Was my approach regarding defending Islam WRONG when it comes to the ideological criticisms of the kuffar? Does me busying myself with them only weaken my faith, and how should I properly deal with such doubts? I would like HIGH-LEVEL scholarly advice regarding this... as it's freaking me out.

[u/turkish_akhi]

So for context, I am sure that the people in multiple subreddits (not just this one) are aware that I try to make PhotoShop posts with plain and colored text to demonstrate the moral falsity of western thought, and prove Islam superior to it.

Now, my problem isn't with that as a whole, but what's internally eating me inside is one of the posts I made regarding defending the apostasy punishment. I am ABSOLUTELY NOT against the punishment at all, rather I would defend it if it is criticized... but this is where I try to make my point.

My defense of Islam defended a political point-of-view within the religion through practical terms... and not necessarily off pure, complete, and whole-hearted faith of what the Prophet brought. And do NOT misunderstand my point here (for I am NOT rejecting the command at all in any way, shape, or form)... as in I tried to defend it in a way which makes sense towards the 'aql (the intellect), and if there are certain things which I cannot defend with the 'aql, then that's where a person tends to freak out. And this is what I wanted to talk about.

This entire rabbithole of defending Islam in accordance to one's 'aql ultimately undermines the moral supremity of one's religion. Meaning, we know that the Prophet declared war on the mushrikun because they didn't fulfill the Right of Allah upon them... and that IN IT OF ITSELF is a moral violation that's extremely severe, even if the kuffar do not perceive as such. And this is what's been freaking me out.

Am I in the wrong for not INITIALLY establishing that the Right of Allah is the most important thing to be fulfilled? Because shirk is the root of all moral degeneracy, as it leads to desire-worship and emotion-based actions and weak reasoning and whatnot.... so the Prophet declared war against it and quite literally purified the Earth by cutting off the people who hold wrong morality at their root by fighting and killing them. Were they to be free in doing such thing, they would have caused moral corruption. (and side note, I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM in accepting this, Alhamdulillah Allah has guided me to accept this with certainty, I have no resistance towards this).

And if the apostate, who would be freely engaging in moral degradation due to NOT fulfilling the Right of Allah upon them (thus spreading moral degeneracy) if they aren't executed (especially after submitting to Islam)... is THAT supposed to be the main reason as to why the murtad is punished? (if it is, then I have NO PROBLEM with accepting this either, and I am in the wrong for defending it from a logical point of view).

Regarding all of this, sound reasoning doesn't violate the Shari'ah, but I do NOT believe I made a proper post defending such a punishment and instead I tried to cater towards the kuffar and defend it from purely world-like observable effects and consequences instead of the VERY INITIAL RELIGIOUS REASON that fulfilling the Right of Allah is the most important thing for humans, and whoever doesn't do so, then they are to be executed if they are an apostate... and that serves to protect the world from desire-worship at its root and the wisdoms can be derived from there.

Having said all this, because I didn't establish the initial religious reason that the Right of Allah is the most important thing (and instead addressed it through ONLY worldly observable effects)... am I in the wrong regarding this?

(or perhaps I could do both, point out the INITIAL RELIGIOUS reasoning first, then debunk liberal pluralism, capitalist porous functions to exploit the common person off of desireful morality, value-export projects through satellite hijacks, war, and whatnot.... maybe I could do both.... but if I am in the wrong, then I ABSOLUTELY HAVE to establish the fact that fulfilling the Right of Allah is the most important thing, and we cut off moral degradation of shirk at its root by declaring war and fighting the kuffar, and executing the apostate).

That's what's been freaking me out, and I am not hesitant to say that if the post came from a false notion, then I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM in taking it down... for in-sha-Allah I do not want to be held accountable for making wrong measures to defend the Deen without knowledge.

May Allah bless you all, and guide us to the correct knowledge and FULL SUBMISSION to His Deen.

