you also read carelessly. My posting about photography was not a
> criticism of our scholars nor did I challenge any of the carefully
> considered conclusions that they have drawn.
Unfortunately brother it was a criticism, not to say that they should
or cannot be criticised. But just not in the way you have done in your
original message. Poking fun at muslims, and scholars, is not from the
sunnah. If you have a difference of opinion, even after the evidence
is clear, it is not wise to mock anybody or argue without your own
evidence. Your message paves the path of more hatred towards the
salafi da'ees, may Allah increase their good, who are already
constantly attacked by the sufis, muqaalidoon, hizbis, qutubis, etc.
> My posting was nothing more than a comment on the rather Jewish
> contortions that ordinary people commit to comply with the letter
> rather than the spirit a the law. While this is common enough it
> appears to be particularly endemic among the rigidly righteous who
> call themselves "salafis", with a small "s".
In fact, the Jews have not complied with either the spirit or the
letter. Allah has turned them into apes for this very reason, and many
of them have become mushriks because they made hallal into haraam and
vice versa. (If you want, I can provide the exact verses in Allah's
book where I get this from.)
The spirit here is not to indulge in anything that can lead to shirk.
The letter is specific-- idols, statues, pictures, drawings,
photographs. The Messenger of Allah knew what was correct from us. He
knew how photographs and statues lead to idols which lead to false
dieties (subhanAllahi ta'ala) which led to so many nations before being
destroyed. One thing led to another, the domino effect. So we are
told to stay away from anything that has the potential to lead to
shirk. Unfortunately people feel they are to advanced to obey the
messenger of Allah saw and hence Allah, and think that taking photos
and hanging them up on walls in this day and age is harmless. That's
what the people of old used to say before they were destroyed...
> Once again the stereotype of the salafi as a humourless and severe
> acolyte with a chip on his shoulder is confirmed.
You got that right, brother. There is no room for humor when it comes
to deen. It is raadah, apostacy and kufr, or disbelief. I am not
labeling anyone here but the act of making fun of people just becuase
they are trying to follow the deen or the direct command of the
messenger of Allah (saw) despite what modern society has allowed to
become so commonplace and so deceptive is a great error, indeed. The
religion stared as something strange, and will end as something
strange. May Allah bless the ghurabaa' (strangers).
> "Salafi dawa" is an ironic handle for anyone to choose. My experience
> is that those who facelessly refuse to accept responsibility for their
> words do not have anything of value to say. This is the opposite of
> dawa.
Well brother, I can reveal my name, but what does that mean on these
forums and newsgroups? How many names that seem legitamate actually
are forgeries? Will you really know me if I reveal my full name? If I
live in your town and met you face to face, that is a different
matter. As far as I am concerned, I am happy being called a da'ee and
student of the salafi da'wah.
> Assalamu alaikum
>
> Omar Johnstone
> Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
>
> mailto:omar...@naseej.com.sa
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
wa 'alaykum assalam
wallaahul musta'aan
sout...@email.uc.edu
Asalaam alaikum wa rahmatullahi
Ramadan Mubarak
>> Well, not only Salafis. It also appears to be the agreed position
>> of the Nejdi scholars
On the side, to Omar, most Nejdi scholars *are* Salafis :-) Or, rather,
neo-Salafis.
>The king's pictures are unfortunately not an issue, but it should be.
Indeed the very institution of Kingship, as residing in the Banu Saud, is
itself not an issue but *it* *should* *be*.
Also, to avoid making this into a Salafi/Najdi/neo-Wahabiyya bash fest. There
are MANY Hanafi Ulema who have the same position regarding photographs, there
are a number of Shafis, from my understanding, as well.
It is a matter of khilaf though.
>not an issue. If the scholars and students of the salafi da'wah had
>their way, they would remove all the pictures, which can and have led
>to shirk and disbelief,
I would smash my head in frusteration on my desk again, but it would disturb
the others in the office.
Plus it might draw blood, which would negate my fast.
So I'll just pretend to beat my head on the wall after reading what you just
wrote.
Please explain how a photograph of Abdul Aziz Bin Sa'ud can lead to Shirk ?
I can not, for the life of me, grok this particular concept. I can not compass
it with my limited understanding, it is either far too sublime and subtle of a
point for my unregenerate mind, or it is far to absurd of a point for my
conscious mind to trifle with.
>someone better (maybe a scholar himself). Just not by lethal force,
>which is what those the follow Sayyid Qutub want.
Those who follow the students of Egyptian Freemasons, and their respective
opinions, are somewhat irrelevant here.
The Amir has the right to apply a ta'zir punishment on people in such a case,
the Ta'zir can even be lethal IF THE AMIR deams it necessary. I think that
killing people for having photos is a rather stupid thing to do, but I am not a
faqih, or even a student of 'ilm, and I am known to have wacky and unimportant
opinions at times. If the "King" (groan) as Amir after consultation with
advisors who are ulema needs to use a harsh ta'zir punishment to prevent a
great fitnah from affecting the public then I think, and correct me if I am
wrong, that the Sharia allows him to do so. I don't know of the specific
limits on this but to my (little) knowledge an Amir can do this.
Correct me if I am wrong.
>> Alternately, take a black marker and obscure the eyes, or dress
>> them up in dark glasses. Cuddly kittens at the beach.
>
>Your humor is sickening.
You could have been more polite. I often find the *lack* of humor to be even
more sickening.
>I'm laughing. Really. At your hollow humor.
He is making a valid point. And hollow humor is in the eye of the beholder.
I found entertainment and amusement in his humor. He is funny: almost as
funny as my bad spelling...
>> English is such a beautiful language, it really hurts to see it
>> butchered in this way. "Worshipable"?
Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder too :-) English is more beautiful
than some languages, since it is butchered as a matter of routine by its own
speakers (like me :) at a certain point the hurt just turns into a dull ache,
and then an itch...
>The premier scholar of the salafi dawah of the last century, Shaikh
>Nasir addeen albanee, raheemahullah, was from ALbania, no where near
>najd.
His Maslak was the Nejdi one, one could say... if so inclined.
> What about bukhaaree?
Imam Bukhari was not a proponent of the Salafi dawa as the modern
proponents of the salafi dawa conceptualize it. Imam Bukhari was of the Salaf,
or at least very close to the Salaf. He had no Salafi dawa, he had the dawa of
Islam.
> Many of the salafi da'ees of today are from egypt, India, Hijaaz, Jordan,
> Yemen, Najd, Ameircan, and the Caribbean. So do not make false analogies.
Nejdis in heart, one could say... if so inclined.
>Photography (tasweer) means the taking of pictures of living, animate
>moving beings, like people, animals, birds, etc. The ruling is that it
>is forbidden on the basis of a number of reports, such as the following:
This is a hukm that is shared by a number of modern Ulema from various Madhabs.
So Omar's picking on Nejdi ulema was unfair.
HOWEVER this is a matter of ikhtilaf, the majority seems to see photography of
animate objects as haram or makruh.
>The Muslim should submit to the teachings of Islam and not argue with
>them
I agree 100%. And when there is khilaf one should have wara' and go with the
more cautious opinion.
Of course one's understanding of the teachings of Islam will depend on one's
source for such teachings. Some ponds are pure and clean, others are tainted
and poluted.
Drink with care.
>The Muslim should not keep any pictures of animate beings in his house,
>because they will prevent the angels from entering.
There is disagreement as to whether this refers to statues and carved picture
of animate beings, or also painted and drawn ones. Some Ulema extend this to
photos, but some do not noting that a photo is essentically of a similar
character to a mirror reflection, which is not haram.
>But nowadays, unfortunately, one can even find in some Muslim homes
>statues of gods worshipped by the kuffaar (such as Buddha etc.)
I've never seen this, I am sure that it is not common. There are some Muslim
homes in which drunken bouts of debauchery are held. There are some Muslim
homes which also serve as pornographic photo studios. Hardly a common problem
though...
