Identifying Government Scholars and Clarifying Their Purpose September 15, 2008
Posted by revolution in : 'IrÄq, Advice, Deviants, Knowledge, Political Analysis , comments closedThey are the body established by the rulers containing the top scholars of the country, made and sponsored by him, to justify the following:
1. His authority over the country and its people, even though he legislates against what Allah has revealed, which is a clear kufr, under the Islamic Sharia. This nullifies his position as a leader of Muslims.
2. Cloaking him with qualities and titles, which deceive the Muslims and hinder them from fulfilling their obligations to Allah to keep the Sharia intact.
3. Calling those who challenge his authority after he commits such crimes as khawaarij and disobedient to the amir of the Muslims, i.e. him.
4. Then they approve the killing and torture of those righteous Muslims who demand adherence to Allah’s Law, whom they deceitfully defined as Khawaarij.
5. Although they might match Islamic Law most of the time, in the particulars, their main function is to screen the leader from being harmed, challenged or ultimately removed. (Allahs Governance on Earth)
Few Statements from Past ‘Ulama
Imaam Muhammad al Qurtubi:
“The ‘Ulama have said, ‘One who is an Imaam for an oppressive ruler, prayer is not to be made behind him unless he reveals his excuse or reason why (he is an imaam for the oppressive ruler) or he repents from it.” (Jaami’ ul Ahkaam ul Fiqhiyyah Vol 2)
Imaam Ibn Taymiyyahs Verdict on Such Individuals:
“Whenever the ‘aalim follows the judgment of the ruler, and leaves off his knowledge, in contradiction to the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His Messenger, he is a kaafir (an unbeliever) and a murtadd (an apostate), who deserves to be punished in this life and the Hereafter. This rule can also be applied with regard to the group of scholars who jumped and joined the Mongols due to fear of them and that they wanted to take benefit from them. These scholars made the excuse that some of the Mongols were speaking the Shahaada (testimony of faith) and that they were Muslims.” (Majmu’a Fataawa Vol. 35)
COMMENT: Replace the Mongols and the scholars of the past with our current regimes and scholars that rule over Muslim lands (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Algeria etc.)
Saudi coup against Abdullah fails September 3, 2008
Posted by revolution in : Deviants, JihÄd, Political Analysis , comments closedsource: presstv.ir
A Saudi security source has revealed that a military coup to overthrow army officers loyal to King Abdullah was successfully foiled.
The anonymous source told Aafaq that military officers and members of the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) managed to prevent the coup.
The source said National Guard officer Major Ahmed Maiad Zahrani, backed by a Saudi prince, had recruited 150 of his fellow officers to carry out the takeover.
The officers were taken in for questioning and later charged with conspiracy, it added.
The motive behind the planned coup was, apparently, to overthrow the Saudi National Arabian Guard leader, who is loyal to King Abdullah and prevent the selection of another member of the family as crown prince.
Saudi Arabia’s current crown prince, the 80-year-old Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz, is seriously sick.
King Abdullah has appointed his eldest son Mutaib as deputy commander of the National Guard.
In Saudi Arabia, the Bay’ah Council chooses the crown prince from three candidates named by the king. The council was formed after divisions emerged among the descendents of the former King Abdulaziz.
MJ/BGH
Ahl us-Sunnah Iran :: Burning The Majoos September 2, 2008
Posted by revolution in : Deviants, JihÄd, News, Videos , comments closed
The Vengeance of the Youth of Ahl as-Sunnah of Iran
Download
http://depositfiles.com/en/files/7258561
The Anti-Islamic Rafidi regime and their thugs from the Revolutionary Guard and Basij attacked and killed Sunni Iranians in the city of Zahedan on the 18th Khordadmah (7 June 2008). The brutality and hatred of the Rafidi-Shia regime towards the Iranian Sunnis in general and in particular the beliefs of Ahl as-Sunnah was openly demonstrated. The Kufr and Shirk based, anti-Islamic Rafidi regime and its “Revolutionary Guard” thugs and Basij attacked our beloved brethren and raised banners with insults towards the Companions of the Messenger of Allah [saws] while slandering and cursing the Sahabah (companions) of the Prophet [saws] on the streets and markets.
In particular they directed their hatred and Zoroastrian rooted ill feelings towards the second Khalifah of the Muslimoon worldwide, the eraser of the Majoosi (Magian) Fire, the one who wiped out the Sassanid arrogance, the humble giant of Islam, Omar bin Khattab [ra], thus again exposing to the world the true face of the Rawafid Shias and their Majoosi hatred.
It is no one other than the hypocrite Shi’a regime of Iran and the Satans of Qom - the Rafidi Shia priesthood who are supporting and aiding the Revolutionary Guard, Basij and the Rafidi masses in their hatred towards the beliefs of the Sunnah people of Iran and Ahl as-Sunnah in general! These are the very same individuals of kitman and Taqiyah who beg for “Shia/Sunnah” Unity in the Islamic world and blame those who expose their true character and the kufr of their Rafidi religion as “Wahhabis”/enemies of Islam/Fitna-makers” etc!
On this day, the Rafidi masses including the Basij started to attack the Makki mosque, which is part of the Sunnah Universities of Zahedan. They were enraged because on this day, the Imam of the Sunni people of Iran, Sheykh Molavi Abdul-Hamid Esmaeel Zahi refuted the claims of the Religion of Shia (i.e. that the tormentors of Fatimah Zahra [ra] where the Sahabah and in particular Omar bin Khattab [ra]!)
_________
The Vengeance of the Youth of Ahl as-Sunnah of Iran
The brave youth of the Iranian Sunni city of Zahedan taught a tough lesson to the Mushrik Rafidah minority of Zahedan, hunting the Basij and wreaking vengeance upon them for the youth who had been killed on this day by the forces of the revolutionary guards and basij. Even though the basij are forces of the Safawi-Rafidi government and were fully armed, they had no opportunity but to flee. Thus the Sunni youth torched the cars of the Basij who carried out the banners with curses towards the Sahabah of the Prophet (saws)!
Let it be know. O Rafidah Shia! O Rafidah government of Shirk and oppression, that we Iranians of Ahl as-Sunnah, be it from the Baloch, Kurd, Turkmen or Persian will defend our beliefs - Islam and the Sunnah - till we die! By the Permission of Allah we will raise from amongst us the Abu Bakrs, Omars, Othmans, Alis, Khalid bin Waleeds, al-Hussayns, Zubayrs, al-Hassans and Salman al-Farsis of this era and will expose you Majoos, you enemies of Islam and the Sahabah. You who are hidden enemies and claimants of the pure household of the Prophet (saws). You RAFIDAH SHIA and your zoroastrian rooted grudge towards the companions of the Prophet (saws)! We will raise them so that they may be a lesson for those who think they can slander the beliefs of more than 10 million Sunni Iranians let alone the muslimoon of Ahlus-Sunnah worldwide - O RAFIDAH O MAJOOS OF THIS UMMAH IT IS TIME FOR INTEQAM AND QESAS !!!
Brilliant Comment to MM August 28, 2008
Posted by revolution in : Advice, Deviants, Knowledge , 2 commentsHere’s a brilliant comment that a Muslim - may Allah reward this individual - gave to Muslim Matters regarding their last heretical article:
Assalaamu ‘Alaikum Wa Rahmatullaahi Wa Barakaatu,
To Iesa Galloway and everyone who thinks his article, approach, and opinion is “rational and mature”, a “very interesting read”, or “how BEST we can facilitate justice”.
There are several heartbreaking factors about this article and the commentary that ensued after it that I feel I ought to respond to, Insha’allaah, with the help of Allaah.
First off, its safe to say I was floored by the general tone of this piece; it’s passiveness and eagerness to work within “the legal framework”. If this was all, perhaps I could stop right here, find another way to ease the anger I’ve built over reading this article, but no… More serious and catastrophic are the principles which the author is trying to advocate. My aim is to try and highlight why the very essence of this piece is not only distasteful but completely anti-thetical to Islam. Don’t expect a fatwa, takfeer, or even a heavy set of Dalaa’il. Just a few points and some advice, insha’allah. (I apologise if I sound sarcastic at points.)
Looking towards the actual piece, indeed it is hard to find something incriminating between the authors smooth, soothing, and reassuring tones about pragmatism, “think before you act” mantras, and the “for the greater good” principles upon which the article is built. But nevertheless, something just didn’t feel right about the piece. Something smelt fishy and all keen muslims minds must have realised that behind the seemingly cool head of the author something was terribly wrong with the “principles upon which the article is built”.
