two: I need to find Saheeh Muslim book 20, hadith in arabic on hadith.al-islam.com/Display/hier.asp?Doc=1&n=4365 so was wondering if you can help
one: one sec inshAllah
two: iA. jazakAllah
one: do you want to know what this page says?
two: im trying to find kitab al imara (government) from ssaheeh Muslim
one: what do you need?
two: can you find… book. I need to find Saheeh Muslim book 20, hadith 4561 saheeh muslim
one: ok one moment you got the book of government “imara”
one: but anymore clues??
two: umm i dont have arabic hadith 4561
one: give me the wording
two: Book 020, Hadith Number 4560. —————————— Chapter : Instruction to stick to the main body of the Muslims in the time of trials and warning against those inviting people to disbelief. It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who dislikes a thing done by his Amir should be patient over it, for anyone from the people who withdraws (his obedience) from the government, even to the extent of a hand-span and died in that conditions, would die the death of one belonging to the days of jahilliyya.
this 1 actually Book 020, Hadith Number 4561. —————————— Chapter : Instruction to stick to the main body of the Muslims in the time of trials and warning against those inviting people to disbelief. It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abdullah al-Bajali that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who is killed under the banner of a man who is blind (to his just cause), who raises the slogan of family or supports his own tribe, dies the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.
one: ok gimme me a sec Arabic right?
two: yes and if there is commentary i’ll take that as well
one: what exactly is this for? im asking because i know alot of youths who use these kinds of hadiths for ulterior purposes
two: HAHAHA on my notes
one: here’s ur hadith with the commentary: hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=44275/15/200812:13:39 AM
two: jazakAllah
so what do you thiink about this hadith
one: well let me give you a big and clear warning when he (asws) said, “he dies the death of Jahiliyya”, it does NOT (and i repeat NOT) mean that they die as a Kafir
actually what it really means is that he dies as if he lived during the period of jahiliyya when there was no ruler and no unity, and everything was chaos
two: umm… there are so many hadiths that jahaliyya=kufr
one: haha, i KNEW this would come up
two: go on
one: be careful esp with these things
two: umm the purpose of these hadiths
one: and dont stick to the apparent face value of things
two: is to unite Muslims we have Muslims vs Muslims
two: what purpose does this serve? I mean.. we have so many commandments by Allah not to do so….tell me, is it allowable in Islam for a turkish Muslim to attack an iraqi Muslim???
one: do you know the difference between unity and uniformity?
two: which do you mean? unity as an ummah under an amir? or uniformity in deen as we progress as a society?
one: only to defend if the iraqi is threatening his life or property unity is islamic, uniformity is anti-islamic
two: answer this: can you kill another Muslim? and who has the right to use this authority to remove oppression?
one: only in Hadd reasons can the judge (not me) kill a muslim
two: in Islam, if the ruler is on the right aquidah, we folllow him
one: anyway, this hadith (like others) calls for unity and against uniformity
two: if he is not, we do not anyways
Muslim :: Book 20 : Hadith 4533 It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar that the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: It is obligatory upon a Muslim that he should listen (to the ruler appointed over him) and obey him whether he likes it or not, except that he is ordered to do a sinful thing. If he is ordered to do a sinful act, a Muslim should neither. listen to him nor should he obey his orders.
I have another question for you
is khilafah fard?
one: if you’re thinking “huh?”, i’d say on the surface (or beginning) of things, the difference between unity and uniformity is too subtle to be noticed. but once you bring each of them to its logical conclusion, then they are world’s apart.
two: umm.. the purpose I asked the hadith is because it supports unity
one: can i ask you what the conlusion you are trying to draw here is?
two: we see, today Islam is not uniform because there is no unity, evidently enough compare pakistan sharia vs saudi sharia
one: that wud help me in knowing what answers to give
two: the answers? simple? I am a Muslim wanting to know if what I hold as Islamic values are on the right path anyways another commentary on the hadith I asked is: Ahmed b. Hanbal was asked: What is the meaning of the hadith: ‘Whosoever dies and he does not have an imam he dies the death of jahiliyyah’ He said: Do you know what is an imam? An imam is the one around who all the Muslims unite. This is its meaning.’ ( al-Muntaqa min minhaaj al-I’tidaal of az-Zahabi)
one: one sec it’s good your asking these questions one thing i want to say is, we shouldn’t go in depth examining certain people’s aqida
two: I do not examine, I only ask if what I hold are in lined as yours
one: not only is it wasteful of time/energy, but also blameworthy, and is so effective at dissolving bonds of brotherhood/sisterhood like corrosive acid
two: well what happened to unity under an amir? when I only ask if it is fard is this too much to ask?
