Brother, one is obliged to obey the laws in the whatever land you are on the maxim

“Obey in the Good and Disobey in the Evil”

In Islamic lands one does not remove the ruler unless he shows clear “Kufr”.

There are differences among the Classical Scholarship about what the extent is as you well know. It is not the Khawarij but scholars like Qurtubi, Juwayni, al Jassas and so on that believe that a ruler can be removed if he is an outright Tyrant as long as it does not lead to greater fitnah.

The majority of Ulema believe that the law is applicable to the ruler as well. In other words if the ruler steals, then the Ha’aad is applied on him. All agree that one should have at least

Certainly in principle, the ruler that should be elected should be just, unlike the bizarre rantings of Khalid Blankinship about the qualifications of certain modern rulers today!

No doubt Nuh Amin Keller views that the general body of Muslims are not obligated on this issue and should at least pray. He does think that one’s “belief” is suspect if one does not wish or love to have the Muslims united under one authority.

Shiekh Jihad Brown also considers it a collective obligation

In other words it is an obligation from the texts that obligates us to unite. This obligation has to be applicable in principle or Allah would be commanding us to do things that are impossible (I am talking about the Muslim Ummah as a whole). Rulers can not forbid us from this obligation because it contradicts the Maxim noted. I mean, Juwayni in his Ghiath went through all the options. On considering the scenario of an absent authority he obligated the rulers to unite and appoint one. I do not think he would have thought, well it is not an obligation if they forbid us because we have to obey them!. Clearly that would be not what our Ulema intended :)

Anyway, to finish off, I agree in this country and in the Muslim countries there are many other obligations that we have in our Deen and to concentrate on this topic at the expense of other things is clearly not well rounded in our deen. This was not the point though!

Whatever relevance to our deen it may have in terms of priorites, it is a PART of our Deen, therefore to INSULT it, to call it a KHAWARIJ model, and to even say that it goes against the practice of the prophet and the companions is CLEARLY an issue for ALL of us because this becomes a matter of belief like any ASPECT of our religion.

Brother Indigo Blog, whoever you are.

The fact that this fatwa has caused so much commotion proves that compared to all other fatwas this one has provoked much debate amongst everyone.

As they say bad news is good news; it’s all about getting the message out to your target audience.

I can agree with you that maybe this fatwa was overstated by the Western Media because its application is primarily for Pakistan…

but that was never purpose: the purpose was simply to present the case of Islam that Islam in the most absolute terms is against terrorism, and that terrorist do not speak in the name of Islam- that was the sole purpose, nothing more, nothing less; and praise be to God, that was achieved, as you can see.

The fact that many westerners see this is the first all out condemnations of terrorism (even though there have been hundreds of condemnations before this) PROVES that we Muslims have done a poor job in getting our message out to the non-Muslims, especially in the west; that is until Shaykh Tahir Qadri came and changed that: he has changed the content of the discussion from Islamic terrorism to terrorism has no religion.

All that was needed was publicity and to present a clear image of Islam that terrorism is not to be equated with Islam in any way whatsoever; and that was achieved, thus it was a success.

The muslims should atleast commend the Shaykh for this atleast even if they disagree with everything else about him.

Reflecting on this fatwa, What i have learnt is that we muslims have done a poor job getting our message out to the West; the imperative of diologue between the muslim world and the West is now more paramount than ever. And this fatwa has exposed this lack in communication, and has shown that we Muslims just haven’t done a good job until the shaykh came along.

The shaykh has given Islam a break through that the Muslims thought they had; now that has been exposed it means we need to increase diologue with our non-muslim counterparts.

This is a historic moment for Islam and inshallah should be the beggining of mutual respect between the Muslim world and the West. God Willing.

Hayaa,

You are right about non-Muslims never having a chance of escaping terrorism. As long as the causes of Jihad are there, the non-Muslims shall be subject to attack.

If you pick up any book on Hanafi law and turn to the Chapter of Jihad, you will easily find the issue offensive Jihad being an obligation. Al-Quduri says: Fighting disbelievers is obligatory even if they do not initiate war with us.