>Among the scholars who have discussed the issue of photography is
>Shaykh Naasir al-Deen al-Albaani, who said: "Some of them differentiate
>between hand-drawn pictures and photographic images by claiming that
>the latter are not products of human effort,
Khilaf. Again the majority of Ulema seem to adopt a position similar to Shaikh
Albaanis or as strict. But some do not. This is legitimate difference in
opinion.
>accusation denied by many of those who make pictures - reality bears
>witness to the great extent of immorality and provocation of desires
>caused by the prevalence of pictures and picture-making nowadays.
Throw out your TV, or take it to your backyard and use it for target practice.
20 gauge buckshot can do wonderous things to a picture tube. (no, for the
record Kamal is not a redncek, far from it indeed ! A brownneck maybe..)
Seriously, I've long been of the opinion that TV is bad. Many Ulema have
pointed this out. Hamza Yusuf has had some very high quality arguements on the
evils of TV and motion pictures. There was a good article writen by Eric
Winkel in Islamic Quarterly a decade ago on certain ahadith relating to the end
of time and the modern state of the Media, MUCH food for thought in it.
Even those who aprove of photography have to admit that there are great
problems with it, there are many social ills that are accelerated by widespread
photography.
Again, the scholars differ, but it is not hard to see that there are problems.
It is also addictive, if not for a CSPAN addiction (and an ugly X-Files
additction) I'd get rid of TV completely.
But seriously folks, jokes aside...
This society is photo addicted, it is addicted to images. We think in MTV flash
images, our brains espescially of those from younger generations thinks as if
in a music video or John Woo film. We have jingles and songs going through our
heads 18 hours out of 24 possible hours a day, contemplation is impossible in
such a state, our attention spans are slightly more than a gnats.
There is something profound at work here.
There are very profound processes at work here, and ignoring them for the sake
of "art" or "civilization" may have bad consequences. All I ask is that people
> We must remove or blot out every picture,
Such a mentality can lead to interesting results. One that comes to mind is the
interestining affliction of certain brothers who spend far too much energy with
a black magic marker drawing dresses on pictures in magazines of ladies in
thong bikinis. There are some people who will sit there and with care take
that black magic marker and carefully blot out every piece of skin, after of
course getting several eyefulls by necessity in the process.
KNOW THYSELF.
Yeah, I know of people who would like that censor job, with a black magic
marker and a stack full of Elle and Cosmopolitan magazines... (snicker)
There is pathology involved here perhaps...
KNOW PEOPLE
>We ask Allaah to accept our repentance and have mercy on us, and to
>forgive our excesses, for He is the All-Hearing Who answers prayers.
>May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.
Ameen !
--
"an armed society is a polite society" |sout...@email.uc.edu
-Robert Heinlein |oz.uc.edu/~southakj
Use Strong Crypto -- pgp 2.6.2 key avail on request
Omar Johnstone
Thank you for your reply and for the URL to Shaikh al-Munajjid's
website. Dr. Salih is still in al-Khobar. I have not had the
opportunity of visiting him there but I hope to do so some time.
>Even though I did not reference his fatwah, it did have references
>which were authentic and tracable.
That is fine in a personal exchange between you and I, especially if I
know you and trust you, but this is a newsgroup. Whatever is here
posted goes into the archives and may be seen by people years from
now.
The position of the Saudi ulema on photography is well known. I am in
no position to dispute this, however, we both know that there are
other scholars with other opinions. I am in no position to refute
these either.
>Poking fun at muslims, and scholars, is not from the sunnah.
We are not permitted to attack the honor of Muslims, to ridicule them,
or to tell untruths about them. Perhaps you feel this is what I have
done. It was not my intention. I spoke of behavior and mentioned no
one by name.
>Your message paves the path of more hatred towards the salafi da'ees,
>may Allah increase their good, who are already constantly attacked by
>the sufis, muqaalidoon, hizbis, qutubis, etc.
Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Everyone considers that
what he believes is correct. It is not reasonable to hold beliefs that
one feels are incorrect. If I am tolerant of other views this does not
mean that I declare my own views to be incorrect. Tolerance is a
matter of adab.
I am possibly closer to you and your beliefs than anyone else on this
forum, however, you choose to respond to me rather than to those who
habitually attack Islam and Muslims. When you say "your message paves
the path of more hatred towards the salafi da'ees" the reason for your
singling me out becomes clear.
>There is no room for humor when it comes to deen. It is raadah,
>apostacy and kufr, or disbelief.
So quickly we resort to this type of argument. You were only just
criticizing Sayid Qutub for this and now you dabble in it yourself.
>The act of making fun of people just becuase they are trying to
>follow the deen... is a great error, indeed.
How many times have I heard Egyptian women criticized for not covering
their faces, for wearing tight fitting brightly colored head coverings
decorated with all manner of baubles and trinkets? How many times have
I heard Pakistani women criticized for covering their hair
incompletely, a la Benazir? How many times have I heard Sudanese women
ridiculed for wearing the same "peek-a-boo" hijab, a part of their
national dress? Will you also rise to their defence?
You do not see seductive photographs of male and female models in
fancy shop windows in Riyadh, their eyes covered over with a piece of
masking tape. You do not see Islamicly headless mannequins, slim and
sexual, firm breasted with dainty nipples peeking through the light
fabric of evening dresses and lingerie in up market Saudi shopping
centers.
Your experience of such things is minimal. I doubt whether you would
consider that those who place such things in public places are really
doing their best to comply with deen. I consider their efforts to be
little more than a travesty. Those who do such things ridicule Islam
and Muslims by shameful compliance. I do not believe they deserve
your support.
>Well brother, I can reveal my name, but what does that mean on these
>forums and newsgroups?
It means that you have a name and are a person. It means that you are
responsible for your words and stand by them. It means that I, or
anyone else can find you knowing that you said such and such and will
maintain it.
>How many names that seem legitamate actually are forgeries?
I do not expect Muslims to call themselves by other than their names.
A Muslim may call himself Abu Ahmad and when he does that is his name.
I expect him to always be Abu Ahmad and do not suspect that this is an
alias for newsgroups. Call yourself what you will. It is your
business.
>Will you really know me if I reveal my full name?
I told you my name. It is Omar Johnstone. You can ask after me here in
Riyadh. If you come and ask around you will find me. It is my name. If
you want to complain about me you can. You can write to Dar al-Ifta or
WAMY or anyone else and tell them that Omar Johnstone who lives in
Riyadh is a deviant in his aqeedah. Do that, if you like. I will
support whatever I say.
Allah knows what I say and what I do not say. That is enough for me. I am
not afraid of what others may think of me or attempt to do to me
because I have said something that they dislike. They can go and drink
from the sea, as the Arabs say.
>If I live in your town and met you face to face, that is a different
>matter.
How is it different? You come wearing a balaclava claiming to be
something and you will vanish without a trace.
>As far as I am concerned, I am happy being called a da'ee and student
>of the salafi da'wah.
It is your own assessment of who you are. I prefer others to know me
as Omar, not as a salafi da'ee or a sufi qutub or an operative of the
Hizb al-Tahrir or organizer for the Ikhwan or propagandist for Iran or
the Taliband. I am a Muslim and if you like to label me as anything
else then please do so on your own responsibility.
salafi...@my-deja.com
In article <900uvp$50s$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
sout...@email.uc.edu wrote:
> In article <8vl6ve$p57$1...@samba.rahul.net>, <salafi_dawah@my-
deja.com> wrote:
>
> Asalaam alaikum wa rahmatullahi
>
> Ramadan Mubarak
>
> >> Well, not only Salafis. It also appears to be the agreed position
> >> of the Nejdi scholars
>
> On the side, to Omar, most Nejdi scholars *are* Salafis :-) Or,
rather,
> neo-Salafis.
"Neo-salafis" What exactly do you mean by that? The word salaf means
previous, past, or preceded. With respect to the salafi da'wah that
means the da'wah of those who lived around the time of rasoolullah
salalahu alayhe wasallam. So what does it mean when you stick the word
neo (which means new) in front of salaf? New Preceding? Does that
make any sense? Or is it just a cool catch phrase to turn people away
from the salafi dawah? I've heard this term before used by soofees and
other deviants, and Allah is the One we seek help from.