In response to the dissenting voices that followed the article, these catastrophes of opinions were more easily identified as the author (and his supporters) tried to excuse away the rightful objections of those dissenting voices. I’m having some trouble in formulating a list but insha’allaah what I am trying to point out will come across.
Initially, of course, is this phobia towards “reacting” as evidenced from the authors treatment of a “reaction” as some sort of red button that might cause irreparable damage if pushed. In the case of our tormented sister, are we not s’pose to “react”? Of course, we ought to “think” and react; fine. Sounds fine on the surface, but the unfair side of me might just think it is an attempt to douse the fire that’s burning inside me for my sister…? Hey, you might get that idea? I’ll try and be fair. All I ask of the author is that he treats me, rather, the entire nation of Islam, with a little more respect than a finger sucking Tommy-boy that needs constant reminders to “think” before he acts.
Okay, after we’ve managed to tie our shoes and tuck our beds nicely, what does the author indicate as the well-earned fruit of our thought? The eureka moment: “My point is to avoid the marginalization of Muslims”. Is this why a reaction is so dangerous? So in what way does the author fear the marginalization of Muslims could occur? Perhaps we will lose our lofty political standing in the Unites States, yes. Our influence might wither. We might begin to see things that we dislike. That must be it. We might even slip so much that OUR NATION will champion the invasion of muslim lands, the siege of the third holiest site of Islam, the indiscriminate bombing of Muwwahhideen, the rape of pure Muslimaat, the gutting of innocent children, the demolition of Masaajid, the rapid ascendence of Kufr domination over Muslim land, resources, and affairs, the spread of Fawaahisha in the Muslim lands (when the brave American soldiers aren’t raping women themselves), the desecration of Mushaf, the raising of the word of shirk, and the lowering of the Words of Allaah…all that for years and years and happening simultaneuosly in numerous muslim lands. With impunity? Never. Get outta of here. So long as we can avoid being “marginalized” as Muslims in America we can sleep soundly knowing none of these things will ever happen. I mean, surely, that would be the height of marginalization, right? If our dear American friends could ever do that to Islam and the Muslims could we possibly entertain the idea of being further marginalized? No, that would be foolish. If Islam can be trampled and Muslims disposed of without a second thought then we would finally know that we have been marginalized all the way off the cliff of that majestic mountain call “Margin”.
I mean, what would you call that idiocy if you had to give it a name? Cowardly, foolish; you might even call that spineless.
But in the unimaginable event that something like that occurs…
What would we ever do? How could we save ourselves from such a calamity? Any ideas?
“It is done by standing on the issues with other people who agree that these things are wrong.” Hey, great idea! That sounds so morally significant and socially empowering. Maybe if we lobby enough support from our American buddies we can save our tormented sister from the plight she is in! Yea! That oughta work! Hey, it works all the time! I mean it worked with:
Ali Al Timimi
Uzair Paracha
Sarah Khonaizan
Homaidan bin Ali al Turki
Ashraf Al Jailani
Tashnuba
Syed Haris Ahmed
Nadeem Hassan
Hammad Riaz Samana
Ghassan Elashi
Ehsanul Islam Sadequee
Bayan Elashi
Basman Elashi
Adama
Umer Hayat
Tarik Shah
Sheikh Omar Abdur Rahman
Sheikh Mohammed al-Moayad
Seifullah Chapman
Sameeh Hammoudeh
Rafiq Abdus Sabir
Rafil Dhafir
Mohammed Yousry
Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed
Masaud Khan
Majid Al Massari
Mahmoud Maawad
Lynne Stewart
Levar Haney Washington
Kifah Wael Jayyousi
Kevin James
Jose Padilla
John Walker Lindh
Hammad Abdurraheem
Hamid Hayat
Dr Sami Al Arian
Gregory Vernon Patterson
Ali Saleh Kahlah Al Marri
Ali Asad Chandia
Ahmed Abu Ali
Ahmad Al Uqaily
Adhan Amin Hassoun
Abad Elfgeeh
Ismail Royer
Sorry for being so meticulous, I was just so eager to show the amazing success rate of such a strategy. If our author is right, Aafia Siddiqui
will be a shoe-in to join these fortunate souls. (May Allaah honour the Followers of Yusuf (AS) and humiliate the contemporary Pharoahs and their effeminate lustful hoars who seek harm for the Muslims, unless they repent like Zulaikha).Yea, as long as “Muslims operate in large broad based coalitions” (because after all, we are “a small and not particularly empowered minority”) we will be fine. The Jews, they totally love us. The Born-agains, they love us more than anything. The neo-cons, they are the nicest bunch. The left-leaning faggots, they are the purest folk. The wonderful NGO’s, they have our best interest in mind. Social-advocacy groups, they are so effective in the United States. One big happy family. Aafia Siddiqui is in good hands.
“The “us versus them” mentality is indeed a convenient world view if your aim is to do little and complain a lot.” Yea, the tormentors of Aafia Siddiqui can’t be rebuked. There is no “us versus them”. By that line of reasoning, I’m sure the author regards himself part and parcel with the association that ravaged our sister. One big happy family, right.
To top it all off, the following construction displays so much logic, as well. It’s incredible:
“The most hateful and deceitful Islamophobes are on the far fringes of western society. They are gaining ground and their progress is due to our lack of action. We can in-fight or reach out. It literally is a matter of whom can reach and win support from more spheres of influence than the other that will determine many of our issues.”
So apparently, those who openly display their displeasure with Islam are on “the far fringes”. Poor them, they don’t get to sit with the big happy family. So sad. But at the same time “They are gaining ground”? Interesting. Why? Is it because “their progress is due to our lack of action”? Ok then, so we ought to act, right? “We can in-fight or reach out”? Huh, that seems like a jump of logic? What happened to acting? Why are the only two options in-fighting and reaching out? Either the opposite of in-action is action or this author is preety skilled when it comes to employing logical fallacies. Hey author, I have a suggestion: we might not be so well-liked but if we ever hope to be “gaining ground” we might take a point or two from those “hateful and deceitful Islamophobes”.
Any closing words of wisdom?
“I say we choose to operate in the paradigm of dawah in our approach to non-Muslims. If Allah does not guide them, at least we begin to earn a seat at the leadership table by working on coalitions that are consistent with our values. This allows us to encourage goodness and discourage wickedness, with our actions, our voices and our resources and STILL work within legal and accepted frameworks.”
Dear Author and His Supporters,
Enough. Real talk. It is not my intention to speak vainly or sarcasticly or even put down your character. I just feel that many of the fundamental arguments that you present with regards to the case of our sister in need are fundamentally opposed to the Words of Allaah (SWT) and the Sunnah of His Prophet (SAW).
In all sincerity:
The Author .vs. The Qur’an:
He says, “so that the American Muslim community is neither used for an agenda that it does not support nor relegated to an ineffective role that promotes feelings of resentment, disenfranchisement or detachment from society.”
There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: “We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah. we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone”: But not when Abraham said to his father: “I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah.” (They prayed): “Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal. (4. 60)
To say that “feelings of resentment, disenfranchisement or detachment from society” put the Muslim community in “an ineffective role” is proved incorrect by the text of the Qur’aan because it describes that position as “an excellent example (to follow)”. In fact, we don’t need to be “relegated” towards exhibiting “feelings of resentment, disenfranchisement or detachment from society” because if we followed the example of Ibrahim (AS) we would do it voluntarily. Kufr and Iman have not vanished overnight. Al-Walaa’ wal-Baraa’ is nt out-dated. If what the Author is saying is correct than we must throw a great portion of the Qur’aan behind our backs, indeed, Tawhid itself. Wake up and smell the cofee, there is no society for you to belong to except the society of Islam.
“When ye turn away from them and the things they worship other than Allah, betake yourselves to the Cave: Your Lord will shower His mercies on you and disposes of your affair towards comfort and ease.” (16. 18)
Contrary to what might be assumed of utter failure as a Muslim American Community if the above is exercised, rather these developements would follow in the same fashion as they did in the Story of the Peeople of the Cave: “…betake yourselves to the Cave: Your Lord will shower His mercies on you and disposes of your affair towards comfort and ease.”
“One is separating complex and emotional issues into their core components. In this case the major issues are: human rights, justice, legal prosecution of individuals suspected of engaging in or supporting terrorism, and community support for a mother and family going through a horrible ordeal.”