So if offensive Jihad is an obligation, then defensive Jihad is much much more of an obligation.

In fact, defensive Jihad legalises what is not allowed in offensive Jihad. Al-Quduri says: If an enemy attack a city, it would be obligatory on all the Muslims to defend it. The woman can go without her husband’s permission and the slave can go without his master’s permission.

To finish this point off, if you look at the following unbelievable legal ruling by Hanafi law in offensive Jihad, it will bring things into perspective. Al-Quduri said: If the disbelievers shield themselves with the children of the Muslims or prisoners, the Muslims should still not discontinue shooting arrows at them, but they should intend to shoot at the disbelievers.

Based on the above, there is every possibility of Jihad legalists to derive their rulings to justify their Jihad in light of the Shariah. This is a matter of interpretation, whether you like it or not.

As for non-Muslims ‘not having a chance of escaping terrorism’ like you suggest, then you are damn right. The Jihad legalists are not there to appease the West. Jihad has never been there to appease the Kuffar. Give me one example of where Jihad has appeased all of the Kuffar.

You further claim that this fatwa has damaged them. I don’t think so. I made a whole thread on Islamic Awakening forums on the flaws of Qadri just in his presentation, never mind his fatwa (which non-Muslims don’t even understand). I also made counter-arguments against his case. For example, he claimed that Khilafah can be multiple! This is something that even elementary students of Islamic politics know that it is totally against the Shariah!

I posted the following on the other article: “”“”Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri in Saheeh Muslim from the Prophet, ‘If two Khalifahs are appointed, then kill the last one of them’.

What is Qadri’s response to this?

Also, because Imam al-Maturidi is the highest theologian according to Qadri, what does he have to say about what the great Maturidi al-Taftaazaani said?: If objection is made, “Why is it not permissible to have sufficient men of power in different districts, and thus do away with the necessity of a general authority over all?” we reply that this only leads to disputes and quarrels which end in disorder both in religious and secular matters, as is to be seen at the present time.

Yet we saw Qadri proudly boast that he has found no Hadith [or authority] that establishes one Khilaafah for the Muslims!

Even if he didn’t find any explicit Hadith, the above Hadith indiectly proves it. Indirect evidence [i.e. twisting by Qadri] was used many a time by Qadri to prove his point in Westminster. Even if there was no Hadith, the fact that Maturidi theologians have agreed that there can only be one Khalifah proves that Qadri didn’t address his opposition’s arguments.”“”“

I hope these counter-arguments are given a sufficient reply in his ‘fatwa’. If not, he has deceived us, claiming that all the Jihadi arguments have been addressed.

Yes I insulted Qadri for his fatwa. And Qadri insulted the Jihad legalists in his presentation. Insults aside, the weight of the arguments of both sides now only remains in the credibility of their evidences. So please, address the flaws I pointed out in Qadri’s presentation (which you obviously cannot and will not until the Day of Judgement); otherwise admit that it is not the Mujahideen that are Kharijites; rather it is Qadri who is a Khariji for making a blanket Takfeer on the people of Jihad without aving hihglighted the plight of the Muslims wordwide when he had the chance to do so at Westminster.

I don’t tend to get invovled in Jihad discussions and politics. However, when it comes to academics and some nutcase is propagating his Batil with taxpayers money, then I have every right to steamroll that nutcase and expose his deviance.

The so-called ‘Sunni’ Muslims who support Qadri’s fatwa are Barelwis like you. So much for credibility in your support this garbage fatwa…

We are now in 2010, Qadri’s fatwa has come out now, some five years after 7/7 and nearly ten years after 9/11. Somewhat late don’t you think?! Quilliam Foundation, Ed, Murray et al. are well aware that the Salafi Ulama have done refuted suicide bombings but their intellectual and academic denial does not bring them to attest to this.

Qadri’s Westminster presentation also contained mockery of the Sunnah when he mentioned “bushy beards” - to which the audience of secular-liberals and Sufis found amusing.

1) waqas amin is referring to me as a nutcase, simply because I attacked Qadri.

2) waqas amin is claiming that I am imposing my prejudices on the texts of the Shariah.

3) waqas amin thinks I have a lack of adab with scholars like Qadri.