> >The king's pictures are unfortunately not an issue, but it should be.
>
> Indeed the very institution of Kingship, as residing in the Banu
Saud, is
> itself not an issue but *it* *should* *be*.
This IS an issue among the da'ees of the salaf us salih. If everything
was the way it should be, we would have a leader who is appointed
according to the shari'ah. But we don't, and so we have to be patient
until Allah gives us His mercy. Indeed, as ibn taymiyah raheemahullah
said, the leaders and scholars are a reflection of the people. Allah
punishes the wrongdoing people with oppressive rulers. But it is the
way of the anmbiyaa and the salaf to have patience with such nonsense
rulers, and try to guide them along with the people. It would be worse
for the muslims to take action against the king, because greater harm
and evil will fall on the muslims as a result. Allah knows best.
But this does not mean the salafis or the "wahhabis" as you call
support the king. We support a government that brings the people
together, and allows them to pray and preactice islaam. When this
government tries to prevent people from praying, only then we are
commanded to war against them, as stated in the hadith by ‘Awf ibn
Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him), according to which the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The best of
your leaders are those whom you love and who love you, who pray for you
and you pray for them. The worst of your leaders are those whom you
hate and who hate you, and you send curses on them and they send curses
on you.” He was asked, “O Messenger of Allaah, should we not fight them
by the sword?” He said, “Not as long as they are establishing prayer
amongst you.” So until then, we're cool (patient).
> Also, to avoid making this into a Salafi/Najdi/neo-Wahabiyya bash
fest. There
> are MANY Hanafi Ulema who have the same position regarding
photographs, there
> are a number of Shafis, from my understanding, as well.
>
> It is a matter of khilaf though.
The matter of khilaaf is not the prohibition of pictures. It is
whether photographs can be considered pictures. Pictures include
drawings and photographs (which scientifically is a drawing made by
photons of light on film rather than ink on paper).
If one looks up the word "Surah/tasweer" in any Arabic dictionary he
will see that includes snapshots, portaits, photographs, and the like.
(In fact "suurah khaatimah" means snapshot photograph.)
So whoever is saying that photographs is allowed is saying the
photogrpahs are not a type of picture. Scientifically and
Linguistically this is proven otherwise. But you will find that the
same people who allow photographs also allow drawings, so we know their
real intentions.
> >not an issue. If the scholars and students of the salafi da'wah had
> >their way, they would remove all the pictures, which can and have led
> >to shirk and disbelief,
>
> I would smash my head in frusteration on my desk again, but it would
disturb
> the others in the office.
>
> Plus it might draw blood, which would negate my fast.
> So I'll just pretend to beat my head on the wall after reading what
you just
> wrote.
How will bleeding negate your fast? Seems as if you need to look into
the nullifiers of fast. You will not find bleeding among them.
Or is this another innovation of the sufis?
> Please explain how a photograph of Abdul Aziz Bin Sa'ud can lead to
Shirk ?
> I can not, for the life of me, grok this particular concept. I can
not compass
> it with my limited understanding, it is either far too sublime and
subtle of a
> point for my unregenerate mind, or it is far to absurd of a point for
my
> conscious mind to trifle with.
I have personally seen non-Muslims kissing photographs of their family
ancestors and bowing to them. I have seen Muslims kissing and touching
on their forehead pictures of living and deceased relatives. Pictures
don't always lead to shirk, but definitely have the potential to do
so. They (including photos) are prohibited.
The picture of the saudi kings being up everywhere in Saudi has caused
some to revere him more than if they never saw his face. That
reverence has led people to the next step, shirk.
> >someone better (maybe a scholar himself). Just not by lethal force,
> >which is what those the follow Sayyid Qutub want.
>
> Those who follow the students of Egyptian Freemasons, and their
respective
> opinions, are somewhat irrelevant here.
I just had to add that in because so many poeple actually consider Qutb
a great islamic scholar.
> The Amir has the right to apply a ta'zir punishment on people in such
a case,
> the Ta'zir can even be lethal IF THE AMIR deams it necessary. I
think that
> killing people for having photos is a rather stupid thing to do, but
I am not a
> faqih, or even a student of 'ilm, and I am known to have wacky and
unimportant
> opinions at times. If the "King" (groan) as Amir after consultation
with
> advisors who are ulema needs to use a harsh ta'zir punishment to
prevent a
> great fitnah from affecting the public then I think, and correct me
if I am
> wrong, that the Sharia allows him to do so. I don't know of the
specific
> limits on this but to my (little) knowledge an Amir can do this.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong.
I do not have knowledge of this, but there is potential for the ameer
to abuse his power, and kill people as the khawaarij have tried in the
old days. Unless someone is guilty of raaddah or some other hadd
punishment, killing should be a last resort.
> >> Alternately, take a black marker and obscure the eyes, or dress
> >> them up in dark glasses. Cuddly kittens at the beach.
> >
> >Your humor is sickening.
>
> You could have been more polite. I often find the *lack* of humor to
be even
> more sickening.
Ok, I have no sense of humor. But I believe the original message was
trying to make fun of some of the ulamaa and their opinions by being
sarcastic and satirical. I believe this is a great disrespect to the
scholars, as they are not stating their own opinions (usually).
> >I'm laughing. Really. At your hollow humor.
>
> He is making a valid point. And hollow humor is in the eye of the
beholder.
> I found entertainment and amusement in his humor. He is funny:
almost as
> funny as my bad spelling...
He may be funney. The point here is he is making fun of scholars.
> >> English is such a beautiful language, it really hurts to see it
> >> butchered in this way. "Worshipable"?
>
> Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder too :-) English is more
beautiful
> than some languages, since it is butchered as a matter of routine by
its own
> speakers (like me :) at a certain point the hurt just turns into a
dull ache,
> and then an itch...
>
> >The premier scholar of the salafi dawah of the last century, Shaikh
> >Nasir addeen albanee, raheemahullah, was from ALbania, no where near
> >najd.
>
> His Maslak was the Nejdi one, one could say... if so inclined.
Give me a break. If you read a biography on shaikh albani you will
find that he started studying the hadith in syria. His path is of the
sunnah, not the path of najd. In najd, like any other part of the
world, you will find innovators. You will also find people on the
sunnah. Why do people like to make geography an issue in Islam?
Incidentally Albaanee did not know the scholars of najd until way later
on in his life.
> > What about bukhaaree?
>
> Imam Bukhari was not a proponent of the Salafi dawa as the modern
> proponents of the salafi dawa conceptualize it. Imam Bukhari was of
the Salaf,
> or at least very close to the Salaf. He had no Salafi dawa, he had
the dawa of
> Islam.
Wrong here. Imaam bukhaaree raheemahullah was not of the salaf. The
salafi dawah IS the dawah of Islaam, the correct da'wah, and the da'wah
of the Islaam of the salaf (may Allah be pleased with them). It is
free from the taint and bid'ah of today's movements. It is not
possible to say that the da'wah of the salaf is not the da'wah of
islaam. This is the claims of the rawaafid, those who slander the
companions of rasoolullah sallalahu alayhe wasallam.
Imaam Bukhaaree (rahimahullaah) said:
I met more than a thousand men amongst the people of knowledge from the
people of al-Hijaaz, al-Makkah, al-Madinah, al-Koofah, al-Basrah,
Waasit, Baghdaad, Shaam and Misr... and I never saw a single one of
them differ with respect to the following matters...
... And they used to forbid and prevent [people] from the innovations -
those that the Messenger and his Companions were not upon, due to His
saying:
And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allāh (i.e. this
Qur'ān), and be not divided among yourselves [Soorah Aali Imraam 3:103]
and due to His saying:
If you obey him [the Messenger], you shall be on the right guidance
[Soorah an-Noor 24:54]
[Source: Sharh Usool ul-I'tiqad of Imaam al-Laalikaa'ee (Eng. Trans by
Abu 'Iyad as-Salafi)
(2/172-5), The Creed of Imaam Bukhaaree p.13,28 - al-Maktabah as-
Salafiyyah Publications]
> > Many of the salafi da'ees of today are from egypt, India, Hijaaz,
Jordan,
> > Yemen, Najd, Ameircan, and the Caribbean. So do not make false
analogies.