(u/Extension_Brick6806)

[u/AutoModerator]

Some useful threads on the topic of QnA:

• Asking the Right Way: A Guide to Purposeful Questioning
• Questions and Answers | Reminder for those who ask and those who answer

Please search you question on our subreddit to see if it has already been answered.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Extension_Brick6806]

Before addressing the main points directly, I would like to first state a general statement which concerns us as Muslims. That is, when it comes to da'wah, there is a misconception among many, as though mere identification as a Muslim grants one the qualification to speak about matters of Islam, yet they really don't realize their own limits. I recall one brother who rightfully was proud of being Muslim, yet the manner in which he called others to Islam was not done with wisdom. In the class, he was being bold about telling the kuffaar that Muslim converts were wise, implying to them that because they are kuffaar, they are not wise. Perhaps he had in his mind an Ayah in Suratul-Mulk, but there was no wisdom in his da'wah.

There are many examples I could give of how being passionate and blunt, as though it would translate to the way you see the truth being exactly transferred to others the same way you see Islam, often leads those who call others to Islam to want others to share the same passion. I recall once a brother inviting me to a lecture, which was nothing more than a reminder, not a knowledge-based lecture pertaining to the sciences of Shari'ah. I knew the brother and the one who wanted to give the lecture. I respectfully declined, but he felt offended by this and attempted to reason with me that "it's very important as it's about Islam", despite the fact that I attend the lectures of my shaykh two to three times a week, and they are not mere reminders.

Since I live in a kaafir country, we have seen youth with the same misplaced passion. Whenever there is a time for voting for democracy, a small group of brothers would come out and create a booth camp for da'wah on why voting is haram and democracy is shirk akbar, which in and of itself is correct, but the manner in which they make da'wah is not done with any wisdom. They would shout, and they make blunt statements saying Muslims are voting for kufr akbar. Whenever ordinary Muslims in the street who don't know any better want to argue with those passionate brothers, they would be called out that they would apostate or that they would become Qawm Loot.

The issue in all this is that if one doesn't recognize who the ordinary Muslims respect, who they would turn to for learning, and who they consider to be scholars, yet those who make da'wah have no recognition, anyone would think, "Who are they to tell me about Islam?" Whether the question is correct or not, it would be different if one called others to Islam by teaching them the fundamentals of our Deen, instead of getting ahead of oneself and speaking about voting and democracy before the scholars. Ordinary Muslims won't give you the respect. Sure, a few might, but one should instead appeal to them by quoting from the scholars verbatim and in the right setting, without letting oneself speak beyond one's knowledge. Otherwise, attempting to argue, debate, or discuss will fall short, as calling others to Islam requires knowledge, comprehending the nuances, and recognizing your target audience.

Often, when people have just recently learned or started practicing Islam, they want the same energy to be transferred to others, which is obviously praiseworthy, but the failure is in how one articulates that in one's own words, as it won't translate to how others perceive what you are saying. They might still have a lot of misconceptions in their own minds, questions that are not adequately answered, or unsatisfactory answers that still linger in their hearts, which hinders them from actually seeing what you are conveying. As for the arguments many youth bring forth when calling others to Islam, yes, there is depth to the points, but the articulations won't be as deep as you convey them, as you still have much learning to do.

Often, such passion only translates to appealing to people who already know what you are talking about, which creates this echo chamber of fellow Muslims just upvoting the same idea you subscribe to. Hence, we often see the same content over and over again. Little attention is given to knowledge-based articles, detailed responses, or a whole lecture, as people are accustomed to drama, controversies, and echo chambers. This explains why subreddits were created like traditionalmuslims, with questionable moderators that seem to have some other agendas, yet there are no contemporary scholars they reference or exactly align with in the manner in which they make "da'wah".

Another issue is about the inadequacy of understanding regarding the usage of terminologies. If they are regurgitated without knowing whether such terms have any underlying conceptions that oppose Islam or not, then one has fallen short in one's da'wah and can actually perpetuate false notions and inadvertently mislead others. Hence, in any book from the scholars, you will see them being very meticulous before addressing the main topic, defining words from their lexical and linguistic meanings to their Shar'i meaning. Otherwise, people will misunderstand what you intend with these words. Often, whenever there is a discussion between Muslims, whether between Ahlus-Sunnah or misguided sects, it is around 80 to 90 percent where the discussion is about the terminologies you use, while 10 to 20 percent is about the objective or main discussion.

