al-aswad-al-anis in tribe of mudhajaj and musaylamah-al-khadhaab in tribe of abnu haeefah claim prophethood and tulayhah-al-asadyy in tribe of banu asad and sajaah in tribe of banu tameem claim prophet hood…
but it was tribe of murrah who refuse to pay zakat. And abu bakr and other companians made them very clear that it is not permissible for them to pick and choose islam according to their whims and caprices. Islam had either to be rejected or accepted and their was no room in islam for any compromise on fundamental.. zakat being a fundamental injunction of islam had to be paid and any refusal to pay is apostasy..when they refuse to pay after that they fought against them and declare them apostate..
for further refer to ibn katheer
there are many book on usool at takfir written by our nobel salaf containing all the guide lines from our prophet....
but then again you seems to follow the sugar coated western islam..
The orientalist Thomas Arnold was the first person who claimed islam is the religion of peace in his book The Preaching of Islam... non of our great scholars of the past ever claimed that....
islam is not the religion of peace but it is religion of justice......
Abu Bakr RA had the authority to make things clear to the tribes under his jurisdiction because he had a legitimate Islamic state and was enforcing the law of his state. You seem to be confusing apostasy with the crime of stealing from and rebelling against the state.
Another problem with your argument is that it does not take into account the fact that there is a big difference between just not paying Zakat and saying or preaching that
Islam allows them to not pay Zakat. That's where the picking and choosing and fundamentals of Islam part comes in, and would mean that they were not only stealing taxes but also distorting religion .
Which one of those crimes comes under kufr is not for us to judge.
A legitimate Islamic state could prosecute these people under a proper justice system for not paying Zakat or for distorting religion and causing incitement (and then obviously fight them if they rebel) but
no one, today, right now, has the right, capability or authority to do any of that. You can keep your Takfir with yourself, we don't need any more of it.
Your understanding of everything is a totally intertwined mess, as is typical of people misguided by Mullahs and molvis. Who do you think has the authority of Abu Bakr RA now? ''Khalifa'' Baghdadi? The Saudis? Your local mullah? Who can, today, claim to be on the level of the Khulafa e Rashideen? No one. Then what are you arguing over?
but then again you seems to follow the sugar coated western islam..
Funnily enough, I tend to get called both a 'Wahabi extremist' and a 'secular/sugar coated Islam/west lover' a lot, simultaneously too.
If the only alternative is Takfiri Mullah bull, I'd gladly take ''sugar coated Islam''. But it isn't. You can have a perfectly normal middle path, as the Holy Prophet instructed us to. I would be very, very glad if we had a legitimate Islamic state to enforce the correct principles of Islam, but we don't have anything of the sort.
Narrated by Abu Huraira
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded; and gain strength by worshipping in the mornings, the nights." [Sahih Bukhari Vol 1, Book 2, Number 38]
But then again, you seem to think that anyone not fighting and murdering people while labeling them Kuffar is a kafir himself. If you keep that view, it's hopeless.
Whats your take on Ijma'a. If ummat agrees on kuffar of some group, we call them Kuffar?
My problem with that is that firstly nowadays the Ummat is too divided to have legitimate Ijma' on such matters. It will undoubtedly be abused for political reasons, rather than being handled as a serious Islamic issue.
Secondly, no one can no for sure what people's actual reasons are. Unless they say it openly, we can not tell whether or not the alleged Kuffar are actually purposely covering the truth and opposing Islam or if they are simply mistaken. Since the period of Itmam al Hujjah was a long time ago, many, many confusions and distortions have been created, which results in many people being misguided.
At this point in time, in the situation we are now, I disagree with declaring anyone 'kuffar'. Through Ijma'a, we can decide what goes out of the bounds of Islam (in case it's not already clear) but we can't go around fighting people for that, unless they actively fight against (other) Muslims (like Taliban and ISIS are doing, we can fight them).