>
> Nejdis in heart, one could say... if so inclined.
I have never been in najd and have not learned from scholars in Najd.
I have no connection with the najd of today except that many of the
great scholars happen to be from there. This might change in the next
50 years, ALlah knows best.
Are the attackers of the salfi da'wah going to label it the "Najdi"
sect? We seek refuge in Allah.
> >Photography (tasweer) means the taking of pictures of living, animate
> >moving beings, like people, animals, birds, etc. The ruling is that
it
> >is forbidden on the basis of a number of reports, such as the
following:
>
> This is a hukm that is shared by a number of modern Ulema from
various Madhabs.
> So Omar's picking on Nejdi ulema was unfair.
>
> HOWEVER this is a matter of ikhtilaf, the majority seems to see
photography of
> animate objects as haram or makruh.
>
> >The Muslim should submit to the teachings of Islam and not argue with
> >them
>
> I agree 100%. And when there is khilaf one should have wara' and go
with the
> more cautious opinion.
As I have said before, the khilaaf is not in the prohibition, but in
the definition. Some people will try to prove that black equals white
as well.
> Of course one's understanding of the teachings of Islam will depend
on one's
> source for such teachings. Some ponds are pure and clean, others are
tainted
> and poluted.
> Drink with care.
>
> >The Muslim should not keep any pictures of animate beings in his
house,
> >because they will prevent the angels from entering.
>
> There is disagreement as to whether this refers to statues and carved
picture
> of animate beings, or also painted and drawn ones. Some Ulema extend
this to
> photos, but some do not noting that a photo is essentically of a
similar
> character to a mirror reflection, which is not haram.
A mirror reflection is a transient image. It is temporary. Most of
the scholars of the sunnah allow permissible images on the computer or
video. They do not have the same potential like fixed pictures or
photographs to become items calling to shirk.
> >But nowadays, unfortunately, one can even find in some Muslim homes
> >statues of gods worshipped by the kuffaar (such as Buddha etc.)
>
> I've never seen this, I am sure that it is not common. There are some
Muslim
> homes in which drunken bouts of debauchery are held. There are some
Muslim
> homes which also serve as pornographic photo studios. Hardly a
common problem
> though...
Never said it was common. It does happen though.
> >Among the scholars who have discussed the issue of photography is
> >Shaykh Naasir al-Deen al-Albaani, who said: "Some of them
differentiate
> >between hand-drawn pictures and photographic images by claiming that
> >the latter are not products of human effort,
>
> Khilaf. Again the majority of Ulema seem to adopt a position similar
to Shaikh
> Albaanis or as strict. But some do not. This is legitimate difference
in
> opinion.
Suuras are permanent objects; mirages, transient images, and other
temporary figures are considered permissible because they do not have
the same potential to lead to shirk.
> >accusation denied by many of those who make pictures - reality bears
> >witness to the great extent of immorality and provocation of desires
> >caused by the prevalence of pictures and picture-making nowadays.
>
> Throw out your TV, or take it to your backyard and use it for target
practice.
> 20 gauge buckshot can do wonderous things to a picture tube. (no, for
the
> record Kamal is not a redncek, far from it indeed ! A brownneck
maybe..)
Better yet, keep the TV, disconnect the satellite/cable, and use it for
useful purposes (like teaching qur'an, etc)
> Seriously, I've long been of the opinion that TV is bad. Many Ulema
have
> pointed this out. Hamza Yusuf has had some very high quality
arguements on the
> evils of TV and motion pictures. There was a good article writen by
Eric
> Winkel in Islamic Quarterly a decade ago on certain ahadith relating
to the end
> of time and the modern state of the Media, MUCH food for thought in
it.
I have to check it out.
What he meant was that we should avoid having magazines with these
pictures in them in the first place. If we do have them, then we
should throw them away. If there is something useful in the magazine
but it has one page of that, rip that page out. If you can't do that,
then blot it out without getting an "eyefull". It depends on one's
intention. If there is fear of fitnah then avoid all magazines!
> KNOW THYSELF.
>
> Yeah, I know of people who would like that censor job, with a black
magic
> marker and a stack full of Elle and Cosmopolitan magazines...
(snicker)
> There is pathology involved here perhaps...
I'm not taking sides here. But if what you say is true then sure,
there is room for problems. Why don't people just not get the
magazines in the first place, so that they don't have to worry about
censors?
> KNOW PEOPLE
>
> >We ask Allaah to accept our repentance and have mercy on us, and to
> >forgive our excesses, for He is the All-Hearing Who answers prayers.
> >May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.
>
> Ameen !
> --
Wallahul musta'aan
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On 29 Nov 2000 04:59:30 GMT, salafi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I've heard this term before used by soofees and
>other deviants, and Allah is the One we seek help from.
What do you mean by Sufis and other deviants? People who declare that
there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the messenger of God?
And this during Ramadan!
Like an arrow.... passing clean through an animal.....
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Dr. Jihad! Page O' Heavy Issues
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
Dr. Jihad! & the Intellectual Muslim Guerrillas
http://www.mp3.com/drjihad
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On 29 Nov 2000 04:59:31 GMT, Omar Johnstone <omar...@gmx.co.uk>
wrote:
>You do not see Islamicly headless mannequins, slim and
>sexual, firm breasted with dainty nipples peeking through the light
>fabric of evening dresses and lingerie in up market Saudi shopping
>centers.
<laughing>
What I like are Muslim men who are terrified of women, and of women's
bodies, (and frankly, don't really seem to like women at all) while
they themselves wear micro-thin thobes, which, when walking into the
wind, show every little nook and cranny! Displaying everything for all
to see!
Can you say "cognitive dissonance"?
Can you say "more Freudian than Freud"?
Can you say "man! that's kind of gay"?
Can you say "the nonsense, double standards and thoughlessness of the
neo-Salafis is obvious to anyone with a brain-in-use"?
I really admired the fine statement on the causal links between
photographs and shirk. Brilliant! There's some *real* disciplined
observation of Allah's patterns in creation. Its not hard to figure
out why Muslims as a group no longer contribute scientifically,
socially, politically, or any other way.....
God forgive us!
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On 30 Nov 2000 18:19:08 GMT, aja...@usa.net wrote:
>A little common sense will cause us to realize that it's not the
>photography per se that is harmful to humankind, but it's *it's usage*
>that determines whether photography is harmful or beneficial or simply
>'neutral'.
It seems so plain to me I almost wouldn't call it common sense! Don't
people think at all? After all, the Qur'an IS addressed to people who
think!
>Just imagine learning about different species of animals, insects, and
>of other cultures from the National Geographic magezine WITHOUT the
>excellent photographs and hand drawings! On top of it, many feel that
>even pictures on TV are 'haraam' in Islam as they consist of numerous
>'still' photos of live beings!
>
>It's when the Muslims stopped using common sense in interpreting the
>Qur'an and the supporting traditions that caused the Muslims to become
>dogmatic and stagnant.
Two points-- as you say-- one thing that doesn't seem to be done too
often-- and leads to astounding problems and absurd statements such as
a causal link between photography per se and shirk-- is that the
hadith literature too needs to be interpreted. The hadith as they
stand give no context. To take them on face value without any
reflection is completely absurd to my mind.
For instance, regarding pictures, what is the socio-historical
context? Well, to my best understanding, the Arabs of the time really
only had only one major art form-- poetry. They did not have the
resources to develop dance, painting, music, etc. Given that, when
such topics are mentioned in the hadith what is *really* being talked
about? Its not at all obvious from the text alone.