Are these the core components? Is this what Islam would have us stand for in this issue? The slogans and catchphrases that mean nothing? This is about Kufr and Iman and the battle between the people of Kufr and the people of Iman:
(Pharaoh) said: “If thou dost put forward any god other than me, I will certainly put thee in prison!” (29. 26)
And they ill-treated them for no other reason than that they believed in Allah, Exalted in Power, Worthy of all Praise!- (8. 85)
“As we all know, American Muslims are a small, but growing minority within America, with estimates ranging from 1% to 2.5% of the total population. This fact screams for the need of building alliances. If we, as a community, can mentally separate human rights principles from the legal case, we would then have a host of potential allies. We can identify and work with groups that oppose torture, stand up for due process, and stand against the deterioration of other constitutional rights. This allows us to build broad-based coalitions that are hard to attack. When a cross segment of Americans stand together, it affirms the validity of the cause. When a minority group stands alone it is seen as a special interest.”
They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;- (89. 4)
O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom. Ah! ye are those who love them, but they love you not,- though ye believe in the whole of the Book. When they meet you, they say, “We believe”: But when they are alone, they bite off the very tips of their fingers at you in their rage. Say: “Perish in you rage; Allah knoweth well all the secrets of the heart.” If aught that is good befalls you, it grieves them; but if some misfortune overtakes you, they rejoice at it. But if ye are constant and do right, not the least harm will their cunning do to you; for Allah Compasseth round about all that they do. (118-120. 3)
Does that need any explanation?
You see the problem is that the authors whole hypothesis is unequivocally against the Qur’an. What haven’t you read these verses before? Haven’t you Yasir Qadhi? Or you Yaser Birjas? You simply will not build “broad-based coalitions that are hard to attack” if you ally with kuffar. It’s that simple. Alliance with kuffaar=failure. Cram that down your “moderate” neck if you have to, but that’s the truth. Doesn’t Allah know better than you? You see the problem with this whole “strategy” of dealing with the issue of our oppressed sister that is being presented here is that the author has completely formulated it in accordance with the general “acceped norms”, within the “criteria” that the Kuffaar have squeezed him into, and his own desires. Therefore it has nothing to do with Islam. It’s pure Batil. The whole of it, even if the falsehood is presented as the truth. What, are you willing to wait for you or your mother or someone you ACTUALLY love to fall in the same situation as our sister? Suits you, but we’re not gonna let you drag the trojan horse into the fortress of Islam.
“While we each consider Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s case, it should be stated very clearly that conspiratorial and anti-American rhetoric, withdrawal from society and other deconstructive responses, all serve to separate us from our potential allies. Those responses will empower both the anti-Islamic xenophobes along with their counterparts, the terrorists.”
Is this what you fear rather than standing up for your sister? The fear that guarding her honour might “separate us from our potential allies.”!!! That say’s it all. You have no credibility. And about “terrorists”…what “terrorists”? The ones fighting in the way of Allah? The Mujahideen? Last time I checked there was this thing call Jihad and these certain folks call Muijaahideen. And apparently they weren’t the worst bunch of a folks. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value). And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!” Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan. (74-76. 4)
Bear in mind that your strategies and opinions will not save you from the punishment of Allaah. If you forsake the Mujaahideen and ally with the kuffaar then you are of them. Bear in mind that you are the terrorist who facilitated, through your undeniable alliance to “America”, the terrorism of the Cross-Worshippers on the sons and daughters of Islam. Bear in mind the countless souls that will enter Jahanamm because of YOU! Beause of what you concealed from the truth. Today is a dire day in history, don’t you know? All these circumstances of the dunya will pass away but Iman will lead its carrier to Jannah forever and kufr will lead its carrier to Hell forever. Are you actually a misguidance among the misguidances that will lead the millions into the hellfire? Today Kufr reigns and so many are on their way to the Hellfire, so what are you doing to turn that around. Repent; your path is dangerous.
Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book,-on them shall be Allah.s curse, and the curse of those entitled to curse,- Except those who repent and make amends and openly declare (the Truth): To them I turn; for I am Oft-returning, Most Merciful. Those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- on them is Allah.s curse, and the curse of angels, and of all mankind; They will abide therein: Their penalty will not be lightened, nor will respite be their (lot). And your Allah is One Allah. There is no god but He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. (159-163. 2)
All of you here on MuslimMatters think hard. Where are you from Islam. And how far is Islam from you.
“Today as the grassroots responses are forming, it is essential that we remember the need to create lasting relationships with others who share our universal values. As individuals and as a community we have to find opportunities to build relationships, relationships with non-Muslims that are truly win-win. Obviously, these relationships have to be maintained and reciprocated; otherwise what we really end up doing is to burn bridges.”
This is the cherry on the cake, really. This is not what Islam is about, not at all. If Islam accepted “the need to create lasting relationships with others who share our universal values” then Nuh (AS) would not have been mocked for hundreds of years, Ibrahim (AS) would not have been thrown in the fire, Musa (AS) would not have been chased across the Nile, Isa (AS) would not have been nearly crucified, and Muhammad (SAW) would not have suffered any hardship.
And in truth we have been infromed about you in advance:
They will present their excuses to you when ye return to them. Say thou: “Present no excuses: we shall not believe you: Allah hath already informed us of the true state of matters concerning you: It is your actions that Allah and His Messenger will observe: in the end will ye be brought back to Him Who knoweth what is hidden and what is open: then will He show you the truth of all that ye did.” (94. 9)
Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way. To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous penalty;- Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah. Already has He sent you Word in the Book, that when ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme: if ye did, ye would be like them. For Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - all in Hell:- (These are) the ones who wait and watch about you: if ye do gain a victory from Allah, they say: “Were we not with you?”- but if the unbelievers gain a success, they say (to them): “Did we not gain an advantage over you, and did we not guard you from the believers?” but Allah will judge betwixt you on the Day of Judgment. And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers. The Hypocrites - they think they are over-reaching Allah, but He will over- reach them: When they stand up to prayer, they stand without earnestness, to be seen of men, but little do they hold Allah in remembrance; (They are) distracted in mind even in the midst of it,- being (sincerely) for neither one group nor for another whom Allah leaves straying,- never wilt thou find for him the way. O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves? The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them;- Except for those who repent, mend (their lives) hold fast to Allah, and purify their religion as in Allah.s sight: if so they will be (numbered) with the believers. And soon will Allah grant to the believers a reward of immense value. (136-146. 4)
So if you are really believers then listen to this verse:
But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction. (65. 4)
So, the choice is clear when it come to our sister:
The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wassallam) said: “Feed the hungry, visit the sick, and free the prisoner!”
Refuting Madkhali & Munaafiq Doubts on Jihaad 3/4 August 18, 2008
Posted by revolution in : Deviants, JihÄd, Knowledge , add a commentThis is part 3 of the series on refuting the Madkhali and Munaafiq doubts on Jihaad. This doubt will focus on those who say Jihaad today is Fitnah and that one should abandon it due to the Fitnah. This is yet another argument of the “Salafiyyah.” The reality of their argument is that they themselves have fallen into the Fitnah as you will come to see. May Allah reward the brother who compiled these refutations.
The Third doubt
If jihad leads you to fitnah, you should abandon jihad in order to avoid fitnah.
They say that there is fitnah in places like Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, so it’s not allowed for a Muslim to expose himself to fitnah. He should save himself from fitnah and if jihad causes fitnah it should be abandoned.
They say that there are many militant groups who fight amongst themselves and that’s the main reason for fitnah. Usul, purposes and other important points for these groups are not clear.
So we say:
1. If the scholars know that there are some Muslim groups which fight one another and are not able to come together, then it’s their duty to reconcile them. Or may be they forgot what Allah Ta’aalaa says:
If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). [49:9]
It’s their duty to solve these kind of problems and to make it easier for Muslims. But instead of addressing these problems, they preferred to ignore it and to call other Muslims to leave their brethren in the hardship!
2. Which fitnah is bigger? The fitnah of shirk and ilhad which is one of the primary goals of the kuffar or fitnah that occurred between Muslims? No Muslim with a sound mind would hesitate trying to answer this question! It’s clear as the Sun that fitnah of shirks and ilhad is greater than any other fitnah!
Allah Ta’aalaa said:
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for Fitnah is worse than slaughter; [9:5]
And fitnah mentioned in this blessed ayah is Kufr and Shirk!
Definitely allowing the disbelievers to take over our lands is more dangerous for Muslims, than the fitnah that occurred between them. So it’s not allowed to use the fitnah as an excuse for falling behind from jihad.