one: and the main point here is: whether talking about a ruler or your neighbor, it is enough to know that he believs and says the shahada, and that he prays to the qibla and the main point here is: whether talking about a ruler or your neighbor, it is enough to know that he believs and says the shahada, and that he prays to the qibla
two: I only asked if my values are aligned to yours
one: once you determine those two (and you can check what im saying here in the law books), then no more delving and inquiring is permitted the only time it is, is if that person publically does or says something that is blasphemous that’s it really
two: I have not asked these things I only asked if my values are correct by asking if you believe it is fard if what you say it is not, then I would ask myself why then? are my values incorrect
one: tell me your values
two: I asked if khilafah is fard… you have yet to answer this question
one: thats a hard question, because i can think/remember arguments for either way… what do you say?
two: one can think but what is the strongest argument
two: brought up by the salaf
one: if you say khilafa is fard… and obviously we dont have, then upon whose shoulders does that sin fall…. yours and mine?
I’ll tell u one reason why this is so tricky and slippery because the Prophet (asws) specifically prophesied about our time that there would be no khilafa
two: first we distinguish what is fard as an ummah as a jmaat and does this negate the fard as an ummah? I mean one can say: Allah will bring us victory, we can just be lazy about it too!
one: another reason, because on the individual level, the presence or absence of khilafa doesnt determine whether the individual finds success in the next life… khilafa is required for certain grand functions of the state, an example of which is jihad i.e. no khilafa = no lawful declaration of jihad
two: aye, but I asked is khilafah fard? as an ummah is it fard?
one: as an umma, yes it is fard
two: that is all, thank you
one: hahaha, wait im not done with you, i want to see where this is all going you cant suffice with black and white answers like that, its dangerous
two: black and white? umm the only purpose I asked this quesiton is to know if I am on the right track, that is all recall I said: if my values are correct these values comes after this question and yes thank you it has been answered
one: but what exactly are ur values
two: what exactly? ask myself what did rosulah(saws) did to establish the state of Islam? ask myself, what did the ijmaa said about this matter
one: you came in understanding one thing about “the death of the jahiliyya”, and now you’ve discovered that it is very different from what you thought it mean
two: different? to know someone is in this state is in fact “scary”, therefore we know then it is “fard” it is not something I “discovered” through this “hadith”
one: there is a difference between intentionally departing from the Khalif, and between there not even being a khalif to begin with
two: of course, but the intention of having one must exist, for an action to happen, there must be intention
one: do you still really think it means that person is a kafir?
two: no and I did not “think” of it neither did I claim
one: i thought u did, because u wrote above that many hadiths show that “jahiliyya” = kufr
two: I did not claim that a person is kafir, the state of the ummah today is where the governments is kufr, this is where I am pointing out if I expand more unto it
one: Thats exactly what i wanted to avoid and clarify, and now that u’ve said that i have to say that no i dont agree with that because that sounds 99.9% like the khawarij and their arguments
two: I see, well what is the only “government” Allah taala revealed?
one: 1) “government” is an abstraction, not a living organism, and so by definition can’t be “kafir” or mu’min
two: did Muhammad(saws) participated in kufr government? such as the mushriks in makkah? government is a system, so which system do you supposedly agreed that is not kufr? is it not that any system outside of Islam not Islam?
one: 2) governments in middle east and other islamic populations are unislamic, yes…. Dhalim (oppressors), yes. these are adjectives, not nouns (like Kafir) wait hold on i dont know what it is but there’s a certain uneasy tone in your questions
two: first of all, who made these “governments” in the middle east?
one: ultimately, decreed by Allah, but practically, it was both foreign colonial hands, and certain native peoples
two: but is this “system” an Islamic system? is western secular democracy part of the system of Islam?
one: yes, they are unislamic oppressive regimes that dont belong there at all
two: oppressive or not, a Muslim takes a step back and look if the system is correct
one: I agreed they are unislamic but i am asking, what is the response you are trying to illicit?