When I read in the hadith literature that pictures or sculpture is
somehow imitating Allah's creation I can only think in terms of some
kind of magical use of the pictures or sculpture such as voodoo-- i.e.
making a doll that somehow *is* the person, who can then be injured by
doing things to the doll. Or the idea that a little sculpture of a god
somehow *is* the god. But that is obviously not the only use of
pictures and sculpture. As you pointed out, such things are used to
*document* Allah's creation. That is a very, very different thing. And
its not a difficult point to grasp. (well, ok, I know its going to be
difficult for some, but there's nothing anyone can do about such
willful embracing of thoughtlessness)
I don't know of any sculptor, nor photographer, nor graphic artist who
thinks he or she is imitating creation, or creating something
similar-- that would be magic, not art. Rather, they are documenting
creation, or they are studying creation, or they are contemplating it,
or they are bringing out aspects of it for others to see and
contemplate, or they are attempting to communicate their own unique,
individual perception of it.
This is haram?!?! To say so would be the height of absurdity and
thoughtlessness, to my mind. But if we don't interpret the hadith
literature with reference to the original times we will indeed say
absurd things, such as photography causes shirk, and so many other
things some Muslims put forth with passion and misplaced
confidence....
We can observe clearly in the patterns Allah has placed in creation
and in ourselves that photography per se is NOT a cause of shirk or
idolatry. Ismail Faruqi brings out the point that there will never be
a contradiction between science (i.e. disciplined observation of
sunnat Allah) and the Qur'an. If there is, there is either an error in
our science or in our understanding of the Qur'an. In this situation
it seems astoundingly clear the error lies in the understanding of the
Qur'an of people who would say photography is haram because it causes
shirk and idolotry. (And referring to your moon example, one of these
"scholars"-- a contemporary, and popular, and held as a religious
authority-- held the view the earth was flat, to my understanding. I
mean, what can one say in response to such things that are in complete
denial of reality? And as we know The Reality is another name for
Allah!)
Like a hadith says--- an arrow going clean through its prey.....
Allah knows best, of course.
cb...@my-deja.com
> Omar Johnstone <omar...@operamail.com> wrote:
> > Assalamu alaikum QS,
> >
> The prohibition of pictures applies to everyone, king, scholar or
> layman. I can also affirm that pictures of the past/present kings are
> present in public places. But this does not mean it is permissible or
> not an issue. If the scholars and students of the salafi da'wah had
> their way, they would remove all the pictures, which can and have led
> to shirk and disbelief, and would replace the king himself too with
> someone better (maybe a scholar himself). Just not by lethal force,
> which is what those the follow Sayyid Qutub want.
>
>
This is the hallmark of the "Salafi" of today. They lack rahma and
wisdom when it comes to the general public; when it comes to the kings
and the tyrants they argue using every valid and invalid argument. They
are efficient in creating small "battles" with relatively minor issues
such as the reading of Qur'an for the death. They are ready to attack
those Muslims who struggle with their life and wealth to establish the
rule of shari'a. Sayid Qutub (Ruhmetullahi 'alaihi) gave his life
struggling for the return of Shari'a rule. They assist the Apostate
rulers with their fatawa attacking those who call to the establishment
of rule based on the Shari'ah. The "Salafi" and the Ahbash abuse Sayid
Qutb because of his position that Muslims must not be ruled by a kufr
system. In fact, the Ahbash praise Jamal Abdunasir because he killed
Sayid Qutub. Let there be no misunderstanding that Sayid Qutub had
mistakes and those who consider him as their teacher (Ustaaz) do not
cover his mistakes - Alhamdulillah, this is what is required by Islam
and it is the way of the Salaf as Saalih.
Salafi_dawah, mispresents the view of the Salaf as Saalih with respect
to using force to change evil - in this context, Ruling with man made
laws as in the statement "lethal force, which is what those the follow
Sayyid Qutub want". If Muhammad ibn Abdulwahhab (Ruhmetullahi 'alaihi)
lived in our time, he would have declared Saudi rulers as apostates. He
is very clear that taking the kuffar as allies would make one an
appostate. Shaikh Ibn Baz (Ruhmetullahi 'alaihi) gave the Fatwa
supporting the American occupation of the land of Alharamain. Some of
the "Salafi" defend the Shaikh's mistake - but they do not have the
same stance towards other scholars whom they accuse of committing
mistakes. In fact they abused the scholars who objected to the American
occupation of the land of Alharamain - (Safar Al Hawali, salman Al Auda
and others - what an irony. The glaring evidense is that it is America -
the leader of the Kuffar - that is guarding the land of Alharamain is
hidden from them.
The position of the Salaf as Salih concerning change of evil is
summarized by Imam Ibn Hazm (Ruhmetullahi 'alaihi) - Note that their
position must be understood inlight of change of evil which is less
than Kufr. There is no disagreement about the issue of Clear kufr as
stated by the Messenger of Allah, when asked - if muslims can rise
against a tyrant leader - He (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam)
replied: "No, as long as they establish Prayer among you (ma aqamu
fikum as salah); Except that you see clear kufr"
Imam Ibn Hazm lists the names of the Sahaba and the Tabi'een who
support change of evil "by lethal force".
They are, "Ali bin Abi Talib and his supporters among the Sahaba, Umm
Al M'umineen A'isah, Talha, Az-Zubair and all who faught on their side
among the Sahaba, Mu'awiya, 'Amru, AnN'umaan bin Bishr and others who
were with them among the Sahaba,
Abdullahi bin Az-Zubair, Muahammad and Al Husain -the sons - of Ali,
and the rest among the Sahaba (who were with them), Whoever rose
against the fasiq Al Hajjaj, and who supported them among the Sahaba
such as Anas bin Maalik (radiallahu 'anhum ajma'een). And among the
Tabi'een: "Abduruhman bin abi Layli, Sa'eed bin Jubair, Abu Bahtariy
atTa'i, Ata'a As Sulami Al Azadi, Al Hasan Al Basri, Maalik bin Dinar,
Muslim bin Yasaar, Abul Jawz'a, As Sh'ubi, Abdullahi bin Ghalib ... and
others." Imam Ibn Hazm then said, "This can supported by the statements
of of the Scholars such as, Abu Hanifa, Al hasan bin Huy, Shareek,
Malik, As Shafi'i, Dawood and his companions. All of those we have
mentioned past and present - show their position - either through their
statements in their Fatwa or by their action, drawing their swords to
opose the evil that they saw." - Al Fisal V. 5 p. 19 - 28.
The overwhelming evidence comes from The Messenger of Allah
(sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) who said - note the part "continue to
fight" to see that the hadeeth can not be claimed by the "Salafi" of
today who are against fighting:
"It has been narrated on the authority of Thauban that the Messenger of
Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A group of people from my Ummah
will always remain triumphant on the right path and continue to be
triumphant (against their opponents). He who deserts them shall not be
able to do them any harm. They will remain in this position until
Allah's. Command is executed (i. e. Qayamah is established). In
Qutaiba's version of the tradition, we do not have the words:" They
will remain in this position." - Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4715.
"It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura that the Holy
Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: This religion will continue to
exist, and a group of people from the Muslims will continue to fight
for its protection until the Hour is established." - Sahih Muslim Book
020, Number 4717.
"It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. 'Abdullah who said:
I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: A group of
people from my Umma will continue to fight In defence of truth and
remain triumphant until the Day of judgment." Sahih Muslim Book 020,
Number 4718.
"It his been narrated on the authority of Umair b. Umm Hani who said: I
heard Mu'awiya say (while delivering a sermon from the pulpit) that he
heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: A group of
people from my Umma will continue to obey Allah's Command, and those
who desert or oppose them shall not be able to do them any harm. They
will be dominating the peeple until Allah's Command is executed (i. e.
Resurrection is established)." sahi Muslim Book 020, Number 4719.
Imam An Nawawi, in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim, commenting on the above
hadeeth said,
"And in this hadeeth there is a clear miracle as the description (of
the fighting group) continue to exist from the time of the Prophet
(sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) until now; and it will continue to exist
until the will of Allah (subhanehu wa ta'ala) is fulfilled, as
mentioned in the hadeeth".