3. Ibn Taimiyya - rahimahullah - explained it:
“Because ‘amr bil-ma’ruf and nahy ‘anil-munkar and jihad in the path of Allah are tribulation and trouble and when human beings are faced with them you would find some of them seeking safety from fitnah by turning away from what is obligatory upon them. As Allah said about the hypocrites:
“Among them is a man who says: “Grant me exemption and draw me not into trial.” Have they not fallen into trial already?” [9:49] And it’s mentioned in the tafsir of this ayah that it was revealed about al-Jad bin Qays. When the prophet ordered him to equip himself before the war against the Romans, later he suspected something about him and asked him: “Is it something about the roman women?” He said: “O Allah’s Messenger! I’m a man who can not restrain himself from women and I’m afraid to fall into trial because of the roman women. Give me permission to stay behind and don’t lead me to temptation.” It was al-Jad, the man who remained behind from ar-Ridwan Pledge under the Tree and he hid behind a red camel. There is a narration about him: “All are forgiven except the owner of the red camel”. And Allah sent this ayah about him: “Among them is a man who says: “Grant me exemption and draw me not into trial.” Have they not fallen into trial already?”
He said that he wanted to stay behind in order to be safe from the fitnah of women and not to be tempted by them and he needed to protect himself from the forbidden and to struggle against the lust. Otherwise either he will suffer from it or he will fornicate and be sinful. Because when a man sees a beautiful face and fall in love, then if he is not able to take her, either because Allah made her haram for him or because he is unable to do it, then he feels suffering in his heart. If he had been able to take her, then he would done something forbidden and be destroyed as a result. And when he holds back from all of these things he will again fall into trial as a result of being surrounded by women. It’s the explanation of his words: “don’t lead me to temptation!” and Allah Ta’aalaa said: “Have they not fallen into trial already?” Turning away from the obligatory jihad and holding back from it, and weakness of the iman and sickness of the heart that beautified for him abandoning jihad are in itself THE GREAT FITNAH that he had fallen into. And how is it possible to escape from a minor fitnah that has not occurred while he is already in a major fitnah that has already affected him?!?!?! And Allah says: “And fight them on until there is no more Fitnah (shirk and kufr), and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.” [8:39] Whoever abandons jihad in order to be safe from fitnah, then he has already fallen into fitnah that is a result of the doubts in his heart, sickness of his mind and his abandoning jihad that Allah ordered him with!”
Response to the article, “The Way of Muhammad (SAW)” & debunking the Makkan Phase August 12, 2008
Posted by revolution in : Deviants, JihÄd, Knowledge , 8 comments
Recently, an editorial of an Islaamic Movement in Pakistan which has abandoned the fard ‘ayn obligation of Jihaad for a “peaceful revolution” [to establish Islaam] tried to spread their views to try and correct the ‘Aqeedah of the Mujaahideen. The document is entitled, “The Way of Muhammad (SAW)”.
In it, they expose their lack of understanding between Shari’ah and Manhaj. Specifically however, it is a defect in their ‘Aqeedah which has given them a corrupted Manhaj. They wrote in the editorial (pg. 2):
Maulana Abdul Aziz during a question-answer session mentioned that some people say that we are at the moment in Makkan period, hence there won’t be any conflict, so I ask them, “Was the system of prayer implemented in the Makkan period? Was alcohol prohibited in Makkan period? If they are right in their claim then, why they don’t leave prayer and start drinking alcohol?” We, therefore, correct our honorable brother that we are not in the Makkan Period. Makkan and Madani periods have nothing to do with the Sharia law, once the rules of Sharia were finalized by Allah (S.W.T) 1400 years ago, they will be observed till the Day of Judgment. Hence all these rules have to be followed and all prohibited acts have to be refrained from by all the Muslims. However, any organization who wants to strive for establishing of an Islamic state, will first, have to follow the same strategy which Prophet Muhammad (SAW) adopted in Makkah. Since, we are bound to follow Muhammad (SAW) in all matters; it will be harmful and dreadful for us to follow our own paths while rejecting his Sunnah.
It is correct to say that we are not in the Makkan or Madinan period and that accepting the Shari’ah should not be limited to those periods since we are to take the Shari’ah as a whole after its completion rather than take parts of it. However, it is strange for them to conclude that in order to establish Islaam, a movement will have to go back to the Makkan period of “kuffu aydiyyakum” or “hold your hands” as Allah revealed in an-Nisaa’ –
Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate… [1]
Even though Allah, Ta’aalaa, has abrogated this with the obligation of Jihaad in the same aayah! Allah says,
Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; but when fighting is prescribed for them, lo! A party of them fear men as they ought to have feared Allah, or (even) with a greater fear, and say: Our Lord! Why hast Thou ordained fighting for us? Wherefore didst Thou not grant us a delay to a near end? Say: The provision of this world is short, and the hereafter is better for him who guards (against evil); and you shall not be wronged the husk of a date stone. [2]
So here, Allah says in the beginning “Withhold your hands from Jihaad.” But then this act was abrogated with Jihaad itself when Allah revealed in al-Hajj,
Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; [3]
And later, Allah made Jihaad an obligation with the aayah,
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. [4]
So how can one use something which was abrogated in Shari’ah and Manhaj – in this case, withholding ones hands from Jihaad – and claim that any other path than this [to establish Islaam] is “rejecting his (sallallahu ‘alayhi wassallam) Sunnah”? Is it not the Sunnah to wage Jihaad against the aggressors in order to make Allah’s Deen prevalent? Or are these people ignorant regarding the matters of Jihaad ad-Daf’ (Defensive Jihaad) and Jihaad at-Talab (Offensive Jihaad) as well as when they become fard ‘ayn (individually obligatory) and when they go back to the status of fard kiffaayah (communal obligation)? It brings doubts upon how much knowledge these people have regarding the obligation of Jihaad ad-Daf’ when the Muslim lands are attacked, even if the lands itself are not Shari’ah-based lands. It also brings doubt upon how much knowledge they have regarding history such as the time of Shaykh al-Islaam, Ibn Taymiyyah – may Allah have mercy upon him – when the Tartar invaded the lands of the Muslims and the Muslims were without a Khaleefah for three years; did Ibn Taymiyyah – one of the greatest Scholars of Islaam – declare that the Ummah was back in the Makkan phase because the Khilaafah was gone and the lands were controlled by those who ruled by al-Yaasiq [5]? Or did he wage Jihaad with the Muslims against the Tartar and re-instated the Khilaafah [6]?
Shi’a dogs August 1, 2008
Posted by revolution in : Deviants, Funnies, Images, Knowledge , 9 commentsHave you ever seen a Shi’a dog before?
Well, now you have.
Islaam is free of these dogs. All Praises and Thanks belong to Allah that He has made the way of Ahl as-Sunnah (i.e., the Sunni’s) as the majority of this Ummah.
Islaam has nothing to do with modern day Shi’asm.
And what crime has this cute baby committed that he has to be stabbed on his forehead with a knife??
They call it “tradition.”
We call it extreme heresy.
Shaykh Abu Mus’ab az-Zarqawi on the “Sectarian strife” in ‘Iraaq July 27, 2008
Posted by revolution in : 'IrÄq, Deviants, JihÄd, Knowledge, True ShuyÅ«kh , 12 comments
These are some very important words from the Shaykh ash-Shaheed, Abu Mus’ab az-Zarqawi, may Allah have mercy upon him. Western Journalists have often overlooked his works in where he discusses his views regarding the war in ‘Iraaq and the actions he had taken; it seems that the Journalists and Media in the West are satisfied in their ignorant one-sided view that is usually out of context. What he discusses here is regarding the war of Ahl as-Sunnah against the Raafida Shi’a.
The Shaykh, may Allah have mercy upon him, said after discussing why the Raafida Shi’a (in the Government) are more dangerous than the Americans:
Many people may blame us for fighting the Rafidah and others may question why do we fight the Rafidah. We have made this clear more than once; we do not fight the Rafidah because they are Rafidah, in spite of our belief that they are an evil from under the layer of the sky. We were not entitled to fight them just as we were not entitled to fight others who are murtaddeen (who disbelieve after belief) who did not participate with the Americans in their battles against Islam. We wished to fight the occupying enemy.