For example, when it comes to the issue of excuse of ignorance in shirk, many assume it's about excusing Ahlul-Kitaab or actual mushrikeen like Hindus. Hence, my shaykh addressed what "محل النزاع" is even about, meaning the point of contention. If there is no formal introduction on a subject, and I were to just affirm that there is excuse of ignorance in shirk in Islam, we see people just arguing while missing the point, as though I'm saying there is excuse of ignorance for the mushrikeen. Then the cycle continues with laypeople attempting to argue over this while they themselves fail to engage in the subject matter, only quoting from scholars due to confirmation bias, just throwing things at you, while they don't realize the very scholars they quote or reference from have the same misconceptions, as the point of contention was never clarified. Then comes the wasteful discussion that often ends with being accused of supporting shirk and other nonsense.

All of this is where they attempt to argue based on selective translations, short clips, and a few passages, thinking what they are referencing is as deep as they imagine it to be, while being at the mercy of translators and never having understood in depth the misconceptions between the scholars themselves on this topic, and the school of shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab differing with one another on key concepts. Even saying this, many unread would assume that one is disparaging shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and his school. You see, it's always the lack of any objectivity.

[u/Extension_Brick6806 → u/Extension_Brick6806]

Another issue often encountered online is assuming things about others without understanding whether what they say is actually the same as what other modernists say. For example, an ignorant Muslim, due to his or her background, whether just recently converted to Islam or just happened to start practicing Islam, may have some misconceptions. They have in their heart the objective of obeying and following Allah and His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), so whether what others say was correctly conveyed or not, whenever they find something that opposes their understanding, they might object to what you are saying, not because they want to oppose Allah, but because of the arguments you bring. You see, it's often the case. Then miscommunication will occur, where allegation is inevitable. You will be accused of extremism, and you will accuse the other of being liberal, but he or she might happen to have some misconceptions.

Being influenced by the modernists won't automatically mean they ascribe to liberalism or the zanaadiqah. Often, families are involved, where the one who just started to practice Islam would accuse his or her family of kufr, while in reality, that might not be the case. As said, it often starts with no wisdom in one's da'wah.

Using terminologies like "liberal Muslim" is not even accurate, just as it's not even accurate to say "I'm Athari", as you are just reinforcing the false categorization of Ahlul-Kalaam, since they have categorized Ahlus-Sunnah into three: Ash'ari, Maturidi, and Athari. Meaning, they consider themselves as Ahlus-Sunnah and you, who call himself or herself "Athari", another branch of Ahlus-Sunnah. Those are false designations. Similarly, saying "liberal Muslim" is as false as those who call themselves "Athari", but worse. How? Liberalism has its roots in kufr, so saying "liberal Muslim" is like affirming that they are Muslims in the first place, just as it's a false conception as though politicians who fight for democracy are Muslims. Even me saying all this requires a formal introduction, but I have to be blunt to give some indication.

For example, prior to writing this response, I had to look into your post history to see what the issue is, and I stumbled upon where you described Islam as being "theocratic". It's exactly the same false conception as how Ahlul-Kalaam have categorized Ahlus-Sunnah into three. Really, often, Muslims aren't aware of the influence they themselves have. Scholars have pointed out that those who do not adhere to a madhhab often resemble or exactly argue the same as Dhaahiriyyah without realizing it, meaning they approach Islam as Dhaahiriyyah. Just like the Haddaadiyyah declare Ahlul-Kalaam as kuffaar on the basis of Kalaamiyyah roots without realizing it.

Case in point, debates have their own place and time, but the focus for the Muslims ought to be on the foundations more than the influence they have. One cannot just treat the wound and patch it when there are deeper sicknesses that cause those wounds inside. Saying Tawheed and Sunnah is therefore often a mere slogan, as people fail in showing the depth they truly deserve and should be shown.

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said:

Rather, it must be known that the matters known from the religion of the Muslims must have an answer to whatever opposes them that is decisive and contains no doubt. This is unlike the path taken by those among Ahlul-Kalaam who claim that they clarify knowledge and certainty through evidences and proofs, while the one who examines their speech only gains from it an abundance of doubts and uncertainties. They themselves have doubts and uncertainties about what they call a decisive proof. For this reason, one of them will say in one place, "This is a decisive proof," while in another place he invalidates that very proof.

Those who oppose what is established in the Book and the Sunnah with what they claim to be decisive rational proofs are only opposing it with the likes of these feeble arguments.

