'The Mardin Fatwa & Al Qaeda' - Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

[alnarweeg92]

rasulullah warned us from scholars like Hamza. "a scholar who goes to the house of a ruler/kings he will entre it with islam and walk out of it sit out

[alnarweeg92]

Rasulullah saw wa ed

[anotherusername1337]

This is a nice story...but worthless from a scientific viewpoint:

"As for seeing in the misreading of yu‘a¯malu as yuqa¯talu the main reason why

extremism and violence developed in modern Islam and hoping that its correction will

put an end to such developments, this is naïve if not farcical."

Yahya Michot: Ibn Taymiyya’s “New Mardin Fatwa”. Is genetically

modified Islam (GMI) carcinogenic?

[naddogg89]

Sheikh Abd-al Wahhab Turayri from University of Riyadh gives a detailed explanation go to google : The Mardin Conference – Understanding Ibn Taymiyyah’s Fatwa

[sufideceiver]

@naddogg89, brother, the fatwa is about how to deal with a ruler who is not applying the Islamic law, this individual according to ibn taymmiyyah becomes an apostate, so whether he should be "fought", or "dealt with", the ruling is the same.

[sufideceiver]

the ideology of al qaeda is based on the same ideology as hamza yusuf, not some misprint. that ideology is that Islam can be twisted to suit a purpose. in hamza yusufs case he twists and liberalises Islam to please the west. in al qaedas case, they twist Islam to justify mass killing and overthrowing rulers. both are innovators and both may have have opposite views, but there views come from the same place; desires, insincerity and not holding firm to Quran, hadith and the ijma.

[sufideceiver]

anyone with half a brain cell will know this imbecile is talking crap. i can imagine all these silly sufis in the audience smiling thinking "our shaykh is so smart, al qaeda is all down to one little itty bitty spelling mistake". only a moron could believe that. even if the text didnt say "fight the apostate", but rather "deal with the apostate accordingly", it means the same thing. apostates are to be fought and this is agreed upon. i dont agree with al qaeda but this goofy sufi talks crap.

[naddogg89]

@sufideceiver It's not talking about apostates

[sufideceiver]

@naddogg89 , 1:14, "disbeliever should be fought because he has left the shariah", isnt the fatwa talking about those who become apostates for not applying the shariah and ruling by man made laws?

[naddogg89]

@sufideceiver no, it's talking about the inhabitants of Mardin a city in Turkey. It's people were Muslim but it was taken over by the Monghols. They asked Sheikh al-Islam a few questions like: Is it a land of war or peace? Should the Muslims there go to other Muslim countries?i.e. make hijrah. Are they hypocrites for not doing so. So he gave the a pretty short fatwa but the last part read like this : cont.

[naddogg89]

@sufideceiver "As for whether it is a land of war or peace, it is a composite situation. It is not an abode of peace where the legal rulings of Islam are applied and its armed forces are Muslim. Neither is it the same as an abode of war whose inhabitants are unbelievers. It is a third category. The Muslims living therein should be treated according to their rights as Muslims, while the non-Muslims living there outside of the authority of Islamic Law should be treated according to their rights."

[AskaMuslim21]

@sufideceiver Most Suni scholars today of Al Azhar agree that apostates are not to be fought in Islam if they don't fight the Muslim community. In Sahih Bukhari there is a hadith were a man left Islam, and the prophet didn't kill him or anything. Apostasy punishment is not a part of shariah. This is a long researched topic and you should read more about it before claiming someone talks crap.

[sufideceiver]

@AskaMuslim21, rubbish, if what u say is true about al azhar they have gone against the consensus of all four madhabs and the scholars to come up with a very convenient ruling to please the west and hypocrite Muslims. secondly you are talking about scholars TODAY, ibn taymiyyah is not alive today, neither was he a modernist or a hypocrite so we can safely assume he took the position that the apostate is fought. as for the hadith u mention, is it the one where the man had a fever?

[AskaMuslim21]

@sufideceiver The four madhabs and Ibn Taymiyah are not exempt from error nor are we as Muslims ever supposed to blindly follow anyone except for Allah and His messenger. Everything is open for discussion. That is Islamic Fiqh.

Al Azhar used evidence from the Quran and Sunnah. No hypocrisy there if you have proof for your ruling. Look at the many Quranic verses that say there is freedom of religion. All there is is ONE hadith that says kill apostates. Many other hadiths where the prophet didnt

[sufideceiver]

@AskaMuslim21, after Quran, hadith, the consensus of the scholars is the next source of legislation. the authentic hadith make it very clear the apostate must be fought and killed and consensus of the scholars who lived near to the time of the Prophet saws is that this is the case. look into the apostate wars fought by abu bakr when a group of people refused to pay the zakat, they were fought and killed, did abu bakr make a mistake? as for no compulsion in religion, this verse is abrogated.

[AskaMuslim21]

@sufideceiver No, Abu Bakr fought the apostates because it was a fitnah. Big difference there. The hadith is in Bukhari and the whole story is there. Sorry I cant find it now. He was entrusted to write down the Quran by the prophet then he left Islam thinking he could be a prophet as well.

Do you speak arabic? I can link you in arabic.

Fiqh is based on the balance between mind and text. Interpreting the prophet's words with why he said them has always been done by scholars of the past

[sufideceiver]

@AskaMuslim21, rubbish once again. he fought them because they refused to pay zakat, and then he used Quran 9:5 to prove that not paying zakat makes one a kafir. therefore these people were fought and killed for their apostasy. u say fiqh is a balance between mind and text. i think u mean your own desires and text, whereby u try and reinterpret the txt how u want to make a western democratic fake Islam. i submit fully to Quran and hadith and ask no questions because i truly love Islam.

