Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah dies

Unspecified

4,069

Brother

4,052

#31 [Permalink] Posted on 23rd January 2015 15:40

Concerned wrote:

View original post

That would probably make a Leader who allies with the kuffar against Islam from amongst the ranks of the Followers of (the King of Hypocrites) Abdullah ibn Ubay Salul.

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

Abdur Rahman ibn Awf

Germany

481

Brother

1,718

#32 [Permalink] Posted on 23rd January 2015 16:12

Any reliable scholars did Takfir of King 'Abdullah during his lifetime? If not, then you are neither obliged nor qualified to judge the state of his faith. Do you guys not trust in Allah ta'ala, that He will deal with him justly? If you don't find anything praiseworthy to say about him, then follow the advice of remaining silent. This is not the way of stopping or raising awareness about eventual oppression & injustice done by Saudi Kingdom.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+3 -0Like x 2Creative x 1

10 Facts Qasim Rashid Needs to Stop Denying About Qadiyani non-Muslims: t.co/gLOo3Fb9HF
Follow me on Twitter!

Unspecified

3,243

Brother

2,561

#33 [Permalink] Posted on 23rd January 2015 16:22

Concerned wrote:

View original post

salaam

islamqa.info/en/33691

33691: Ruling on helping the kuffaar against the Muslims

A Muslim businessman has been offered a golden opportunity to sell equipment and food or to sign a contract to do maintenance on vehicles and equipment for an army that is waging war against the Muslims. What is the ruling on doing such business?.
Praise be to Allaah.

The scholars of Islam have stated that it is not permitted to support the kaafirs against the Muslims, and that that is kufr (disbelief) and riddah (apostasy), because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them”

[al-Maa'idah 5:51]

The fuqaha’ of Islam, the imams of the Hanafi, Maaliki, Shaafa’i and Hanbali madhhabs, and other fuqaha’, have stated in their books that it is haraam to sell them anything that may help them against the Muslims, such as weapons, equipment, riding beasts, etc. So it is not permissible to give them food or to sell them food, drink, water, tents, trucks, vehicles, or to make contracts with them to provide maintenance, transaportation, etc. All of that is haraam and the one who consumes profits on such transactions is consuming haraam things, and the Fire is more fitting for him.

It is not permissible to sell them even a date or to give them anything that they can use against their enemies. Whoever does that deserves Hell, and the Fire is more fitting for all evil earnings. Indeed this is one of the most evil of evil things.

It is not permissible to give them anything that may give them the slightest help against the Muslims.

Al-Nawawi said in al-Majmoo’:

With regard to selling weapons to ahl al-harb (those who wage war against the Muslims), it is haraam according to scholarly consensus.

Ibn al-Qayyim said in I’laam al-Muwaqqi’een:

Imam Ahmad said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade selling weapons at times of fitnah (tribulation)… It is obvious that selling them is helping others in sin and transgression. This also applies to every sale, rental or exchange that helps people to disobey Allaah, such as selling weapons to kaafirs, aggressors and bandits… or renting one’s house to someone who will set up a place for sin in it, or selling candles to someone who will use them to disobey Allaah, and other actions which help people to do that which Allaah hates and is angry with.

End quote.

In al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (25/153) it says:

It is haraam to sell weapons to ahl al-harb (those who are waging war against Islam) or to those who are known as bandits who attack Muslims or who stir up fitnah among them. Al-Hasan al-Basri said: It is not permissible for a Muslim to take weapons or horses to the enemies of the Muslims which will strengthen them against the Muslims, or anything that will help them to acquire weapons and horses, because selling weapons to ahl al-harb strengthens them to fight the Muslims and motivates them to declare war and continue fighting.

This issue is not the matter of ordinary or minor sins, rather it is a matter that has to do with the basis of ‘aqeedah (belief) and Tawheed (belief in the Oneness of Allaah), and the Muslim’s support and loyalty towards the Religion of Allaah and his disavowal of the enemies of Allaah. This is what was stated by the imams in their books.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Fataawa (1/274):

The scholars of Islam are unanimously agreed that whoever supports the kaafirs against the Muslims and helps them in any way is a kaafir like them as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allaah guides not those people who are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)”

[al-Maa'idah 5:51].