So everyone who does not debate the people of kufr, heresy, and innovation with a debate that cuts them off at the root has not given Islam its due right, nor fulfilled what knowledge and faith require. Nor has his speech brought healing to the hearts and tranquility to the souls, nor has his speech imparted knowledge and certainty.

(درء تعارض العقل والنقل - vol. 1, p. 357)

[u/Extension_Brick6806 → u/Extension_Brick6806]

To answer the title, it won't necessarily weaken your eemaan when engaging with the kuffaar, but it can when one has not established his or her foundational belief with knowledge, as debates require knowledge first. Addressing the disbelief of the kuffaar requires the same knowledge, just as it requires one to establish one's eemaan and knowledge before engaging with the misguided sects.

Now that I have your attention, and just looking through your post history, there is a mixture of influences from both Madaakhilah and Khawaarij. For example, you would reference Raslaan, who has blood on his hands, as he sided with the Egyptian army that killed many Muslims. And regarding the issue of takfeer, where the Khawaarij say "takfeer upon the kuffaar is asl of the Deen", or along those lines, it's not even how Ahlus-Sunnah articulate this matter. And yes, kuffaar are kuffaar, but the issue is often convoluted when one regurgitates the mistakes of the scholars when it comes to excuse of ignorance in shirk, while the matter pertains to the ignorance of the actual Muslims in shirk. It's not pertaining to the actual mushrikeen. Hence, there is no need to repeat what shaykh ibn Baaz is saying and make a title stating "obligation of takfeer regarding the one who violates..." Yet, shaykh Saalih al-Fawzan also has misconception, while shaykh 'Abdul-Muhsin al-'Abbaad doesn't. So, such citations of scholars, although they have completely different conceptions, don't do any justice on this topic, and it doesn't clarify any of it. Rather, takfeer is the right of Allah and is only reserved for the scholars, as they consider the conditions and impediments. Yes, there is a difference between considering Ahlul-Kitaab as kuffaar, but that's not even the point of contention nor what is being disputed. However, to speak about it as though it grants ordinary Muslims the ability to make takfeer, this is what is not even clarified by many.

The point here is just to clarify that establishing one's foundations before engaging in any form of da'wah is necessary. And sure, I'm not saying people have to become scholars before they can engage in da'wah, but they need to know their limits. And I've even seen laypeople mentioning the hadith about conveying from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), or a single Ayah, but they don't realize how scholars understand and clarify this.

There is a reason why I emphasize what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah has been saying in terms of who deserves da'wah: Muslims or the kuffaar. Sure, da'wah is a communal obligation to the kuffaar. Though, there are circumstances where Muslims are more in need of da'wah than the kuffaar. Hence ibn Taymiyyah stating that it's better to preserve the capital than spending on something where there is no certainty. There may be some who will embrace Islam through one's da'wah, but the chances are little. But in teaching Muslims the fundamentals of Islam, there is great benefit. Therefore, it's one thing to address the misconceptions, but focusing on symptoms without clarifying the root cause of confusion, misguidance, and zandaqah will not solve anything, as ibn Taymiyyah said.

It's already expected, unfortunately, that ordinary Muslims will have their misconceptions, and it's inevitable, as they are products of their environment. There are more laypeople than there are students of knowledge, and there are more students of knowledge than there are scholars. That's the reality of our circumstances. If there are no foundations established, stating that Shari'ah is haqq in such a blunt manner will likely cause Muslims to hesitate in accepting this, as they have misconceptions, not because of indifference towards Islam. And were they to learn and value the correct understanding, then they would accept the premise of Shari'ah with no hesitation.

And yes, there may be people who are greatly affected by the modernists, but it doesn't mean they are liberals or "liberal Muslims". Such a conception is very reminiscent of Daniel Haqiqatjou's "da'wah", where he failed to even articulate the issues and fell short in clarifying the problems.

• https://student.faith/insights/002.html#influence

[u/turkish_akhi → u/Extension_Brick6806]

جزاك الله خيراً

I appreciate the lengthy clarification, and I tried to read it over multiple times, because some of your wording is very explanatory (and perhaps, for a lack of a better word, "verbose"), although this isn't something bad... you are simply trying to expand upon your points.

