Who’s Killing Civilians in Syria?
The above image is posted courtesy of http://whoiskillingciviliansinsyria.org
The above image is posted courtesy of http://whoiskillingciviliansinsyria.org
At least 29 people have been killed in a blast inside the Coptic church of Marjeres in the Egyptian city of Tanta. A second blast later at a church in Alexandria killed 18 more. This is not the first bombing of Copts in recent years. Back in January 2011 another Egyptian church was bombed in Alexandria. In response we published an article Egypt’s Copts need the Caliphate which covered a number of points related to how Islam orders the good treatment of dhimmi (non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic State) and prescribes severe punishment for those who harm them.
وَمَا نَقَمُوا مِنْهُمْ إِلاَّ أَن يُؤْمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ الْعَزِيزِ الْحَمِيدِ “The only reason they punished them was because they had iman in Allah, the Almighty, the All-Praiseworthy” (Al-Buruj: 8)
What is driving the current violence and chaos in the Middle East? Many say it is the “age-old” sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims, but a look at the facts shows something different. In this week’s Reality Check, Mehdi Hasan highlights the myth of the so-called Sunni-Shia war.
It is true that Umar, Uthman and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them all) were all assassinated and honoured with shahada (martyrdom). Only Abu Bakr died a natural death.
In addition to the institutionalised mechanisms of accountability discussed so far, Islam also ordered the establishment of political parties. Although members of the government will in many cases be members of political parties the Caliphate does not have a party system of ruling as found in western democracies.
From 1517 to 1924 the Ottoman Empire was a Caliphate. Some orientalists and modernists have disputed this because they want to diminish the importance of the Caliphate in the minds of Muslims and show it cannot work in the modern age.
This topic has caused much confusion in Islamic circles primarily because those discussing it have completely misunderstood the issue due to a weak understanding of usul ul-fiqh. Instead of gaining the required knowledge they instead resort to slander and even takfir in some cases!
In his book: ‘Aadaab Az-Zafaaf’ Sheikh Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albaani writes: “Shaving of the beard: The Fifth: And what is similar to it in terms of ugliness – where there is nothing uglier than it in relation to the one possessing the sound Fitrahs – What has overtaken most of the men in terms of beautifying themselves by shaving their beards in Taqleed (imitation) to the disbelieving Europeans to the point where it has become a shame on the groom to enter into his marriage ceremony if he is not cleanly shaven. In relation to this there are the following violations:
This is an extract from the book Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh by Muhammad Hussein Abdullah available to purchase from Amazon. In respect to the Adillah (evidences) used as proof by those who say that the Seeghat ul-Amr indicates Al-Wujoob (the obligation), then they have erred in their manner or process of deduction. That is because these evidences are related to the obedience to the command (Al-Amr) and disobedience to it whilst they are not related to the Seeghat ul-Amr (form of the command). The Amr (command) of Allah is Waajib (obligatory) to obey and disobedience to it is Haraam.