One might think our fight with the Rafidah is a fight we desire or that we fight them for entertainment or that we are showing off and by removing the goal and changing the direction of the aim from our real enemy that we have started to fight the people who it wasn’t necessary to fight. This is not true. We did not fight them in the beginning. They are the one who started fighting the Ahl as-Sunnah, and they are the ones who came on the American tanks. They and the Americans stand in one row, and they were the ones who hastened to point the guns at the chests of the Mujahideen. And they are the ones who subjugated the Muslims in Iraq and they are the ones who made the attack on the masajid of the Muslims in Iraq; that number more than 30 masajid since the time they entered Baghdad. Likewise many masajid have been taken in Basra and in Ammarah and in Samawah and in Nasiriah. The Rafidah did not leave a single masjid. Keep in mind that they did not take a single church and they did not touch a pub and there are Jewish synagogues in Iraq and nothing was done to them. So these people do not have any other enemy except the Ahl as-Sunnah.
We ask the people, does it make sense, according to Islamic law (shari’ah) or logically or practically to turn a blind eye to the ones that are perpetrating these crimes so that I am not accused of promoting civil war or turning the face of the war? Our hands “are in the fire” like it’s said, and we are those who know the present situation and face the wrath of the Rafidah. That is why there is a basic need for the Ummah to trust her sons and take their opinion and hold fast to them, for her sons, who sacrificed themselves and strive with their souls, are more deserving of their trust and more deserving of their support. They are more knowledgeable about the Rafidah and they are the ones who have the blisters from the fire of their deception and betrayal. And for those who are on the other side of the ocean or away from the battleground and follow events from afar, their minds are well relaxed and safe concerning his honor and wife and children, thus their judgment on the situation here will not be the same as the person who knows and feels and undergoes what the Ahl as-Sunnah go through from these Rawafid.
The treachery of the Rafidah is known and their betraying stance is famous, and this is not the first time when they are entering Baghdad with the invading enemy. Before Ibn al-’Alqami prepared the Tatar to enter Baghdad after he had sent away most of the army and weakened the army of the caliph and burdened it with debts, the Tatar stepped in. What had to happen happened to the Ahl as-Sunnah and the tragedy was, as the historians have stated, two million deaths in Baghdad because of the treachery of Ibn al-’Alqami. This is their condition throughout history and we see with our own eyes what they do to the Muslims; what misfortune befalls them because of these people and that is why we cannot remain silent. There is no way we can let them spill the blood of Ahl as-Sunnah, and in fighting them there is great good and general benefit. Allah knows that if it wasn’t for the Mujahideen fighting these traitors then no Ahl as-Sunnah would have remained in existence in Iraq. The Rafidah, when they entered, came up with a deceptive trick. Yes when they came, the unit of Badr proclaimed hostility but the enemy Sistani said, “We do not want to incite a civil war” because he knows that if only one man from the Ahl as-Sunnah is left standing he will stand up to them.
So what did they do? They put their hands in the hands of the grandsons of their founder and controlled the various major sections of the nation, and you know that the strength of any nation are the armed sections like the army, police, the defense ministry as well as the oil and finance ministries. After that, in the name of the army, police, and in the name of protection of the nation and the nationality of Iraq, they started persecuting the Ahl as-Sunnah with a huge and frightful media campaign that changed the realities as it is now happening. All the wicked media, newspapers, Iraqi channels, the Faiha and the Furat and their Arabic sisters were spreading it. The plan was that they (Rafidah) would operate under the banner of protecting the nation and the nationality of Iraq, and purifying Iraq from the rebels and the fidaee Saddam (those loyal to Saddam) and from the “terrorists”. They started persecuting the Ahl as-Sunnah with a mind-boggling persecution. They were permitted the honor and killed the men, humiliated the women and expatriated the families under this title, with a huge and frightful media campaign. This worked with a lot of people, whether they were inside or outside Iraq. And they hoped this plan would have been completed in five years, as by then, most of Iraq would be in the hands of the Rafidah.
The greatest proof of this is that most of the people are ignorant of the fact that for two and a half years, the Ahl as-Sunnah are facing massacres that have never been committed before, all at the hands of the Rafidah. Where is the media? No media! And if a few Rafidah are killed, the media comes and spreads that the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Wahabi’s are persecuting them but for two and a half years the Ahl as-Sunnah were being killed; there wasn’t a word from them. The last voices that spoke accused some sections of the Rafidah but sadly this matter is only a presentation. It is not anger for the Ahl as-Sunnah, and not an anger for Allah and his messenger because the Ahl as-Sunnah have been facing two and a half years of massacres and we did not hear from these people talk or disclose the scenario from the very beginning. But when the rope started nearing their throats and when these criminal people continuously committed these massacres, they started screaming “ there is a civil war and massacres being committed”.
Why is the blood of the Ahl-as-Sunnah so cheap for these people in this way? The truth has never been made clear and sectarian strife is always feared. What sectarian strife? Did the Rafidah stop their weapons from the Muslims that we should ask them to stop? You all know very well that the persecution of Ahl as-Sunnah is being done horribly! Then how can we keep silent? How can we not return the blow twice as hard?
Then there are those who say, “some of the Rawafid are innocent!” This is not correct from the point of view of the Shari’ah because these Rawafid sects vary only a thorn and whenever the brothers clear a number of the regiment and the assisting Rafidi army, Sistani intervenes directly and sends more volunteers from other Rafidah areas and it rotates over again like this. So this disbelieving guards and this police that you see are the blanket of a fox, and many other blankets cover all the Rafidiah. They are the ones who sustain the so-called government and the possessor of the evil organization; it is a detesting Rafidiyah government, and the greatest witness of their Rafidi hatred is what they did when they entered Fallujah.
What we hear from their renowned Rafidah leaders is, “By Allah we do not wish to pull Iraq into a civil war”. This is their lies to deceive the Ahl as-Sunnah. So the civil war is on and they are persecuting the Ahl-as-Sunnah. They are the ones who seek blessings for their soldiers and promise them Paradise, and promise them of great reward. Who is it that is fighting the Ahl as-Sunnah except Najafi and Sistani and then he appears as if he is very careful about Iraq and that he is far removed from sectarian violence!
Earlier their leader Sistani stated, “Even if half of the Shi’a are eliminated we won’t get pulled into a civil war!” On who are you lying to O ‘Alqami! You are the one who has killed thousands of Ahl as-Sunnah by your fatawa and directives. Saying this is one thing but the reality is another and Allah knows these Rawafid do not move except under the directions from their leaders. They laugh at the Ahl as-Sunnah and cheat them with sweet talk for fear of the rage of the Ahl as-Sunnah. What sectarian strife is it when they humiliate the women of Ahl as-Sunnah?
I am not talking to you now about the prisoners in the detentions of the Americans. I am talking to you about the prisoners in the prisons of those who say, “No sectarian violence”. And Allah knows where our women are now. In the prisons of the Rafidah city of Kut city that is ruled by Iran and in the prisons of Al-Hilla that is ruled by the Qais and the Rafidi, and in the prisons of Basra. This prison is the detention of the Badr Brigades! And there is the Aqbiyah and prisons underground, of which nothing is known and thousands of Ahl as-Sunnah’s whereabouts are unknown!
But who from among their leaders dares to stand up like a man and tell the truth to protect Ahl as-Sunnah and clearly clarify these realities? By Allah if the people knew the condition of Ahl as-Sunnah in Iraq, and what has befallen them, they wouldn’t feel softness in their beds or flavor in their food or sweetness in their drinks if they had sincerity for their religion. And then after all this, they come and judge us and when he is comfortably reclining in a cushioned chair, he asks “Why do you fight the Rafidah?”
O Ummah of Muhammad, our condition with the Rafidah is like the condition of a man in whose house there is a snake, and he doesn’t know where it is exactly. Is it in the drawer or is it under the bed? You know that this snake is in this house and that it will come out any second. What is incumbent on you now is that you find where the snake is, cut its head and get rid of its evil. Then you can sleep the long night in your house. This is our condition with the Rafidah. Before the Rafidah used to operate by conspiracy, but now they are taking by will and have started showing their hatred because they have now become the people of the thorn. It is a deceptive achievement but this is the result of their trickery.
And as the reality of the Rafidah unfolds, so the Ummah must stand in its face. Let Ahl as-Sunnah remember that if the disbelievers take on the Mujahideen then no one will stand in the way of the Rafidah. At that time remorse won’t help them nor will regret. Possibly the best way to describe the condition of the Ahl as-Sunnah with the Mujahideen and their enemies is the idiom that says, “Today I ate the food of the white ox.”
