Reply To Amal

amal said {how does it make sense for the taliban to be sufis } how could they not. they were deobandi, and not even mamati. {saudi are committing shirk by the simple fact that they are not applying shariah correctly , by the fact that they have special government scholars who say what the saudi government wants . by the fact a lot of their man made laws are saudi culture influenced . one last fact if a scholar speaks the truth what do they do ? lock him up and torture him . } there are about 5 different matters in this one quote alone 1. shirk is an appelation made once inviduals or a group are known for having takdheeb i.e.outright rejection of the shar of allah. it makes no scholastic sense, or otherwise that someone would say "shirk is committed by so and so for not applying shariah correctly". had the correctly been left out, then you might have a leg to stand on, except that then you would have to prove how in this universe they are not applying shariah at all. secodnly, you are using individual events(like that beating of a women or whatever you reported) as a criterion for aledging accusations to their foundational laws, primarily the quraan and sunnah. the shariah courts, whether you knew it or not are based off of a shar'i hanbali fiqh manueal of i forget who. all of the qudat have to implement the shar based on this hanabli code, and last time anyone checked, the hanaabilah are from among the ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah. i mean absolutely no disrespect sister but i am almost sure you have no idea or are unaware of the issue pertaining to hukmu shar'i, and in what are the conditions in the matters of emaan and kufr and what would constitue as shirk scholastically. things are not judged by our emotions, especially the takfeer of a nation based on the actions of a group. we expect kaafirs to behave that way, not muslims. 2. what "special" scholars do they have. who are the government scholars. i would like to know. maybe this might astonish you but we have specific government backed and payed scholars, from the major scholars, who performed the job of commanding the good and warning from evil to the ruler himself, examples, muhammad ibn ibraheem ali-shaykh, even imaam bin baz, and even others from the perminent committe. had they truely been what you attribute to them, they would not have taken the task of enjoining upon the ruler himself. there is even a video where ibn ibraheem warns the rulewr of kufr for instituing some shari man made laws and the ruler was saying "there is some benefit in them" meaning he does not beleive in them but wishes to extratc the benefit out of them. this is why they don't make takfeer of the ruler or condemn them to be mushriks for the simple fatc that it is a principle that no one can be madetakfeer of by mere acting off of these laws unless they accept them by istihlaal or that they beleive these laws are better than the shar of allah. 3. then you say {by the fact that saudi laws are man made culture influenced} that makes absolutely no sense. if you mean 'not allowing women to drive" then sister, shar'a law does not contain such laws. you must understand dear sister tha law is of two types infatc listen to what the imaam of the ummah, muhammad al-ameen ash-shanqeetee has to say regarding this very issue

i quote from him ["...that those who follow the secular laws which the shaytan has legislated the tongues of his allies, in opposition to what allah the majestic, the elevated, has legislated upon the tongues of his messengers (salawatullaahi wa salamuhu alaihum), then no one doubts about their kufr and their shirk except one whose vision allah has removed and has blinded him from the light of revelation. know that it is obligatory to make a distinction between the code of law (nidhaamul-wadi'yy) whose implementation (tahkeem) necessitates kufr in the creator of the heavens and the earth and between the code of law which does not necessitate that. and to make that clear: law (nidham) is of two types] no check this out [1. idaaree (organizational, regulatory) 2. shar'iyy (legislative pertaining to the shariah) as for the idaaree law by which perfection and exactness in the affairs (of the world) is intended, and to regulate and bring together the affairs in a manner that does not oppose shar' (legislation of allah), then there is nothing to prevent this, and there is no one who opposed it from the companions or those after them. and umar radhiyallahu anhu acted on something which were not in the time of the prophet salallahu alaihi wa salam such as his writing the names of the soldiers in a record for the purpose of exactness, so he he would know who was missing and who was present. yet the prophet salallahu alaihi wa salam did not do that. and also like his, i mean, umar's radhiyallahu anhu's purchasing of the house of safwan ibn umayyah and making it into a prision in makkah al-mukarramah, while the prophet salallahu alaihi wa salam did not set up a prison and nor did abu bakr.. so there is no harm in this type of law, and it is not outside of the confines of the principles of shariah of maintaining the general benefits (in the society).. and as for the legislative code (nidhaamul-shariy) which is in opposition to the legislation of the creator of heavens and the earth, then instituting it (tahkeemihi) is disbeleif in the creator of the heavens and the earth. such as the claim that favouring the man over the women in the issue of inheritance is not from justice, or that it is necessary for them to be considered equal in receiving inheritance, or like the claim that polygamy is (a form of) oppression, or that divorce is oppressive for the woman, or [the claim] that stoning (for adultery) and chopping (the hand for theft) are from the strange (backward) actions and that it is not permissible to apply them to a human being, and other such claims" [adwaanul-bayyan 4/90] so, you should understand, that the simple nature of law is not to be confused as one big lump of law making, rather there are defining nature of laws, as has been explained above. 4. scholars don't get locked up for "speaking truth". people only get locked up once the tendencies of the khawarij are displayed. thus none are in the jails over there except the khawaarij, not real scholars. the sadest part of all of this is that when i or someone else merely wish to clarify the matters for people so that they don't opress anyone or any situation, then by default of their trying be tammayyuz (having distinction in their behavior) they are labeled as "saudi lovers" or what have you as if merely presentingfacts is by default a defence of the regime. but here the the reality whether for us or against us. the cons,

1, they are not perfect, and they have some oppressions commited within the country itself 2, they don't apply the entire legislation in absoluteness, but hey, who after the time of ali has. if people are going to condmen them for not applying shar' law, then they might as well do so for every caliph within the umawi, abbassi, and uthmaani caliphates as well, as well as the sultans and ameers of the ghaznavids and everyone else. and im sure there are some other vices. the pros 1. they are the only country within the entire solar system that has shar'i law as their rule of law. no other country coems near the shar'a with a million mile pole 2. they are primarily the only country to have better rulers than most of the other disbeleiving secualr or atheists regimes, or simply kuffaric beleiving regimes (iran). 3. they are the onyl country that implements the had in all affairs 4, the only country where gambling, intoxicants, prostitution and other vices are prohibited on a state wide level. im not saying that they don't exist, there is a difference. im saying other countries allow these dancing with the devils (in these acts) with the exception of saudi. 5. lastly, they are the only country whos state religion is the prophetic methodology i.e. the religion of muhammad, the companions, and the first three generations of mulsims i.e. the correct and only interpretation of islam. there is no qur'an, and there is no sunnah unless it accords to how the salaf of this nation understood and implemented them both. thus when anyone who follows other than the salaf says they are following this ayaah or that hadeeth, then it is not the qur'an they are following nor is it the sunnah they are following because they deprived themselves from the guidance of those whom allah attested to the correctness of their beleif (emaan). and im sure there are more pros as well my advise, learn before you speak and especially make grand claims one matters you yourself aknowledge your ignorance in. imaam al-bukharee said ilm qabla an qawl wal 'amal knowledge precedes speech and action. asalamu alaikum