If the "Salafi" of our time are satisfied with what they are upon and
unable to join the fighting let them read the following advice: Al Qadi
ibn abil 'Izz in his introduction to his Sharh of Aqidah At Tahawiya
writes:
"If a slave (of Allah) is unable to understand (it) or to act upon it,
he must not forbid others from what he is unable to fulfill of what the
Messenger (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) commanded; Instead he must wish
that the blame for not participating is removed from him; It is upon
him to be happy for those - other than him - who rise to the task and
should be satisfied with it; and He should also wish that he took part".
> Allah knows best
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
salafi...@my-deja.com
In article <90hcko$ci7$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
Do not get me wrong, brother. I am in no way attacking those who wish
to establish the shari'ah; in fact, this is what I would like also.
However, qutubis, surooris, takfiris, ikhwaanis, hizbis, all these
groups have strayed from the sunnah. They preform takfeer on all
leaders of Muslim countries, that kufr which takes on out of islaam.
It is a form of kufr to rule outside ALlah's laws, but it depends on
several factors whether this can cause a person to be out of Islaam.
As the hadith mentions, the leaders are not to be fought or removed by
force until they try to prevent people from praying and practising
their Islam. They are not to be called kaafirs until they say that
Islaamic laws are not necessary, or that kufr is better than islaam, or
make a statement of raaddah. An example of this would be Ata Turk, who
tried his best to remove Islam from Turkey. I would not call Fahd a
disbeliever outside the fold ofs Islaam, as long as he allows people to
pray, etc. He is a sinner and an oppressor but that does not
substantiate forceful removal or assassination, which is a Qutubi
ideology.
Those who follow the dawah of salafiyyah do not consider bid'ah and
violation of tawheed a minor matter, as you claim. Reading the qur'aan
after death is a bidah. We cannot consider bidah minor or
insignificant. Whoever innovates is astray, and being astray is ebing
in the fire (kulla bid'atin dalaalah, wa kulla dalaalatin finnar). Now
someone may try to bring the linguistics of the arabic word "kulla" but
the meaning is clear. Those who innovate in beliefs and actions are
accurrsed, and those who follow without learning the sunnah are
ignorant. Those who innovate are indirectly believing that ALlah's
deen is not complete or perfect, audhubillah.
Sayid Qutub (Ruhmetullahi 'alaihi) gave his life
> struggling for the return of Shari'a rule. They assist the Apostate
> rulers with their fatawa attacking those who call to the establishment
> of rule based on the Shari'ah. The "Salafi" and the Ahbash abuse Sayid
> Qutb because of his position that Muslims must not be ruled by a kufr
> system. In fact, the Ahbash praise Jamal Abdunasir because he killed
> Sayid Qutub. Let there be no misunderstanding that Sayid Qutub had
I, nor any of the salafi da'ees did not wish that sayyid qutub be
killed. He was an innovator in aqeedah and priniciples. He was a
deviant from the sunnah. You should not compare the salafi to the
ahbaash.
> mistakes and those who consider him as their teacher (Ustaaz) do not
> cover his mistakes - Alhamdulillah, this is what is required by
Islam
> and it is the way of the Salaf as Saalih.
The neo-qutubists, the surooris, like safar al hawali and salman awdah,
have believed in creating cictil strife and discord. Like sayiid qutub
in the past, these people feel removing one evil (the present
dictators) from Muslim lands should be done by force, no matter what
the consequences. Removing one evil and creating a greater evil is not
in accordance to the sunnah.
> Salafi_dawah, mispresents the view of the Salaf as Saalih with respect
> to using force to change evil - in this context, Ruling with man made
> laws as in the statement "lethal force, which is what those the follow
> Sayyid Qutub want".
You have not listened to statements by hasan al bannah and other
qutubis. Many of the muslims feel they follow the qur'a and sunnah but
would like to fight a jihaad to rid the world of the Muslim leaders,
without realizing the grave consequences. Removing one evil and
creating a greater evil is not allowed.
If Muhammad ibn Abdulwahhab (Ruhmetullahi 'alaihi)
> lived in our time, he would have declared Saudi rulers as apostates.
He
> is very clear that taking the kuffar as allies would make one an
> appostate.
This is speaking without knowledge.
Muhammad ibn abdul-wahhaab raheemahullah would first realize the
dangers of labelling someone a kaafir or murtad without looking
carefully at the situation. To call anyone a kaafir without knowledge
is dangerous, because it may be that that person himself is a kaafir,
according to the hadith.
>Shaikh Ibn Baz (Ruhmetullahi 'alaihi) gave the Fatwa
> supporting the American occupation of the land of Alharamain. Some of
> the "Salafi" defend the Shaikh's mistake - but they do not have the
> same stance towards other scholars whom they accuse of committing
> mistakes. In fact they abused the scholars who objected to the
American
> occupation of the land of Alharamain - (Safar Al Hawali, salman Al
Auda
> and others - what an irony.
The glaring evidense is that it is America -
> the leader of the Kuffar - that is guarding the land of Alharamain is
> hidden from them.
You put salafi in quotes to silently mock our da'wah. Ibn Baaz
raheemahullah did make a mistake, no one is arguing that. Disbelievers
are not allowed to be in the penninsula, for any reason, in obedience
to the Messenger of ALlah sallalaahu alayhi wasallam. Shaikh ibn baaz
was afraid that there would be much harm and corruption falling the
land if the saddam hussein and took over. Also, the bid'as of the
people of iraq would become commonplace in arabia, which was partially
removed with Abdul-wahhab. As Abdul Wahhab supported fighting those
against the sunnah and tawheed, ibn baaz wanted this too. The
difference is that ibn baaz did not trust his own muslim brothers to
fight a jihaad against saddaam hussein, as muslim mujaahideen. Rather,
he would rather the kuffar come and fight even though they would break
the sancity of the haramaain. The saudis and even the West were so
afraid of Iraq that they thought they needed the West's "war power"
and "strength" to fight the iraqis. So, he resorted to allowing the
kuffar in Arabia, a mistake. The mistake was not fighting the enemy of
the sunnah, saddam hussein, but rather not letting muslims fight their
own battle, and allowing kuffar to come in and fight it for them.
However, inciting riots, protests, or demonstrations are not the
answer. Therefore, safar al hawali and salman awdah were wrong in that
respect. It is unlikely that even if ibn baaz did not allow the kuffar
in america fahd would have still done so. And ibn baaz raheemahullah
did retract many of his statements when he had the proper information
and understanding. Allah knows best.
> The position of the Salaf as Salih concerning change of evil is
> summarized by Imam Ibn Hazm (Ruhmetullahi 'alaihi) - Note that their
> position must be understood inlight of change of evil which is less
> than Kufr. There is no disagreement about the issue of Clear kufr as
> stated by the Messenger of Allah, when asked - if muslims can rise
> against a tyrant leader - He (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam)
> replied: "No, as long as they establish Prayer among you (ma aqamu
> fikum as salah); Except that you see clear kufr"
There is no "change in evil" with grater evil. If a dictator can be
removed without force, without causing problems in society, then that
would be excellent. However, this isn not the real world. The only
way to get dictators out of office is by force. This is not
permissible unless they stop the people from praying. Any bloodshed
before that happens is removing a lessor evil (the dictatorship) with a
greater evil (fighting without a clear purpose).
> Imam Ibn Hazm lists the names of the Sahaba and the Tabi'een who
> support change of evil "by lethal force".