The Mujahideen are the ones who protect Ahl as-Sunnah. The Ahl-as-Sunnah are not protected by lectures or by the owners of the satellite channels who are sitting far away from the events looking at the Ummah and giving touching speeches. This won’t avenge the honor of a woman who is raped and it won’t avenge for the blood of the Ahl as-Sunnah that has been spilled. Nothing will help us except weapons with which to face these cowardly people and nothing will weaken them except force. Making the lands of Islam as lands of Rawafid is an American desire and a Jewish goal, as it is known from their statements and with the help of the Iranian interference in Iraq and the American silence about it. In Iraq it is possible to portray a portion of this plan from inside Baghdad where there is an element of freedom for the people. In the area of the Awr, Madain and Abu Ghraib and the areas in which there are more Rafidah now, they have persecuted Ahl as-Sunnah, and there is a program to expel them from these areas so that they can control the reins of Baghdad. And there is a Rafidah-American pact to empty this area of Ahl as-Sunnah. When the Americans came to Dawrah along with their disbelieving Rafidi guards they told its people, “We will expel you from your houses”.
Now, even the educational curriculum has been changed to benefit the Rafidah. Look at its wicked and destroying beliefs. Among the children, some are changing to the Shi’a. What will be the condition five to ten years from now? When they control the economic situation and the military situation?! The people’s stomachs are tied in knots; they do not want to sacrifice their religion and they do not know if Iraq in time will become Shi’a. These tribes that are in the south before 100 or 200 years ago were Sunni and then, they became Rafidah. You might think it far fetched… the tashee of Anbar but I say, that is not far fetched, if the silence continues and the people are easy going.
At the beginning of the entry of the Americans in Baghdad, the Ahl as-Sunnah were in great fear concerning what would be done to them by the Rafidah and they were expecting to endure humiliation except those who Allah blessed. But when the Mujahideen stood up in Iraq and took up weapons and stood in their faces, confidence came back to Ahl as-Sunnah with exceptions. As the leaders moved away and shed the cloth of jihad along with their helpers, this put the Ahl-as-Sunnah in doubt. Any Sunni now in Baghdad or outside it does not sleep at night, feeling safe concerning his honor; every night intrusions and arrests and murders and disappearances occur. Every night in the prisons they are stripping honor and robbing money. This is the condition of Ahl as-Sunnah in Iraq.
And after that, the ones who blame come saying, why do we fight the Rafidah? Instead it is one of the most important obligations to fight them and we see it as a great blessing from Allah that it has been made easy for us to fight them. The best example of this is when the women of Tal’afar were humiliated, their houses destroyed and their children killed. For this reason we proclaimed total war on the Rafidah though we (formerly) wanted to refrain from that.
[Taken from, "Script Of The Dialogue With Shaykh Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi" by Al-Furqan Media Productions]
Refuting Madkhali & Munaafiq Doubts on Jihaad 2/4 July 23, 2008
Posted by revolution in : Deviants, JihÄd, Knowledge, Videos , 1 comment so farThis is part 2 of the series on refuting the Madkhali and Munaafiq doubts on Jihaad. This doubt will focus on the issue of having a legitimate Imaam for Jihaad. There are many barking dogs such as Shaykh ‘Abd al-Muhsin al-’Abikan who made these ridiculous conditions and if anyone doesn’t heed to them, then they are “Khawaarij”. May Allah reward the brother who did the research.
Second doubt
“There can not be jihad without a legitimate Imam or a common banner for mujahideen…”
The opponents say that Shari’ah ordained strict rulings in matters of warfare. And this statement is true without doubt. But they go beyond existing shari’ rulings and stipulate new conditions. One of these conditions is “a legitimate Imam”. They say that neither aggressive, nor defensive types of jihad can be waged except with an Imam who is obeyed. This condition leads to some other questions: “Can someone go to jihad without permission from the Ruler? And does he commit sin by doing it?”
The answer:
We say presence of a ruler is not a “condition” for jihad, neither for (Jihaad at-Talab) “aggressive jihad”, nor for (Jihaad ad-Daf’) “defensive type of jihad”. Thus absence of the ruler cannot be an excuse to refrain from jihad.
We don’t know any scholar from the salaf who said that it’s “a condition”, in the sense that the absence makes jihad invalid! Rather they said that it’s from maslahat, which means that jihad should be waged under a commander and a banner! But absence does not invalidate jihad!
But we know that some scholars deemed it haram to initiate combat without the ruler’s permission. In this specific case, when the ruler is absent, we do not have a ruler to take permission from!
Before we prove our statement, we need to explain the issue of individual decision about going to jihad. If some Muslim decides to fight for the sake of Allah and he does not seek permission from the authority, what do the scholars say about it?
Al-Qurtubi said:
“A group of scholars allowed fighting a duel with the enemy and they did not stipulate it whether with the permission of Imam or without his permission. It’s the opinion of Malik. Malik was asked about a man who stood between two troops (i.e. between Muslims and enemies) and asked (the enemy): “Who wants to fight?” Malik said: “it depends on his intention, if he intends with it to please Allah, then I hope there is nothing wrong! People did it before.” Shafi’ said: “There is nothing wrong with fighting a duel.” Ibn al-Mundhir said: “Fighting a duel with permission of imam is good, but there is no sin upon one who does it without his permission! It’s not makruh, because I do not know any narration forbidding it!” ["Jami li Ahkam al-Quran", 4/249, Muassasa ar-Risala]
And ‘Abd ar-Rahman al-Hattab al-Maliki said:
“’Abdullah bin Wahb was asked about a group which attacks the enemy: is it permissible to fight a duel without permission of the Imam? He said: “If the imam is present there, it’s not allowed for him to fight a duel, but with his permission and if he is not rightful (i.e. fasiq), let him fight a duel and they all may fight against the enemy without his permission.” I (Zuwnan Abdulmalik bin Hasan) said to him: “Mubarazah (fighting a duel) and qital (fighting) has the same ruling according to you?” He said: “Yes!” Ibn Rushd said: it’s as he said: If the Imam is not rightful, then neither for dueling, nor fighting his permission is necessary for them, because he would have forbidden them to attack and it should be examined in his case because he is not rightful in his affairs. But he should be obeyed in any way. Because there is difference between “being rightful” and “being unfair” when it concerns “permission”. There is no such difference in obedience when he orders it or forbids it, because obedience to the imam is from the obligations of battle and it’s wajib upon people to obey the Imam in everything that he likes or dislikes and even if he is not rightful he should be obeyed in matters which is not in disobedience to Allah…” ["Mawahib al-Jalil", 3/349]
Is the presence of an Imam a condition for Jihad?
Scholars of the Shafi’i madhhab say that it’s makruh without the imam’s permission and it’s about the aggressive type of jihad, and not when the Muslims are attacked.
Imam Nawawi said:
“Fighting without permission from the Imam and his deputy is makruh!”
["Minhaj at-Talibin", Kitab as-Siyar, pg: 519]
And the great scholar of the Shafi’i madhhab, Khatib al-Shirbini in his commentary on Imam Nawawi’s “Minhaj at-Talibin” said about these words:
“Fighting without permission from Imam and his deputy is makruh!”
Because his status should be respected and because he is more knowledgeable than others in matters of jihad. But it’s not haram (to fight without his permission), because there is nothing more than exposing yourself to danger and it’s permissible in Jihad.
It should be - as al-Adhrai’ said - limited only for volunteers. As for a professional army (those who are paid for their service) it’s not allowed for them, because they are allocated in the strategic places around the country to defend Islam and the Imam is in charge of them and they are like hired workers.
NOTICE: al-Balqini exempted following cases from “karaha”:
First: If seeking permission would delay it so that the benefit of fighting would be lost.
Second: If the Imam neglects jihad and he and his soldiers are attached to this world. As we observe it happening today.
Third: If they have well-grounded suspicion that if the permission is sought it would not be granted.”
["Mughni al-Muhtaj", 4/220]
Let’s look at other commentaries.
Jalal ad-Din al-Mahalli (died: 864 hijra/1459 milad) said in his book “Kanz ar-Raghibin Sharh Minhaj at-Talibin” (and it’s a commentary on “Minhaj at-Talibin”):
“Fighting without permission from Imam and his deputy is makruh” because the ruler knows more about what is beneficial.”
