Who are the Salafis?

I think we can both agree that killing humans is normally immoral, whether that moral stance is subjective or objective. Surely we can both agree that it is always immoral to kill or injure people purely because of their beliefs?

But perhaps you think it is morally right to kill unbelievers, if you believe you have been told to do so by your god?. Perhaps you could clarify that?

Surely we can agree that the killing of humans has always been justifiable in specific contexts?

My God has not told me to kill unbelievers; rather my God has given a specific context.

This discussion is no longer related to Salafism or Sufism or Shi'ism.

We can agree on that, but the specific context I was asking about, as you know, was the holding of beliefs. When might it be moral to kill someone on the basis purely of their beliefs?

I don't want to contribute to derailing the thread so my post will be in spoilers.

Well, in that context, I'm fighting him now. You have read the Koran 5:29-33? Is it moral for him or anyone else to make it physical as the Koran prescribes?

the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.

As an atheist, I'm certainly fighting against Allah's supposed messenger.

3-History and siirah of the prophet proves again the falsehood of your stance.

Are you saying that Mohammed didn't ever capture, enslave, extort from, kill or otherwise punish disbelievers, and exhort his followers to do the same?

You are completely disregarding the post you are responding to and just making a similar point with different words.

And you are being evasive.

I think we all know that if there is an intolerable position to take in regards to apostates, LGBT people, polytheists etc.. then Zamestaneh will be sure to take that position.

Surely we can agree that the killing of humans has always been justifiable in specific contexts?

My God has not told me to kill unbelievers; rather my God has given a specific context.

This discussion is no longer related to Salafism or Sufism or Shi'ism.

x

’Ibn Taymiyyah said about the Rafidhah[i.e shia muslims], “They are more evil than most of the people of desires, and they are more deserving of being killed than the Khawarij.” (Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa 28/482)’

I would correct Rafidhah to mean one who rejects the caliphates of Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA) (and by extention Uthmaan (RA)), as not all Shia reject them.

Would you agree that say a civilian who supports ISIS should not be killed but a soldier for ISIS should? Then if one says ISIS deserve to be killed, does that mean one supports the massacring of civilians too, or rather would you interpret it to mean that those who run the show and fight for Daesh should be killed? Or perhaps replace "ISIS" with Nazi Germans, if you like. In anycase, Ibn Taymiyyahs quote is to be interpreted in a similar way, and therefore his fatwa does not support the killing of the innocent, rather there is a specific context. Sure, you will perhaps still be averse to the implication that maybe the ullema and the learned amongst the 'Rafidhah' would fall under this fatwa, but my point is not to appraise his fatwa, rather just show that there is a specific context to it.

90% of shia's reject the caliphates of the first three caliphs. Would you argue the fatwah applies to the majority of shias?

I would argue i am not a layman. Am i worthy of death? Are my ulema all worthy of death? Is the sheikh that conducts jummah at my local shia mosque worthy of death?

What about my mother, who was a sunni who became a shia?

So i take it you support the death fatwah in the right context i.e for the majority of shias, who know what they believe, or at the very least, for the shia ulema, local sheikhs at mosque and so on?

Just to know where we all stand here, and i will inshAllah respond to your posts individually, are we in agreement that the following fatwah is to be condemned?

‘’Ibn Taymiyyah said about the Rafidhah[i.e shia muslims], “They are more evil than most of the people of desires, and they are more deserving of being killed than the Khawarij.” (Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa 28/482)’’

Neither of you actually agree with him? This is , in my eyes, a simple yes or no. Any answer in-between is as problematic as a yes, i agree.

I certainly do not agree with that, and it is quite ridiculous of you to ask such a question.
Asking to condemn what is already reprehensible is reprehensible in itself.

I feel i was within my rights to ask such a question given that it is Ibn Taymiyyah after all, who is well respected in such circles. As you can see, brother Zamestaneh has refused to condemn it - arguing instead its potential application given the context.

I didn't appreciate the foul language that followed, nor the patronising statements about 'losing what little respect' you had. So i will not carry on this conversation with you.

Wasallam.

90% of shia's reject the caliphates of the first three caliphs. Would you argue the fatwah applies to the majority of shias?

I would argue i am not a layman. Am i worthy of death? Are my ulema all worthy of death? Is the sheikh that conducts jummah at my local shia mosque worthy of death?

What about my mother, who was a sunni who became a shia?

So i take it you support the death fatwah in the right context i.e for the majority of shias, who know what they believe, or at the very least, for the shia ulema, local sheikhs at mosque and so on?

I feel i was within my rights to ask such a question given that it is Ibn Taymiyyah after all, who is well respected in such circles. As you can see, brother Zamestaneh has refused to condemn it - arguing instead its potential application given the context.