two: any system we have today whether it is monarchy, democracy, communisim has its own benefits and disadvantages, however this does not mean this is right
one: yes, ok, continue
two: You said: Thats exactly what i wanted to avoid and clarify, and now that u’ve said that i have to say that no i dont agree with that and then you labelled the government as oppressive instead of kufr, do you imply therefore that there are “Islamic” government that is acceptable by the laws of Islam?
one: I gave the reason for my distinction, which was: 1) “government” is an abstraction, not a living organism, and so by definition can’t be “kafir” or mu’min and
two: I said “kufr” not “kaafir”
one: these are words which it is dangerous to fuse and mix up
two: I have not used “kafir”, I said “kufr”
one: in either case, it is still mistaken
two: this does not say that everyone belonging to the system is a kaafir, I only imply that the system is kufr, meaning the system is a sytstem of disbelief, unacceptable
one: but the way you’re asking the question…. its like a black/white thing, where the answerer is binded into either/or choice, when there is in reality more to it
ok i can see that
two: one can claim that the saudi system is a system of “ISlam”, first distinguish what is the system of Islam before it
one: what is the next step?
two: what are the criterions that a system is Islam?
one: I dont believe the saudi system is islamic, not one bit
two: then what is it therefore classified unto? is it not clear that we have dar al Islam, and dar al harb?
one: unislamic
two: throughout the history of Islam for 1300 years?
one: haha and that is for a number of reasons the main one being, that the founding family (Saud family) conspired with the british colonials against the Ottoman Khilafa, and that established the saudi state
two: I have used kufr because: kufr is the attribute of everyone who rejects something that Allah has commanded us to believe in
one: it is actually Dar al-Silm and Dar al-Harb
two: we can also use dar al kufr instead of dar al harb
one: you know what the salaf called it
two: but anyhow, it is distinguished that a system is kufr if it rejects a principle of aqeedah/… which salaf?
one: instead of dar al kuft, they called it dar al-thaghr…. do you know why?
two: ok explain if you will
one: thaghr means “fronteir land”
two: ok…
one: meaning that those lands outside of the current islamic state, is a “frontier”, a land of possibilities of new muslims, not a land of people to fight and kill and make automatic war against
two: you sound like an HT member
one: what’s HT?
one: you sound like a wahhabi
two: hizb ut tahrir
one: or ikhwani
two: hahahahaa that is the very first time I heard hahaaha even more funnier ickwanis go into politics
one: hahah same for HT
two: hahaha, HT is the only group that does not engage in politics
one: honestly tell me, what is the ACTION you propose out of all of this, that is the crux of the issue?
two: the root of the problem of the ummah today is the lack of an amir, that is all I can see, the action? engage a dialogue with the ummah for the goal of establishing Islam. Islam is not just established in the heart but also as a jamaat
one: who is the Ummah? are you going to take a loudspeaker to the Haram of Makka, honestly who are you going to talk to? (not you you, its just a rhetorical question)
two: who is the ummah? who is the “Muslim?” loudspeaker? did Muhammad(saws) did this? what did he do in makkah when he started dawah to Islam? did he engage the mushriks and shouted AllahuAkbar in the streets?
one: practically, i’ve come to realize the only way to do it is start with yourself, then your family, then neighbors, then city, and grow like that but from the getgo to have your sights on the whole ummah is way too much ambition and misplaced too
two: we change as a jamaat just as the sahabah changed around Muhammad(sws) ambition? who is to take up lead if there is no jamaat that calls to enjoin good and forbin munkar?
one: ill say that the one who abandons amr-bil ma’ruf has lost half his deen (or her deen)
two: if one says to change oneself, and everyone doing this, without guidance from a sheikh, what purpose does it benefit for the ummah if one’s views are different from another? I mean one can take music as an example
one: right, that is the thing, sheep dont guide sheep, you need a knowledgeable guide
two: exactly, and this is where faults of the ummah lies, and also the fact that there is no amir, now the core of Islam is Quran and Sunnah and the salaf
one: and one bad thing is that any possibilities of good guides are oppressed or suppressed by the governments, or ignored by the people
two: this is where one studies in order to make oneself better and engage the ummah, a core as a jamaat, with the right aqeeddah, not any aqeedah that is wrong
one: yeah u do sound like a wahhabi, why this emphasis on testing ppl’s aqida right and left?