Shihab ad-Din al-Qalyubi (died: 1069 hijra/1659 milad) and Shihab ad-Din Ahmad al-Birlisi (’Umeyra) write in their commentaries on “Kanz ar-Raghibin”:
“al-Qalyubi:
His word: “its makruh”, i.e. for volunteers, but it’s haram for professionals without permission, yes, if there is benefit in fighting. But if the Imam and his troops forsook jihad for their love of this world or he insists on denial for permission or when seeking permission would delay it so that the benefit of fighting would be lost, in these cases it’s not makruh to fight without his permission.”
‘Umeyra:
“His word: “in what is beneficial”; It’s said: It’s not about fighters other than professional soldiers. Otherwise it is forbidden for them, because they guard the religions sanctity when it’s under attack and they may not fight without the imam’s permission.”
["Hashiyatan Qalyubi wa 'Umeyra", 4/217]
Another shafi’i scholar Ahmad bin Ibrahim bin Muhammad Abu Zakariyya ad-Dimashqi, known as Ibn Nuhhas said in his famous book on this subject:
“Jihad without permission from Imam or his deputy is makruh, but not haram.”
["Mashari al-Ashwaq ila Masari al-Ushaq", 315]
And the scholars of al-Maliki madhhab said:
Shaikh Abd ar-Rahman al-Hattab al-Maliki said:
“Then Ibn Habib said: “I heard the scholars saying: If the ruler forbids fighting for a certain benefit, then it’s haram to oppose him, but it’s not haram when the enemy attacks them suddenly.” Ashhab heard that Malik was asked about people who went out to the Roman territory with an army and they need forage for their horses and a group of them goes to a village and another group to another village in order to feed the horses without the Imams permission. May be the enemy trapped them into it. If the enemy sees them they attack suddenly, fight and kill them or take them prisoners or may be they escape but if we leave our horses they die. He said: I think they should seek the Imams permission and I don’t think that they may fight the enemy when there are not so many and (are) ill-equipped. Malik was asked that “if the enemy takes over a shore which belongs to Muslims, should they fight against the enemy without an order from the ruler?” He said: “In my opinion if the ruler is not away from them, they should ask permission before fighting them. And if the ruler is far away from them, then they should not leave the enemy, and should attack them.” They mentioned that the ruler is away from them. Malik said: “So how should they act? Should they wait until the ruler orders them to attack?! In my opinion they should fight them. Ibn Rushd said: All this is as he said: It’s not allowed for them to fight on their own in order to feed the horses, what is good for them is that they seek the Imams permission if they can. It should be done if the ruler is rightful according to the saying of Ibn Wahb via Zuwnans narration and he is Abd al-Malik bin Hasan and that fighting the enemy without the imams permission is not permissible, except if they are suddenly attacked and they are not able to ask the imam for permission. End of the quote from Zuwnans narration… In the narration if Asbagh: I heard Ibn al-Qasim: he was asked about a group that is in the border with the enemy and if it is permissible for that group to use advantage to attack the enemy suddenly without the imams permission and the imam is several days away from them? He said: If they are sure that this attack can be victorious and if they are not afraid to endanger themselves, then I don’t see any problem in that. And if they are afraid that they are not able to cope with it, then I dislike it for them. Ibn Rushd said: It’s allowed for them to attack without the imam’s permission if they are sure to win because the imam is many days away from them. If the imam is with them and if he is righteous, then it’s not allowed to fight without his permission.” ["Mawahib al-Jalil", 3/349]
Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Muhammad ‘Illish al-Maliki (1217-1299 hijra) - rahimahullah - said in his fatwa:
“From Ibn al-Qasim: If Muslims want to use the advantage against the enemy and they are afraid that the imam would forbid it if he had known their plans, then they may go out against the enemy, but in my opinion it’s better to ask for permission.” Ibn Habib said: “I heard the scholars saying that if the imam forbids fighting for some certain benefits, then it’s haram to oppose him, except if the enemy threatens them. Ibn Rushd said: It’s wajib to obey the imam even if he is unjust in matters where he doesn’t order (the people) to disobey Allah; and from the disobedience’s is forbidding Muslims from the fard al-’ayn jihad.” ["Fath Aliyyil-Malik fi al-Fatwa ala Madhhabil-Imam Malik", 1/390]
Another Maliki scholar Muhammad bin Ja’far al-Kattani said:
“The Fuqaha and ‘Ulama said: If the enemy attacks a Muslim country or gathers its army to the border in order to enter into a Muslim country, then Jihad becomes fard ul-‘ayn upon its inhabitants and leader. It’s obligatory upon every old and young, every free man and slave and even upon women it they have strength to combat. And fighting against the enemy should not be halted for consultation with the imam or for permission from the Imam, especially if the imam is far away from them.” [an-Nasiha, p: 77]
And Abu Abdullah Muhammad al-’Arabi al-Fasi al-Maliki said:
“Amongst what is clearly known is that the reason of attribution of jihad to the authority is that in most cases the perfection of jihad can only be achieved with the help of an imam, but if it’s possible to achieve it without him, then there is no need to wait for an imam.” ["al-Mi'yar al-Jadid", 3/7]
As for hanbali scholars:
Ibn Muflih - rahimahullah - said:
“It’s haram (to battle the enemy) without the imam’s permission, except when there is a need for that. It was narrated from Ahmad. And in “al-Mughni”;(is related from Imam Ahmad that) if there is risk of giving away an opportunity (then they may battle without the imams permission) and in “ar-Rawdah” narrations differ from Ahmad about this issue, it’s narrated from him that it’s not allowed, also narrated that he gave permission in any case, openly or secretly, individually or in groups, with a big army or a small battalion.” ["al-Furu fi fiqh al-Hanbali", 4/127]
Also Ibn Qudamah al-Hanbali said:
“If the enemy attacks then jihad becomes fard al-‘ayn and it’s obligatory upon everyone and it’s not allowed for anyone to abandon it. If it’s clear, then they may not go out to jihad, but with a permission of a ruler, because the art of war is his specialty; he knows better about how big or small the enemy army is, and their places and tactics. They should turn to his opinion because he is better for protection of the Muslims, except if it’s not possible to ask his permission because of a surprise attack from the enemy side, then it’s not obligatory for them to ask his permission because in this case, the benefit is in fighting and attacking the enemy. Thats why when the disbelievers attacked the camels of the prophet - sallallahu aleihi wa sallam - Salmah bin Akwah chased them outside the Madinah city and killed them without permission from the prophet, and the prophet -sallallahu aleihi wa sallam - praised him and said: “Our best fighter, Salmah bin Akwah!” and gave him a bow and arrow.” ["al-Mughni", 9/174]
Ibn Qudamah stated again:
“Absence of an imam cannot delay jihad, because the benefit of jihad is lost if it’s delayed. It they gather booty, they should divide it according to Shari’ah rulings.” ["al-Mughni"; 8/353]
Ibn Muflih said:
“Al-Qadi was asked: “Is it allowed to fight “bughat” (people of mischief, rioters) when there is no imam?” He said: “Yes, because if it’s allowed for the imam to fight in order to prevent mischief and oppression, then these things (i.e. mischief, oppression) exist even when there is no imam.” ["al-Furu'", 6/154]
So if it’s allowed to fight without permission from the ruler against Muslims who spread mischief in Muslims lands, then it’s utterly necessary to fight against the kafir invaders, even if the Muslims do not have an institution of Islamic governance.
And it’s related from Imam Ahmad - rahimahullah - that he said:
“It they are afraid for themselves and their children, then there is nothing wrong for them to fight before asking permission from the ruler. But they should not fight if they are not afraid, except with permission from the Imam.” ["Masail Imam Ahmad", narration of his son Abdullah, (286)]
And Ibn Taymiyya - rahimahullah - said:
“As for fighting to protect the sanctity of the religion, then it’s obligatory with a consensus of scholars. There is nothing more important after Iman than to fight back the enemy that destroys the religion and the worldly life and no condition is mentioned for it. They should defend as long as they can.” ["Fatawa al-Misriyya", 4/508]
And another great scholar Imam Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi - rahimahullah - said:
“Allah Ta’ala said:
“O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.”
And Allah did not make it specific to have the order from the Imam or without his order and if the imam forbids fighting against the enemy, it necessitates disobedience to Allah; people should not listen to him and should not obey him, because he orders disobedience.
And Allah Ta’ala said:
“Then fight in Allah’s cause - Thou art held responsible only for thyself!”