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Informative x 2

xs11ax

London

27,436

Brother

9,578

#34 [Permalink] Posted on 23rd January 2015 16:47

^^^From the same site, we have

128453: Is it obligatory to obey a ruler who does not rule according to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him)?

Praise be to Allaah.
The ruler who does not rule according to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger should be obeyed in matters that do not involve disobedience towards Allaah and His Messenger, and it is not obligatory to fight him because of that; rather it is not permissible to do so unless he reaches the level of kufr, in which case it becomes obligatory to oppose him and he has no right to be obeyed by the Muslims.

Ruling according to anything other than that which is in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger reaches the level of kufr when two conditions are met:

1. When he knows the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger; if he is unaware of it, then he does not commit kufr by going against it.

2. When what makes him rule by something other than that which Allaah has revealed is the belief that it is a ruling that is not suitable for our time and that something else is more suitable than it and more beneficial for people.

If these two conditions are met, then ruling by something other than that which Allaah has revealed constitutes kufr which puts a person beyond the pale of Islam, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the Kaafiroon (i.e. disbelievers)” [al-Maa’idah 5:44]. The authority of the ruler becomes invalid and he has no right to be obeyed by the people; it becomes obligatory to fight him and remove him from power.

But if he rules by something other than that which Allaah has revealed whilst believing that ruling by that – i.e. that which Allaah has revealed -- is what is obligatory, and that it is more suitable for the people, but he goes against it because of some whims and desires on his part or because he wants to wrong the people under his rule, then he is not a kaafir; rather he is a faasiq (evildoer) or a zaalim (wrongdoer). His authority remains, and obeying him in matters that do not involve disobedience to Allaah and His Messenger is obligatory, and it is not permissible to fight him or remove him from power by force or to rebel against him, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) forbade rebelling against rulers unless we see blatant kufr for which we have proof from Allaah. End quote.

Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (2/118)
islamqa.info/en/128453

I don't think you will find a Fatwa going against the Saudi regime for many reasons.

Still better to remain silent now that he is dead!

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Informative x 2

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

Unspecified

532

Brother

393

#35 [Permalink] Posted on 23rd January 2015 18:39

Maqam e Ibrat

King inside that unmarked grave. The person who spent life in palaces, in all possible comforts, is now in there!! Death is the reality that can't be denied.... Smart is the person who prepares for death before death.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+6 -0Like x 4Agree x 3Winner x 2

Ya rabbi! In A'zumat Zunoobi Kasratan
Fa laqad Alimtu bi anna afwaka a'zamu

Bangladesh

1,549

Brother

1,808

#36 [Permalink] Posted on 24th January 2015 01:42

When I heard the news first, I remembered that Hadith about dead persons and refrained myself from bringing up King 'Abdullaah's notorious activities. But the idea was bothering me that by remaining silent, was I indirectly sweeping all crimes under the rug? Later I found this quote beneficial:

Muadh_Khan wrote:

Keep focus on Saudi Government, its policies and attrocities but just defer the matter of King Abdullah to Allah (SWT) as per the noble advice of Nabi (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam).

Now my sincere question is- how can I condemn Saudi's activities and remain silent about King 'Abdullaah at the same time? He was the leader and decision maker, therefore he played the main role. For instance, how can I spare him from condemnation for these?:

Bush.jpg

Downloads: 161

[8.08 kB]

Obama.jpg

Downloads: 113

[10.97 kB]

Sisi.jpg

Downloads: 115

[20.87 kB]

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Like x 1

Black Turban

Gham-o-Huzn

3,269

Brother

3,512

#37 [Permalink] Posted on 24th January 2015 05:05

So should I grieve or heave a sigh of relief?
Give me a binary answer.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Creative x 1

Muslim Ummah aspires to attain a rightful and honored place among the civilizations of the world and make our proportionate contribution towards international peace, progress and happiness of humanity.

London

27,436

Brother

9,578

#38 [Permalink] Posted on 24th January 2015 07:51

@black turban.....we know all this and more, but the Hadith still stands.