two: of course, we have concepts of “lesser of two evil” popping out of nowhere and saying “this fatwa is the daleel”, I mean there are many things that are “reformed” but this reformation is not consistent with Islam as its own core principle
one: thats what splits up the jama’at!
two: I have not read any books by Muhammad wahab actually and neither am I wahabi neither have I studied under any sheikh or imam
one: i know you aren’t.. but it comes from what so many muslims are saying around us
two: is the word “salaf” scary word? I mean salaf means early generations the “sayings” are reformations
one: look at where muslims are killing each other, isn’t it mainly because aqida-testing and aqida-differences?
two: the best thing to do is to read what the classical scholars wrote
one: sunni vs shi’a etc…
two: sunni shia? let me ask you, how many battles there have been between the shias and ahl us sunnah for the past 1300 years—1300 years, not 1400
one: read what they wrote and also have the wisdom and intelligence to apply it to our time, because they never experienced a lack of khilafa like we did…(yes i caught the number)
two: of course I know this, but they have written what the ummah should do if there is a lack of khilafah
one: as for a number of battles historically, i dont know of the top of my head…. i was giving that as an example of the whole aqida issue, which again - no surprise - goes back to my original point of unity vs uniformityit goes like this:
two: unity as an ummah, ahl us sunnah to be exact uniformity, we have uniformity in sects, simple as it is, but this is not unity
one: a person says, “we must unite the Ummah, enough of this chaos!” so they go out and examine who has the right aqida to readily unite with them, and who has the wrong aqida, to either change them or erase them…. and at that point this forcing uniformity is the essence of what dissolves the hoped-for unity
two: that is a fault you have shown, because one can say “I give my bay’ah to this jamat specifically more like a sect now if seen in the other view
one: look at TWO things only: do they say/accept the shahada? do they pray to our qibla? that’s it, those are the only two criteria
two: but however, this does not stop the individual to carry his duties to learn the core of Islam and to engage in dialogue what is fard, al haqq stands out
one: and again im not making that up, that comes from the law books of those classical scholars you mentioned
two: it is not limited to two criterias
one: what i am saying is, dont ask beyond those two things because once you do, chaos and division begins
two: so do you then accept that shirk can be accepted? I mean tawheed is simple but it is very detailed
one: im well aware of what constitutes aqida hamdillah and i hope my point is clear that we aren’t supposed to test and examine each other’s aqida5
two: ok of course not, but you engage in dialogue and find a common ground with your next Muslim as I have said, the root of all the problems is the lack of an amir the sahabahs didn’t change by their own, the presence of Muhammad(saws) changed them also
one: thats a pretence if i ever heard one!
two: two keypoints I will state: -enjoin good and forbid evil -truth stands out
one: thats not the root, thats the manifestation
here’s another keypoint: “as you are, so shall you be ruled”
two: ruled by Allah
one: ahaha, what that means is, if you are evil to each other and oppress each other, you will end up with rulers and goverments who will be evil and unjust with you
two: I will give an example: If there was no rosulah(saws) to bring a message, who will progress the message if there is no messenger? a simple concept
one: and vice versa
one: go on…
two: for a message to be engaged unto the community, to tell what is right, there is a messenger, isn’t this why the khilafah is fard unto the ummah? the imam is a sheild of the Muslims first of all, in the system of Islam, oppression by the ruler is acceptable for him to rule as long he establishes Islam and has the right aquidah and practices it Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (164-241 AH): ‘The Fitna (mischief and tribulations) occurs when there is no Imaam established over the affairs of the people.’
one: oppression is acceptable!?
two: yes and hold on
one: isnt all the curses you find in the Qur’an against the oppressors?
two: what I meant is, you are not allowed to fight the imam even if he is an oppressor hold on
one: no leader = chaos and anarchy is obvious, you dont need Imam Ahmad to say that
iam go ahead
two: Muslim :: Book 20 : Hadith 4573 It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Auf b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke God’s blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): Shouldn’t we overthrow them with the help of the sword? He said: No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them. You should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience.