This statement addresses every single Muslim and every single soul is ordered with jihad, even if he had to fight alone! ["al-Muhalla bil-Asar", 7/351 (issue: 964), Idara at-Tiba'a al-Muniriyya, Kairo 1352 (1933), Tahqiq: Ahmad Muhammad Shakir]
And another great scholar Imam al-Mawardi al-Shafi’i who had written many beneficial works about Islamic governance; he is the author of “Ahkam as-Sultaniyya.” He said:
“Jihad that is fard al-kifaya should be led by an imam, but not (obligatory) if jihad becomes fard al-’ayn.”
["al-Iqna' ", p: 175]
Siddiq Hasan Khan said:
“This obligation is one of the many obligations of religion that Allah imposed on His Muslim servants without binding it to a certain time or place or persons or justice or oppression (i.e., it’s allowed every time, in every place, with leaders or without them or with just leaders or with unjust leaders, no such condition was mentioned).” ["Rawda an-Nadiyya" 333]
All the words mentioned above are very painful hooks and now comes a fatal haymaker on the nose of madakhila.
And Imam Abd ar-Rahman bin Hasan - rahimahullah - said in his refutation of Ibn Nabhan:
“As for your saying that “You have no right to use this verse against us as an evidence, because this ayah concerning jihad is about jihad with an imam who should be followed and he is Allah’s Messenger - sallallahu aleyhi wa sallam - and if we had such an imam we would know it and may be we would obey him.”
I say: Your statement in your words “the ayah concerning jihad…” show us that this is speaking about Allah and His book without knowledge. Allah Ta’ala said: “Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are: shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; assigning of partners to Allah, for which He hath given no authority; and saying things about Allah of which ye have no knowledge.”
And we say: Which book or which proof says that jihad is not wajib except with a legitimate imam? This is ascribing falsehood to the religion and deviating from the path of the believers. The evidences proving the invalidity of this saying are too famous to be mentioned. Amongst them is the generality of the order to fight and encouragement to it and threat against those who abandon it. Allah Ta’ala said: “And did not Allah Check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief.” And in the Surah al-Hajj: “Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure.”
Every person who makes jihad for Allah’s sake has obeyed Allah and performed what was obliged by Allah. And an imam becomes imam only with jihad, not that there cannot be jihad without an imam. O Man! The truth is the opposite of what you mentioned. Allah Ta’ala said: Say: “I do admonish you on one point: that ye do stand up before Allah in pairs, or singly,” and He said: “And if any strive they do so for their own souls:”
And in a hadith: “There will always be a group…” and praise be to Allah, there is a group upon the truth and they fight for Allah’s sake and they are not afraid of reproaches of those who blame people. Allah Ta’ala said: “O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.” i.e. abundant in grace and offering, He knows those who are competent for jihad.
The quotes and evidences proving the invalidity of what you have written are abundant in the Quran, Sunnah, Siyar, narrations and the words of people of knowledge based on evidences and narrations. It would be clear even for the mentally defective people, if they read Abu Basir’s story: “When he came as a refugee, Quraish demanded from Allah’s Messenger - sallallahu aleyhi wa sallam - to return him to them according to the terms of Hudaybiyya agreement. He killed those mushrikeen who came after him and fled to the coastal area and when Allah’s Messenger heard what happened he said: “Wayl Ummihi! Provocateur of war! I wish he had others with him!” He attacked the caravans of Quraish that came from Shaam, took from them and killed them and he fought them on his own without the prophet - sallallahu aleihi wa sallam – because the pagans had a peace treaty with the prophet… (And this story is long)” and did Allah’s Messenger said to them: “You made mistake fighting Quraish, because you are not with Imam”?! Subhanallah! Is there something more harmful than ignorance?! I seek refuge in Allah from opposing the truth with ignorance and falsehood. Allah Ta’ala said: “The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah - the which We have sent by inspiration to thee…” ["ad-Durar as-Saniyyah fi Ajwibatin-Najdiyya", 8/199-201, sixth edition, 1417 (1996)]
The Shaykh, ‘Abd Allah al-Ghunaymaan was asked,
Is it a condition of jihaad that there be a leader (imaam, in the sense of a head of state) , whether that jihaad is defensive or offensive? Imaam ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Hasan (may Allaah have mercy on him) said that no scholar mentioned this as a precondition; do you know of any scholar who did describe this as a condition for jihaad?
And he replied,
Praise be to Allaah.
It is not a condition of jihaad that there be a leader, whether that jihaad is defensive or offensive. With regard to defence, this is very clear, because if the enemy attacks a land, everyone who is able is obliged to defend it, even the women who are also obliged to fight. This was stated by the fuqahaa’, because this is an individual obligation; the role of the leader is to organize. If there is an leader, all well and good; if there is no leader, the Muslims are still obliged to fight.
[Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ghunaymaan, Islam QA]
Michael Scheuer: Saudi Salafism a Stronger Force in Islamist Militancy than Recanting Clerics July 21, 2008
Posted by revolution in : Deviants, JazÄ«ratul 'Arab, JihÄd , 2 comments
This is quite an interesting and well-balanced article written by the former CIA agent Michael Scheuer. The battle for the true meaning of “following the path of the Salaf” is a decisive battle between those who implement the path and those who are satisfied with sitting back from it. The Saudi Salafi’s wrongly call the followers of Shaykh Usaamah as “deviants” since him and his followers follow the Salaf and get their interpretations from the Salaf (and not from the deviants in our history). The fact of the matter is that the Saudi Salafi’s are misguided due to their twisting of the religious texts (such as no Jihaad without an Imaam, Eternal ‘Ahd with Muhaaribeen is permissible, etc.). And the thing is, it goes even deeper than twisting the religious texts. When the Soviets attacked Afghanistan, the family of al-Saud permitted the Muslims of Saudi Arabia to fight in Afghanistan; and the Scholars were supportive and very open about the Jihaad. But when it comes to Jihaad against America in ‘Iraaq and Afghanistan - Saudi Arabia’s biggest [islamically illegitimate] ally - then Jihaad becomes a sin and is frowned upon; mind you, this has nothing to do with the “permission of the Imaam” issue since everyone knows that the King of Saudi is not a Khaleefah. Thus, the issue of the Imaam doesn’t even come into play because we don’t even have an Imaam to begin with. This is the clear and obvious double-standard to which Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi famously coined it as, “Jihaad for the sake of America.” It is an attempt to maintain the rule of al-Saud and its legitimacy in the Islaamic world and this is what the real Salafi’s plan on toppling.
Saudi Salafism a Stronger Force in Islamist Militancy than Recanting Clerics
In the past month, the media have reported an attack on India’s embassy in Kabul, killing 41; an attack on the Red Mosque in Islamabad, killing 10; an attack on the U.S. consulate in Istanbul, killing six; a raid by the Taliban and its allies on a U.S. firebase in Afghanistan’s Konar Province that killed nine American soldiers and a July 15 suicide bombing in Iraq that killed 28 Iraqi military recruits. While these events seem grim, fear not. The Western media continue to argue that victory is close over al-Qaeda and its allies. “Cheer up. We’re Winning this War on Terrorism,” says the London Times; “Turning Their Backs on Terror,” claims Der Spiegel; “Al-Qaeda’s Vietnam,” trumpets the New York Post (The Times, June 27; Der Spiegel, July 14; New York Post, June 17). How does one reconcile the former events with the latter analysis? And how pertinent is either to assessing the strength of Islamist extremism?
The war-against-Islamists-is-won media boom began in April, with articles by Western journalists claiming al-Qaeda is being destroyed by the recantations of former Islamist theoreticians (New Republic, June 11; New Yorker, May 26). The recantations, it was argued, are turning Muslims from al-Qaeda and its allies and persuading them to accept U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world and life under repressive police-state regimes. That the recanters’ words drew attention from Islamists is clear, but the argument that the recantations—delivered from Egypt’s prisons and the Saudi police state—spelled doom for Islamism seems overdrawn. A prominent Salafist cleric, Shaykh Husayn Bin Mahmud, put the point nicely. The recanting “is just acting forced by the prison guards,” Bin-Mahmud wrote. “Tell [the recanter] that we would listen to him when he tells us to retract when he is standing between Usama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan, enjoying his freedom and safety and the safety of his family. How can we listen to him when we know he is in Husni [Mubarak’s] prison and knowing how Muslim prisoners in particular are treated?” (alhanein.com, November 25, 2007). Ayman al-Zawahiri put it more logically, asking: “Why is the jihad against the Russians in Afghanistan an individual obligation, whereas in Iraq today, it is one of the cardinal sins?” (Al-Sahab Media Production Organization, December 16, 2007).