[AskaMuslim21]

@sufideceiver And no the hadith I mention doesn't pertain to the man with the fever. It pertains to one of the sahaba who the prophet entrusted. Then he left Islam and Madinah and went to Meccah to live with the Kuffar. On Mecca's conquest he came to the prophet & apologized, and the prophet forgave him. There is no forgiveness when it comes to applying Allah's law. So we can deduce that it wasn't a religious law but a political ruling only. Prophet wouldn't abandon applying the law my friend.

[sufideceiver]

@AskaMuslim21, can u copy and paste the exact hadith with its source, i would like to read it before i attempt to rebut your argument.

[sufideceiver]

@AskaMuslim21, as for this sahabah who apologised to the Prophet saws after apostasising, are you not aware the apostate is always given a chance to come back to Islam, if they refuse after that then the punishment is carried out. so this hadith does not contradict my argument at all.

[AskaMuslim21]

@sufideceiver apostates given a chance to come back to islam, that is not the way islamic law is. if you commit a crime you are punished. there is no room for tobah when it comes to the law being applied onto you.

Think about the hypocrisy, we tell people it's ok for a christian to become a muslim as it's his freedom but if a muslim wants to become a christian we want to kill him? He who is confident of his belief doesn't do that.

[sufideceiver]

@AskaMuslim21, brother u need to gain more knowledge and perhaps imaan, the Islamic ruling is that once someone has announced there apostasy, they are given 3 days to repent and retake there shahadah otherwise they are executed, this is in the classic books of Islamic law. there is no hypocrisy. Islam is the TRUE religion, it has the right to enforce this law over other religions, because if someone apostasises and spread there doubts to others in the community the price is hellfire forever.

[sufideceiver]

@sufideceiver, therefore to save that person, and the wider community from the dangers of apostasy, a severe punishment is given. remember this punishment is only for ANNOUNCED apostasy, not secret apostasy. so if someone apostasises in secret and does not spread there evil to others they cannot be punished, but once they start spreading there apostasy to the wider community, then the severe punishment comes into action to save people from the greater punishment which is hell forever

[sufideceiver]

@AskaMuslim21, finally i think being a liberal sufi that u r, your problem is accepting that someone can be killed for leaving Islam, that is why u r trying to twist Islam to concord with your own sensibilities. i recommend before we continue to debate u watch dr abu ameenah bilal phillips explaining the apostasy law. he show the hikmah behind it and will make the matter clearer for u then i have.

[AskaMuslim21]

@sufideceiver And the sahabi's name was Abdullah Ibn Abi Al Sarh.

The prophet only said he who changs his religion kill him because there was a scheme by the Jews munafiqoon that we'll enter islam today and leave tomorrow so that Muslims faith will get weak. So he said the hadith to stop them, and they stopped. You have to always examine WHY a certain text was said & the circumstances.

[sufideceiver]

@AskaMuslim21, brother, once u go down that road there is no end. WHY do we have to pray five times a day, why is zakat 2.5%. the true believer submits and does not ask questions or attempt to twist Islam according to their own sensiblities. the great scholars of the past were not hypocrites, one of them was equal to a thousand scholars today, yet their consensus based on proof from hadith, sunnah and the actions of the sahabah is that apostates are fought and killed.

[AskaMuslim21]

@sufideceiver for example in a hadith the prophet says do not eat meat three days in a row. so a man thought it's haram to do so and after a long time went to the prophet and remarked he wanted to eat meat. the prophet said, "I only said that because of the starvation at the time. As for now, eat and rejoice!"

We have to differentiate and balance between the texts. The Quran mentions countless times he who wants to believe let him and he who wants to disbelieve let him.

[sufideceiver]

@AskaMuslim21, i dont know about this hadith u mention, but the person who rejects the hadith and consensus of the scholars is at risk of taking themselves outside the fold of Islam. u think the 4 imams were stupid and didnt know about "no compulsion in religion". of course they knew, they knew it applicable in certain circumstances and not others. the sunnah is that the apostate is executed..

[Rekonsyl]

How does the Mardin Conference deal with the issue of military occupation of Muslim land, imprisonment of Muslims men, women and children, torture, plundering of resources, economic sanctions, puppet dictators and wars by proxy? Is the Mardin fatwa that was issued 700 years ago any way relevant to the aforementioned issues of reality? No it is not.

What does the four schools of thought say about these issues? Can these scholars be honest and convey what they have learnt in their own studies?

[Rekonsyl]

Furthermore, one may assume having watched the speeches given in the conference that Ibn Taymiyyah's only relevant fatwa is the Mardin fatwa. That is another misleading thing about the conference. Ibn Taymiyyah's opinions regarding many issues are well known and have been written about for centuries that are very relevant today. Ibn Taymiyyah himself wrote over 500 books. I do not see how the situation of Mardin back in Ibn Taymiyyah's time is relevant today. People should read his works.

[Rekonsyl]

A single fatwa is not enough. Furthermore, the similitudes of circumstances of then and now are very little and hence their so called analysis is very shallow and misleading.

Mardin Conference is nothing more than trying to portray the "Jihadists" as ignorant to the masses. These so called scholars are really a bunch of discredited jokers in the eyes of respected scholars and sincere students of knowledge in the vast Islamic world.

[CCSF1999]

@Rekonsyl Abdullah bin Bayyah, Shaykh Ali Goma, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf are discredited jokers? Yeah, and your stuck randing on Youtube. lol

[Rekonsyl]

@CCSF1999 Just look for old Hamza Yusuf videos and then look at his recent ones, and transformation to say the least. That is the reason why people like him are discredited.

[BeachBallEffect]

Alhamdulillah...