Muslim :: Book 20 : Hadith 4570 It has been narrated (through a different chain of tmnamitters) on the authority of Umm Salama (wife of the Holy Prophet) that he said: Amirs will be appointed over you, and you will find them doing good as well as bad deeds. One who hates their bad deeds is absolved from blame. One who disapproves of their bad deeds is (also) safe (so far as Divine wrath is concerned). But one who approves of their bad deeds and imitates them (is doomed). People asked: Messenger of Allah, shouldn’t we fight against them? He replied: No, as long as they say their prayer. (” Hating and disapproving” refers to liking and disliking from the heart.)
a fasiq is still a Muslim, however it does not mean we can fight a fasiq
one: Yes no one said anything here about violence but you can’t say oppression is acceptable “one who approves of their bad deeds and imitates them (is doomed)”
two: ok misword, of course unacceptable, but what I meant is, we cannot fight a Muslim if he has the right aqeuidah and establishes Islam completely
one: go on
two: Muslim :: Book 20 : Hadith 4559 It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.
Muslim :: Book 20 : Hadith 4542 It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A commander (of the Muslims) is a shield for them. They fight behind him and they are protected by (him from tyrants and aggressors). If he enjoins fear of God, the Exalted and Glorious, and dispenses justice, there will be a (great) reward for him; and if he enjoins otherwise, it redounds on him.5/15/20081:41:25 AM
one: and remember what that explanation is of death of jahiliyya)
two: of course I knew that and of course there is a criteria to it
one: can i ask you now, how would you determine if someone has a right aqida (since you’re always mentioning it) ??
two: asking and finding common ground so far, things are in order is it not? what arguments do we differ? I mean, the purpose of this is that, when time comes that an army off khuroshan comes, who and what are they and what are the people supposed to do? do they know khilafah is fard? (just an example)
one: i wanted to ask that question on aqida based on what i wrote before
two: ok go on
one: if you want to talk about what will happen in the future (Mahdi etc) we can discuss that too i mean that i dont think we shud examine other ppl’s aqida (beyond those 2 criteria i wrote)
two: I have given only a scenario, anyways go on if there is any things to be discussed did I mean to examine? which scholars devised those two criterias?
one: i want u to respond specifically to my statement about not asking in depth about ppl’s aqida the ones who wrote chapters about jihad and government and so on in the fiqh references
two: I see, I ask myself, did Muhammad(saws) sought common ground in aquidah with the nasarah? and the yahood? he did so and did dawah of Islam to them, likewise similarly we do
one: like Ibn ‘Abidin in his Hashiya for example (if u want a name)i bn Qudama in his Mughnietc5/15/20081:47:36 AM
two: thanks this matter of examining aquidah, wahabis are famous for, but I only asked 1 black and white question, that is if khilafah is fard, that is all
one: ok lets say ur talking to a muslim “examining their aqida” and they turn out to be shi’a…. so now what??
two: I would not care
one: ok, let me write this answer to your question
two: the authority does not lie unto me to “examine”, I only propagate, not examine, and in terms of examine, there is only one question I have
one: khilafa is fard on the ummah, yes, however, a lack of khilafa does not mean that it must be the first fard to be addressed… what question is that??
two: it is not fard on every individual to address, I know this– I did not say it is fard to be addressed (notice you can read all the things I said) when one sees evil or something that is not right, it is fard for him to address
one: i know you didnt say it, im just providing a complete answer
two: (remember the hadith, if one sees munkar, he needs to change it by action, by tongue,, by heart..)
one: but go ahead, what is your question you ask to examine someone’s aqida (yes)
two: I only asks one aqeedah question and that is if khilafah is fard
one: you mean that is your question? HAHAHAHA
two: that was
one: whoa whoa whoa hold on there
two: and have been answered by saying “yes it is fard on the ummah”
one: do you realize tho that isnt in the realm of aqida at all?????
two: ahahahahahaahahhahahahahahaa first of all, aqedah does not pertain to all theological sense aqeedah means belief
actually I’ll throw on a question for fun
Is punishment of the grave part of our aqeedah?
one: aqida is theological
two: of course but it is not only theological
one: yes it is
two: Islam consists aqeedah and the rules (sharia) derived from it. rules are not independent opinion but part of Islam
one: otherwise there is a different term for it if ur talking about non-theological shari’a doesnt derive from aqida…. what shari’a ruling do u derive from knowing the qur’an isnt created?
be continued
