are you asking that question because you are assuming i am choosing these definitions based on ease?That is not what I meant by ease. What I meant by "ease" was selecting to adopt that opinion which is easiest and most palatable to us to follow since it would not require the expenditure of any effort on our part.
well, my answer is that that difficulty is also taken into it. because the ruling of dar al-harb - while perfectly plausible 1000 years ago, would create untoward difficulty for the entire community of the muslims in the west, thats if you want to adopt all the opinions associated with that.
conversely, any definition you give does not absolve anyone of any expediture of effort - be it engaging in dawah or standing up for rights of muslims.
so how did you come to that conclusion?It appears as though many have decided what stance they want to take on an issue and then seek opinions that will validate their preconceived notions, wants, and desires.
well, i don't think leniency comes into. either way the reality doesn't change - its just the names. the reality is Muslims live in the west, work, attend the masjid, fast, go on hajj, and are generally protected - their property, wealth etc.Yes, but quite often only those who give a "lenient" opinion are considered to be those who are knowledgeable about the reality of the West. This is a false standard for judging that.
like one my teacher states, once you know the reality, the names don't matter.
1. jihadiTwo points: 1) Define "Jihadi" and 2) What makes them short-sighted? The fact that their stance disagrees with your own? Or is because their stance and basis for adopting it or believing it to be correct is at a variance with the methodologies and statements of the VAST MAJORITY of Ulema?
someone who believes:
a. the asl of the kuffar [incl non-combatants is that their blood and wealth is permissible in dar al-harb]
[incidentally, imam anwar al-awlaki DID confirm this was his opinion in his later talks]
b. acting without state authority is permissible
c. it is fard al-ayn on all muslims of the entire world to take part in jihad to liberate muslim lands.
d. all the leaders of the muslim lands are apostates - and all who work for them
e. want violent overthrow of leaders of muslim lands
f. readily make takfir of those disagree with the above.
granted, we agree with one or two of the above, but jihadis adopt ALL these positions.
2. short-sighted because:
a. the people [not scholars] they are refer to DO NOT know the reality of the west.
b. they generally are not credible scholars and are self-taught
c. they are literalists of the highest degree
d. they adopt a narrow understanding of the qur'an and sunna and impose it on everyone - and if disagreed you are deficent muslims, even an apostate.
e. and YES, they are at variance with the vast majority of ulama.
...no. i mean the jihadis who adopt these positions and close the door of debate - then kill muslims and non-muslims in the process. for example, for some of them, muslims in the west are collateral damage.So only those who say that the U.S. and U.K are not Dar ul Harb are not in cloud-cuckoo land and have grounding in Usul ul Fiqh and know the realities and concerns of Muslims in the West?
If this is not what you're saying, then please clarify.
its not only his opinion. thats besides the point. this opinion is not something i have agreed with simply because it absolves me of something. like i said, the reality is that the generality of muslims are safe and practice their deen in the west without hardship and can voice grievances [in most cases]. this is an unprecedented scenario such that the fuqaha who previously would have called the west dar al-harb didn't envisage such a scenario.So was his ijtihaad and reasoning convincing because it made sense "intellectually" and "rationally", or because it is a point of view that would give you no reason to disrupt your current routine or state of affairs (i.e. living in the West) and would present you with no difficulty? Did it somehow "prove" a point that you had already accepted, or wanted to accept, even before you researched the issue and statements of the Ulema regarding it? Or for some other reason?
i don't see, in this context, what the relevance of such questioning is.Also, how widely shared is Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah's point of view?
Lastly, has he ever said what his position is on this issue, specifically the status of the U.S. and U.K., after the U.S. starting killing Muslims? And if he has been silent about the issue, or not addressed it directly, would it not make sense for us to take into account his circumstances (i.e. being in a country controlled by a government that does the bidding of the West and routinely jails Ulema who speak out against the U.S. or the Saudi government)?
what i am saying is regardless of the actions of these governments, the muslims in the west are safe. they are not attacking us here. our life, wealth, property, deen and honour are all safe.
what you appear to be asking is if there is anything [despite this] that would necessitate some hardship on us - such as making hijrah.