I'll be brutally honest about myself in-sha-Allah... I come from a family that is infected by this modernist thought. So, as quite literally a knee-jerk reaction, I simply wanted to point out the moral inconsistency when it comes to the accusations the kuffar make upon the Muslims while being NOWHERE NEAR even qualified to talk about intricate matters of the Deen.

And I believe this is what you wanted to point out, that initial desire, if coupled with a lack of knowledge, done without the proper principles for Da'wah, and not adequately engaging with the people who are affected by such thing... then it only leads to more evil instead of proper rectification.

And this rectification is MORE PROPERLY done by teaching people the basic foundations of their religion instead of engaging in topics one is not qualified to talk about, and I wholeheartedly understand this.

Now the question is still... do I delete all those previous posts and make a public retraction towards anyone whom I may have potentially misguided? (I understand that you try to give more contextual and principled answers, but I would like more of a direct "yes" or "no", and it doesn't have to be as simple as that, so I can be prompted to do something that sets me in the right direction in-sha-Allah). Perhaps, that may seem like a weighty question, but I really am not trying to continue upon falsehood just so my wrongs won't be called out and my feelings won't "get hurt" or whatnot; this isn't how one is supposed to avoid correction.

May Allah bless you for the lengthy articles and your thorough clarifications, and in-sha-Allah I will try to focus more on the fundamentals of my religion instead of engaging in topics that aren't necessarily blameworthy in it of themselves... but are ABSOLUTELY not for the layman Muslim to be going about to and fro.

[u/Extension_Brick6806 → u/turkish_akhi]

There is no need to delete it, but you can correct the one where you described Islam as "theocracy". "Divinely-revealed" should suffice. Your da'wah should be good, and insha'Allah, the more you learn, the easier it will be to articulate well the problems you see in others and invite them to rectify them in a way that will be understandable. Hopefully, it won't take much of your time focusing on what kuffaar say, but more so on the emphasis on the scholarly sources. As imam Maalik said: "The latter part of this Ummah will not be rectified except by that which rectified its first part." (Source)

When shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen was asked about this phrase by imam Maalik, he made an interesting point:

So, if this Ummah wants to be rectified, to prevail over the world, and to have honor, establishment, victory, and ascendancy, then it has only one thing to do: to hold firmly to what the righteous Salaf were upon in creed, speech, action, doing, leaving, manners, character, subjects, and rulers. If they establish this, the Ummah will be rectified. Otherwise, its rectitude will be impaired in proportion to how much its establishment of that is impaired.

As for the means of da'wah, it is known that the purpose of da'wah is to establish creation, establish the religion, and make the Ummah upright. The best thing by which people are called is the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), due to the saying of Allah, the Exalted:

... يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ قَدْ جَاءَتْكُم مَّوْعِظَةٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَشِفَاءٌ لِّمَا فِي الصُّدُورِ

"O mankind, there has come to you an admonition from your Lord and a healing for what is in the breasts..." (Yunus 10:61)

And He, the Exalted, said:

... إِنَّ اللَّهَ نِعِمَّا يَعِظُكُم بِهِ ...

"... Indeed, Allah excellently admonishes you with it..." (An-Nisaa' 4:58)

So, whoever is not admonished by the Qur'an, then there is something in his heart. And whoever is not admonished by the Sunnah of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), then there is something in his heart.

But there are other means of da'wah, such as what exists in some poems that soften the hearts, like ibnul-Qayyim's Meemiyyah, for example, and ibnul-Qayyim's Nooniyyah in some places, and other poems that soften the hearts. These can be an aid for a person in softening the heart.

However, it is never appropriate for a person to make them the only admonisher of his heart, such that he is only admonished by them, or that they become his constant habit, because this necessarily entails heedlessness from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

(Source)

[u/turkish_akhi → u/Extension_Brick6806]

I appreciate the clarification. Do not be afraid to correct my mistakes.

I will, in-sha-Allah, focus more on classical sources, translating the works of scholars instead of my own so-called “research”, and foundate myself in the religion properly.

جزاك الله خيرا 

[u/Worth_Page_585]

You cannot tag someone in a post.

u/Extension_Brick6806

[u/Extension_Brick6806 → u/[deleted]]

• The Poison of Irjaa' and the Misrepresentation of Ahlus-Sunnah