> They are, "Ali bin Abi Talib and his supporters among the Sahaba, Umm
> Al M'umineen A'isah, Talha, Az-Zubair and all who faught on their side
> among the Sahaba, Mu'awiya, 'Amru, AnN'umaan bin Bishr and others who
> were with them among the Sahaba,
> Abdullahi bin Az-Zubair, Muahammad and Al Husain -the sons - of Ali,
> and the rest among the Sahaba (who were with them), Whoever rose
> against the fasiq Al Hajjaj, and who supported them among the Sahaba
> such as Anas bin Maalik (radiallahu 'anhum ajma'een). And among the
> Tabi'een: "Abduruhman bin abi Layli, Sa'eed bin Jubair, Abu Bahtariy
> atTa'i, Ata'a As Sulami Al Azadi, Al Hasan Al Basri, Maalik bin Dinar,
> Muslim bin Yasaar, Abul Jawz'a, As Sh'ubi, Abdullahi bin Ghalib ...
and
> others." Imam Ibn Hazm then said, "This can supported by the
statements
> of of the Scholars such as, Abu Hanifa, Al hasan bin Huy, Shareek,
> Malik, As Shafi'i, Dawood and his companions. All of those we have
> mentioned past and present - show their position - either through
their
> statements in their Fatwa or by their action, drawing their swords to
> opose the evil that they saw." - Al Fisal V. 5 p. 19 - 28.
Again, these salaf (sahaabah/tabieen) supported fighting the evil of
those leaders who were not Muslim, or those who stopped the Muslims
>from praying, as the hadith states. But no more than that.
> The overwhelming evidence comes from The Messenger of Allah
> (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) who said - note the part "continue to
> fight" to see that the hadeeth can not be claimed by the "Salafi" of
> today who are against fighting:
We are not against fighting, rather fighting without being allowed to
fight (according to the sunnah, kaafirs and those leaders who stop the
muslims from praying)
> "It has been narrated on the authority of Thauban that the Messenger
of
> Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A group of people from my Ummah
> will always remain triumphant on the right path and continue to be
> triumphant (against their opponents). He who deserts them shall not be
> able to do them any harm. They will remain in this position until
> Allah's. Command is executed (i. e. Qayamah is established). In
> Qutaiba's version of the tradition, we do not have the words:" They
> will remain in this position." - Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4715.
>
> "It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura that the
Holy
> Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: This religion will continue to
> exist, and a group of people from the Muslims will continue to fight
> for its protection until the Hour is established." - Sahih Muslim Book
> 020, Number 4717.
You have misunderstood this hadith to mean the corrupt muslim leaders.
Islaam is supported by the sunnah. The sunnah is very clear in what
jihaad can be established. We war against those who are against our
aqeedah of tawheed and those against the sunnah of rasoolullah
sallalahu alayhe wasallam.
> "It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. 'Abdullah who said:
> I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: A group of
> people from my Umma will continue to fight In defence of truth and
> remain triumphant until the Day of judgment." Sahih Muslim Book 020,
> Number 4718.
This fighting can be by force or not be force. It is evil to fight
corrupt muslim leaders if it leads to another corruption.
Again, we have someone who does not understand the sunnah of fighting.
The ahaadith mentioned do prescribe fighting falsehood and kufr only in
accordance to the quran and sunnah. This legislates fighting the
kuffar until they pay jizyah and the muslim leaders who stop people
>from praying salah. Outside of this there is no fighting or forcible
removal of leaders.
And Allaah knows best
cb...@my-deja.com
aja...@usa.net wrote:
> It's when the Muslims stopped using common sense in interpreting the
> Qur'an and the supporting traditions that caused the Muslims to become
> dogmatic and stagnant.
>
Consider the following - what Allah Commands and what the "common
sense" dictate may not agree.
Iblīs is an example:
"(Remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Truly, I am going to
create man from clay".
So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created
by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him."
So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them: Except Iblīs (Satan)
he was proud and was one of the disbelievers.
(Allāh) said: "O Iblīs (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating
yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands. Are you too
proud (to fall prostrate to Adam) or are you one of the high exalted?"
[Iblīs (Satan)] said: "I am better than he, You created me from fire,
and You created him from clay." - Surah Saad 71 - 76.
Note that Iblīs does not deny the Lordship of Allah: " - [Iblīs
(Satan)] says: "My Lord! Give me then respite till the Day the (dead)
are resurrected." - Surah Saad 79.
Narrated Ali (radiallahu 'anhu); "If religion was based on opinion, it
would be more important to wipe over the under parts of the leather
socks than the upper but I have seen Allah's Messenger
(sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) wiping over the upper parts of his
leather socks" - Reported by Abu Dawud with good Isnad (chain of
narrators) - source: Bulugh Al-Maram by Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani.
As can be seen from the above Ayah and the saying of Ali
(radiallahu 'anhu), the commands and prohibitions are based on
revelation and not on opinion (common sense). We cannot accept or
reject the orders on our comprehension or incomprehension. Thus, in the
presence of a Sahih Hadith, acting against it is not allowed.
Understanding (the Fiqh) its aplication is to be left for those who
understand - the Scholars, as they are qualified to make judgements -
"then ask those who possess the Message (Ahl adh-Dhikr) if you do not
know." Qur'an 21:7 and 16:43. If one takes the responsibility to make
the judgement in matters of halaal and haraam without knowledge, He
must accept the responsibility that comes with it. Allah (subhanehu wa
ta'ala) says,
"Say: The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are al-Fawaahishah
(great evil sins, every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse, etc.),
whether committed openly or secretly, sins (of all kinds), unrighteous
oppession, joining partners (in worship) with Allaah for which He has
given no authority and saying things about Allah of which you have no
knowledge." - Qur'aan, 7:33.
> Photographs, such as pornographic images, I can understand being
> harmful to humankind and, therefore, not in harmony with Islam and
> haraam, but taking pictures of your 2 year old daughter and looking at
> them 30-40 years later and having a few laughs at how cute and chubby
> she was back then, I cannot understand the harm in them!
>
> On this one, I agree with the Shi'a school of thought. They do not
> dogmatically prohibit ALL photographs without taking into
consideration
> their 'types'.
>
Ahlusunnah scholars allow photographs which are essential - do some
research before you pronounce judgement. When you say you agree
with "the Shi'a school of thought", you must ascertain that their
position conforms with the Shari'ah as opposed to your desire. While
you do your research, here is one opinion that I found :
----------------------------Begin quote-----------------------------
Magazines containing pictures of animate beings
What is the ruling on buying or keeping magazines containing pictures?
Praise be to Allaah.
There is nothing wrong with keeping Islamic magazines that contain
pictures, because a person keeps them for the useful information in
them, not for the pictures. As for magazines which are published and
bought and kept for the sake of the pictures in them, these are haraam
and it is not permissible to keep them, because the angels do not enter
a house in which there are pictures.
Liqa’ al-Baab al-Maftooh, 52/52.
If the magazine is useful and you want to keep it, then blot out
whatever pictures are on the cover. And Allaah knows best.
"Photographs which are essential are permitted - such as those required
for identity documents, or for identifying or pursuing criminals
[e.g. "wanted" posters and the like - translator's note], or for
educational purposes which cannot be achieved otherwise. The principle
in " - taken from Islam Questions and Answers by Sh. Saleh al-
Munajjid: http://www.islam-qa.com/QA/5|Jurisprudence_and_Islamic_Rulings
(Fiqh)/Al_Libaas_wa_Al_Zeenah
(Clothing_and_Decoration)/Ruling_on_photographs.16051998.365.shtml
----------------------------end quote-----------------------------
When you say, "On this one, I agree with the Shi'a school of thought",
have you considered the effect it has on the Shia - do you see the
pictures of the Ayatullahs, dead or alive, all over the place.
Observing their current behaviour now is it difficult to see that these
Ayatollahs may be worshiped by future generations. It is the wisdom of
Allah (subhanehu wa ta'ala) that He prohibited all avenues through
which people may fall into Shirk. Consider the following narrations:
Ibn 'Abbas narrates:
"Indeed these five names of righteous men from the people of Nooh. When
they died Shatan whispered to their people to make statues of them and
to place these statues in their places of gathering as a reminder of
them, so they did this. However, none from amongst them worshipped
these statues, until when they died and the purpose of the statues was
forgotten. Then (the next generation) began to worship them." - Sahih
al-Bukhari v. 8 P. 534.
The Scholars of Ahlussunah are not as bold with Regards to Giving
Religious Verdicts:
Umar ibn 'Abdul-'Azeez was asked about a question and replied, "I am
not one who is bold about giving religious verdicts." He also wrote to
one of his governors, "By Allaah I am not one who craves after giving
religious verdicts, as long as I can find a way to avoid it."- reported
by Imam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali.