Also, these top kuffar leaders are all bowing to a Saudi Muslim, Astagfirullah

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

Unspecified

271

Brother

235

#39 [Permalink] Posted on 24th January 2015 11:39

Maripat wrote:

View original post

Apparently those who sighed in relief after the death of King Fahd later grieved.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 1Creative x 1

"We prick our fingers and we want our names to be amongst those of the Shuhada" - Maulana Talha Khandelwi hafizahullah

Unspecified

4,069

Brother

4,052

#40 [Permalink] Posted on 24th January 2015 12:06

kanzoorbhai wrote:

View original post

Reminds me of a Shaykh Hamza Yusuf lecture from years ago which was ..." We got rid of Anwar Sadat and ended up with Hosni Mubarak, we went from a Monkey to a Pig, our (spiritual) condition as an ummah is such that if we got rid of Mubarak we would probably end up something even more down the evolutionary whats next a Rat?!. Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change what is within themselves.....The real problem is our condition as an Ummah."

Well with Sissi in power in Egypt seems a very accurate prediction.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+4 -0Like x 3Agree x 1Creative x 1

Abdur Rahman ibn Awf

London

27,436

Brother

9,578

#41 [Permalink] Posted on 24th January 2015 12:27

The UK is having much debate with the decision of the Royal family to fly the union Jack at half mast across the country.

There is debate among the political parties as to why they took such a decision.

Chaos in UK parliament.

One of the headlines was, "Britain mourns a tyrant" another article was about the Queen of England and the occasion when she took king Abdullah for a drive in a truck, back in 1998. Apparently the king was scared/moved by the way the Queen drove so professionally.

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

Bangladesh

1,549

Brother

1,808

#42 [Permalink] Posted on 24th January 2015 15:03

abu mohammed wrote:

View original post

Brother, I asked a sincere question. Really I want to know the way of having two contradictory views.

If I say "Saudi Arabia sided with Kuffar", that automatically refers to King 'Abdullaah, right? If we want to speak only his good deeds, then we have to stop condemning Saudi's activities during his era. Should we do that?

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Like x 1

Black Turban

Unspecified

4,069

Brother

4,052

#43 [Permalink] Posted on 24th January 2015 15:53

Black Turban wrote:

View original post

An Afghan Brother mentioned to me some years ago that during the time of the British Raaj, the Pukhtoon tribes waged a powerful and relentless insurgency against the British.

The British after suffering years of defeat after defeat, in their exasperation invited The Chieftain of the Khattak clan for peace talks and a cessation of hostilities. But the British came up with an cunning ruse they deliberately built a very low archway to the entrance of the building that the talks were to take place. So that the Chieftain of the Khattaks would have to remove his turban and bow his head before entering the building. The objective of the British was to use that as propaganda tool and to demoralise the Pukhtoon warriors by stating that their Chieftain and leader had removed his Turban and bowed his head before them in forgiveness and because of the Chieftains begging they had decided to suspend all military operations the British could then claim the peace talks were a Victory instead of the humiliating withdrawal that it was .

But as was the norms of Tribal culture and code of honour in those days for a Puktoon tribesman it was unthinkable to remove his turban before anyone or to bow his head, a Puktoon would rather die then subject himself to such humiliation.

So on the day of the talks the British Officers and political leaders lined up inside the house facing the archway waiting for the Chieftain to enter with his Turban in his hand and his head bowed. When the Chieftain of Khattak clan arrived he realised the clever ruse of the British. Being a cunning warrior in his own right he sat down on the floor with his back straight and his head raised Majestically facing the entrance of the archway, he slid forward through the entrance whilst sitting and when he entered the building his feet were raised in the faces of the British leaders. And he said " The British wanted to remove the Turban of Khattak and make him bow before them, instead Allah has humuliated them by making them bow before the feet of a Muslim."

So if we are having husn e dhan like the Brothers are asking then we could say that in those pictures King Abdullahs objective was for the leaders of the west to bow their heads before a Muslim lol.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+3 -0Like x 2Creative x 1

Abdur Rahman ibn Awf

Bangladesh

1,549

Brother

1,808

#44 [Permalink] Posted on 24th January 2015 16:35

Abdur Rahman ibn Awf wrote:

View original post

I tweeted the same idea:

Loading tweet

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Like x 1

Black Turban

Unspecified

Unspecified

-268

#45 [Permalink] Posted on 27th January 2015 20:56

if we are supposed to say ONLY good stuff about a dead person regardless he/she was an evil then why we curse yazheed bin mawayia?

money and nationalism has made current generations of Arab bit arrogant May Allah guide them, Ameen

Posted via the Muftisays Android App

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

difficult

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah dies

Font Size

Font Weight