Taken from al-Firdaws. The Talafi’s are those who ascribe themselves to the Salafiyyah but are against the Mujaahideen of today and usually label them as Khawaarij:
Bismillahi Ar-Rahmani Ar-Rahim,
This is an interesting debate happened between me and a Talafi (i.e. someone who claims to be a Salafi yet he is not).
Me: Why do you call us Khawarij, yet we do not call those who commit Kabaer (i.e. big sins) Kuffar? We only call those who fall in Kufr Kuffar, after looking into the conditions and preventives of Takfeer.
Him: Because you call the rulers Kuffar and rebel against them, and this is exactly the Aqeedah of Khawarij.
Me: This is nonsense my friend, because you are looking at the ruler as a divine person who cannot fall into Kufr.. tell me then, is the ruler a human being that might disbelieve in Allah at anytime?
Him: Yes he is.. but ruling with man-made law is not major Kufr, but you make it major Kufr.. and this is the Aqeedah of Khawarij.
Me: Ok, that is fine.. Do you consider Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim (ra) a great scholar?
Him: Yes he is, he is the Shiekh of Ibn Bazz.
Me: Do you know that in his message: “Imposing the man-made law for judgement” he said that rulig with man-made law is Kufr Akbar, and it is the worst type of all the 6 types he mention?.. also when he was asked about Turkey, he said it was a Kafir country because it ruled with man-made law, and he issued a Fatwa of the obligation of Hijrah from Turkey.
Him: Yes I know, but he was mistaken, and Ibn Bazz refuted him.
Me: Mistaken or right, it does not matter here, what matters here is: Why do not you call him Khaariji yet he believed what the rulers are doing now is Kufr Akbar? Also for your information, this was the Aqeedah of ibn Uthimeen. As he mentioned in his book: “The interpretation of the three pillars” that the nowadays rulers who rule with man-made law are legitimating the Haraam, therefore it is Kufr Akbar.
Also he was asked in his book: “Fiqh of worship” about legislating a non-Islamic rule.. he said it is Kufr Akbar.
Yes, he changed later.. but can you say he was a Khaariji at that time??
Why do not you accept it is at least a matter of Ijtihaad?
Him: Ok, fine.. but we call you Khawarij because you rebel against the rulers.
Me: SubhanAllah.. this is a normal consequence for believing that the rulers are Kuffar.. but you have to know that Ibn Taimiyah (ra) said that not everyone rebeals against the rulers is considered Fasiq, but it can be a matter of Ijtihaad.. He said this in the last part of his Fatawa series, and it was a comment on the war between Mu’awiyah (ra) and Ali (ra).. yet both were Sahaba.. So do you call Mu’wiyah a Khaariji?? or do you call Ibn Al-Zubair (ra) who rebelled against Yazid a Khaariji??
Also Al-Hussain (ra).. he seceded from Yazid, is he a Khaariji?
Why do not you call Saeed bin Jubair (ra) and Al-Sha’bi (ra) Khawarij?? They made Takfeer on Al-Hajaaj and rebelled aganst him, yet ALL the Ummah agrees that they are very knowledgable and pious men.. and Ibn Umar (raa) was praying behind Al-Hajaaj and considered him a Muslim.. Why did not he call them Khawaarij??
Him: (He just left the debate and turned away).