"So those who give religious verdicts should realise that they are
transmitting Allah's orders and prohibitions and that he will be made
to stand to account and be questioned about it. Ar-Rabee` ibn Khaitham
said, "O giver of religious verdicts! Look and see how you are giving
verdicts." `Amr ibn Deenaar said to Qataadah when he sat to give
religious verdicts, "Do you realise the affair that you have fallen
into? You have come between Allaah and His worshippers and say, 'This
is correct and this is not correct.'" - reported by Imam Ibn Rajab al-
Hanbali.
Al-Baraa' said, "I met a hundred and twenty of the Ansaar from the
Sahaba of Allah's Messenger (sallalahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and when one
of them was asked about a matter there was not a single man amongst
them except that he wished that his brother would suffice him (by
answering)." Ibn Abdul-Barr in Jaami v. 2 P. 163.
Now, you may reconsider the Ahadeeth prohibiting Images to understand
the conservative position of the Scholars of Ahlussunnah.
The Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said: "The angels
do not enter a house in which there is a dog or pictures." (Reported by
al-Bukhaari, see al-Fath, 10/380).
For your own benifit, do some research to find the Ahadith about the
prohibition of Images.
> If the dogmatic muslims had sent a man to the moon for the first time
> in human history (which is a contradiction in itself, but I am using
it
> to make a point), no one would have seen any images of the astronauts
> walking on its surface or still photographs of them on the moon.
> Imagine the doubts it would have created in people's mind about its
> ever happening!
>
> No wonder I have met many good-natured (but naive) practicing muslims
> who (seriously) did not believe that man had in fact landed on the
> moon! (I am not kidding! Once a spiritual master of mine vehemently
> denied that man had landed on the moon. In his understanding, the moon
> was in the third heavens where no man could go. Of course, I had to
> respectfully disagree with him in my mind without saying a word, as I
> had seen Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin step off the Lunar Module's
> ladder and walked around on TV with my own eyes, which some of the
> religious-minded Muslims considered to be haraam, i.e., watching TV
> even if it was to watch the lunar landing.)
>
" O you who believe! Let not a group scoff at another group, it may be
that the latter are better than the former; nor let (some) women scoff
at other women, it may be that the latter are better than the former,
nor defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames. How bad is
it, to insult one's brother after having Faith [i.e. to call your
Muslim brother (a faithful believer) as: "O sinner", or "O wicked",
etc.]. And whosoever does not repent, then such are indeed Zālimūn
(wrong-doers, etc.). " - Surah Al-Hujuraat 11.
This is gratuitous. It takes more than the TV Images to accept the moon
landing "claim". Those whom you describe as "good-natured (but naive)
practicing muslims" may be considered cautious - In hindsight the moon
landing may have been "a nevada desert landing". You must have heard
about the UFO landings and the sighting of creatures never seen
before ... In short, TV Images by themselves can not be taken as
conclusive evidence.
> It's the same type of lack of using common sense that caused another
> spiritual master (not mine though as it happened before my time, but
my
> father's side of the family knew him very well. Actually, he did the
> adhan in my ear and gave me a little honey with his finger when I was
> born) to prohibit using loudspeakers for adhan, khudba and salaat.
>
> I am not suggesting that I did not respect these great Sufi masters.
> Far from it. All I am saying is that even great scholars of Islam and
> very good men of God (something I can only wish for myself) have in
> fact made mistakes in their 'ijtihad' and one thing that is strikingly
> common in their analysis is the lack of using common sense.
>
Common sense has a very limited place in religion. For example, it
would be "common sense" to say, one can consume alchol as long as it
does not lead to intoxication - why do we not follow this "common
sense"? It is because all avenues through which people may fall into
error is prohibited. There are many examples that show that the
majority of Muslims are flaunting Shar'ah prohibitions using
their "common sense". The free mixing of Men and Women is one good
example: How many did fall into error (zina, including falling in love
with a kafir) by ignoring the strict commands contained in the Qur'an
and the Sunnah. Their "common sense" failed them!!! It is hard to
understand the wisdom behind every prohibition as we have a limitted
capacity to discern them. For example, The Messenger of Allah said,
"Beware of entering upon women." A man of the Ansaar asked, "O
Messenger of Allaah, what do you think about the brother-in-law?" He
said, "The brother-in-law is death." - Reported by al-Bukhari.
"Narrated Ali (radiallahu 'anhu); "If religion was based on opinion, it
would be more important to wipe over the under parts of the leather
socks than the upper but I have seen Allah's Messenger
(sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) wiping over the upper parts of his
leather socks" - Reported by Abu Dawud with good Isnad (chain of
narrators) - source: Bulugh Al-Maram.
> I can see taking a picture of a great man of God and then start
> worshipping it to be harmful and haraam, but taking pictures of your
> family at your vacation and looking at them immediately afterwards and
> then forgetting about them for decades is hardly harmful physically or
> spiritually!
>
Refer to the hadith of Ibn Abbas for some insight. But your
argument, "taking pictures of your family at your vacation" is moot if
you consider it to be Halaal according to your "common sense"; if it is
not halaal and it is prohibited by the Shari'a you should not
juxtapose "taking pictures of your family at your vacation" with a
valid fiqh question that apply to educational needs which ***cannot be
achieved otherwise***.
> In summary, it's the *usage* of pictures and arts and other images
that
> should determine whether it's haraam or halaal in Islam. The Qur'an
> tells us to use our 'Aql. So let's use it sometimes.
>
You must provide evidence from the Qur'an and the Sunnah through the
related fiqh positions to support your position. Not a simple
declaration, "The Qur'an tells us to use our 'Aql. So let's use it
sometimes." People are inclined to follow their vain desires which
affects their "limited" 'Aql. Allah (subhanehu wa ta'ala) says,
"And so judge (you O Muhammad ) between them by what Allāh has revealed
and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they turn
you (O Muhammad ) far away from some of that which Allāh has sent down
to you. And if they turn away, then know that Allāh's Will is to punish
them for some sins of theirs. And truly, most of men are Fāsiqūn
(rebellious and disobedient to Allāh)." Surah Al Ma'idah 49.
> WasSalaam
>
> Anjum Jaleel
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On 8 Dec 2000 11:43:04 GMT, "Anjum Jaleel" <aja...@usa.net> wrote:
>3. The Hadith can abrogate the Qur'an but the Qur'an cannot abrogate the
>Hadith.
It seems like this is implied by the arguments of many of us.
I, of course, agree with this one:
>4. The Qur'an can abrogate the Hadith but the Hadith cannot abrogate the
>Qur'an.
>Getting back to photography, I would argue that the mistake that is made in
>declaring taking photographs, and drawing pictures, of live entities
>prohibited without regard to its purpose, is also made in other areas, such
>as music. One can hardly argue that what Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) has been
>singing lately is harmful.
Well, as someone who is writing music I would certainly agree here!
When I recently released "Fighting Over Holy Land" from my forthcoming
CD I got some of the expected hate mail. When I challenged the
writer(s) to review my lyrics and tell me what was objectionable,
haram, or un-Islamic about them I then got the response that the very
*medium* of music was haram! I was quite flabbergasted as even in the
(non-contextualized) hadith music was ok on 'Eid and during war. (Of
course, any attempt to discuss the context of the hadith was simply,
completely, ignored.)
This showed me that among many of those who seem to view the Qur'an in
light of the hadith (rather than the other way around) there is no
real consistency of thought. Rather, they have *a position*-- a
dogma-- and stick to that position or dogma regardless. Its mindless
and dogmatic and there is no getting through to them. Its sad. Very
sad.
>As I have said many times before, the work of the classical hadith
>scientists needs to be revived in order to move it forward and to apply it
>in a reasonable manner, looking at the circumstances and situations. Their
>work should not be considered equal to the Qur'an and must be examined in
>light of the Qur'an,
Hear hear!