Well, to answer each of these points:

1) Qadri is not immune from criticism. If there was a legitimate answer to our concerns regarding his deception at Westminster, you would have provided them to us. Because you have failed to (and because your brethren have deleted the prospect of having any type of discussion on their forums), the only thing you can resort to is exposing my fiery language. This - in the world of academia - as a sign of cowardice.

2) It was Qadri who imposed HIS prejudice against the texts of the Shariah. I proved that Qadri was a Kharijite by virtue of his blanket Takfeer of Mujahideen and implicit Takfeer of all Deobandis and ‘Wahhabis’. What’s funny is that he used an incorrect and false translation of a weak Hadith (see? darkness upon darkness by Qadri) to prove that “the opinion of two is better than the opinion of one, and the opinion of three is the opinion of two…” We come out and say that the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Deobandis and Wahhabis combined is the NON-TAKFEER of the people Qadri was trying to cast out of the pale of Islam. So who’s opinion should we now listen to?

3) Qadri is not a scholar. He is a pseudo-scholar. Why? Because: - He has the hallmarks of the scholars of evil (i.e. pseudo-scholars) by going to the palaces of Kufr and preaching hatred against Muslims in front of Kafir audiences. - He quoted weak Hadith to prove the Takfeer of Muslims. - He mistranslated that Hadith. - He showed no knowledge of the Hadith of Saheeh Muslim “If two Khalifahs are appointed, then kill the last one of them” when he boldly claimed that the Khalifah can be multiple. - He bothered to quote al-Maturidi to prove the Takfeer of suicide bombers, yet he failed to quote the most basic text in his very own Maturidism that suggests that the Khilafah cannot be multiple. - He implied that only he knew the true meaning of Caliphate. - By virtue of claiming that the Khalifahs means the ‘Head of States’ as we see today, he implied that Benazir Bhutto was the Khalifah of Pakistan. Guess which sect said that a woman could be the Khalifah? THE KHARIJITES.

So yes, he deserves every label that is coming at him from me because he is no scholar; he is a joke for the West and a Fitnah for the Muslims combined in one.

As for the link you sent me, I see it is a bunch of misappropriated of legal verdicts that Qadri slapped and pasted into his obese fatwa. Those verdicts are actually in reference to rebellion against a proper Khilafah, not Qadri’s perception of “Khilafah = democracy = can be multiple = can be a woman head of state”.

Anyway, I scrolled down to see number 10. He quoted Ibn Qudamah as a person who did Takfeer of rebels. Qadri deceives the reader here, as this is not Ibn Qudamah’s opinion, as he goes on to support the notion that they are NOT Kafir. Here is the link for your convenience: http://al-eman.net/feqh/viewchp.asp?BID=308&CID=315 In fact, Qadri had the cheek to contradict his own self when he quoted Ibn Qudamah’s non-Takfeer of rebels on page 512 of his obese fatwa!

As for the rest of the quotes, they almost all explicitly say that ‘rebels against a Khilafah’ (and Khilafah is what they understood to be a Khilafah, not what Qadri pathetically believes it to be) are to be killed due to rebellion, and not because they are Kafir.

As for me sitting behind a PC screen, then what about Qadri sitting down on his butt with taxpayers money in Westminster? Do you have to say anything about THAT? Just what I thought…

And what about YOURSELF sitting behind a PC screen? How are you any different?

waqas amin, just admit you are frustrated at the fact that you have no academic response to the argumets raised against Qadri apart from constantly highlighting my justified harsh tone against him.

As for you backing out from this discussion, then I now let the readers decide whether you backed out because you have ‘better things to do’, or whether you are a coward in failing to address our counter-arguments and running away like a chicken, just like the Kharijites ran away from the congregation of the Muslims.

Finally, waqas amin, you are damn right about Allah being the judge, and that time will tell who is on the Haqq. In the meantime, I’m gonna go through the whole obese fatwa to see what other deceptions Qadri perpetrated in his obese fatwa apart from those he perpetrated in his presentation at Westminster. So stay tuned at IA forums if you have the guts.

Ma’ Salaamah HH