What is wrong with sunni ulema?

[GenN]

Assalam alykum

What is wrong with sunni ulema? Why do they have to secularise Islam so much? Why do they not speak about issues of muslims having their own state, about hudood, about issues of Jihad, especially if Jihad is FARD upon muslims world wide (defensive jihad) just like Salaah is fard. As far as most sunni ulema are concerned their jihad seems to be voting, and establishing small groups to "voice there opinions" (which is just a nicer way of saying "suck up to the west"). what do they fear? f they are the inheritors of the prophets(peace be upon them all) then WHY do they fear anyone else other than Allah?! What is this wisdom in not speaking about jihad openly?

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

The mujahideen in kashmir, chechnya, iraq etc have shown that a) they are not neglectful, and b) they have shown that they are capable of defending themselves and continuing the jihad.

Wasalam

[AbuZayd]

Assalamu alaykum Akhi GenN,

Regarding the Sunni Ulema not speaking up about Jihad where it is obligatory - I would ask, how can you know that for certain? Perhaps they are not given the platform and their call has not reached you? And then, with Enjoining the Good and Forbidding the evil there are, of course, some guidelines. See also: http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00000161.aspx

[GenN]

Assalm alykum.

Bro abu usamaa, the truth of the matter is that most of the people of the lands of jihad like kashmir and checniyah ARE negligent onjihad, and many of the few mujahideen there are foreginers.

Also the truth of the matter is that the mujahhdeen there are weak and NOT capable of defending people of the lands they are fighting in. A simple proof for this is that how long has the jihad in kashmir being going on, and in paelstine? half a centuray and still the lands are not liberated, and the muslims are being massacred. If they were capable then how long would it have taken the lands to be liberated? a year 2 years, but ahlf a centuary?

Have the muslims around kashmir (like in paksitan) or palestine (like in syria) or checniya joined the blessed jihads? NO they too, by and large are negligent and so the muslims continue to be slaughtered.

see how it spreads across all the muslims of the globe. if after 50 years of incapability and muslims being massacred it doesnt become fard ayn on all the muslims globally then when will it ever become fard?

Indeed it is a fard on all the muslims globally, and if you have any further doubts you can ask the mufti yourself for calrification about this matter.

May Allah guide us all and have mercy on us
An he alone knows best.

[GenN]

Assalamu alaykum Akhi GenN,

Regarding the Sunni Ulema not speaking up about Jihad where it is obligatory - I would ask, how can you know that for certain? Perhaps they are not given the platform and their call has not reached you? And then, with Enjoining the Good and Forbidding the evil there are, of course, some guidelines. See also: http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00000161.aspx


Assalam alykum

Bro the only half feasible excuse i can see in the link you provided is point number 4 which states

"However, if a greater harm or worsening of the situation is feared, then it would be better (or even obligatory, in some cases) not to say anything, because legally one choose the less harmful of two matters."

however this point does not stand value when you look at the reality of what is happening.

So for example what is the worst that can happen to the alim who promotes jihad? He goes to prison or is tortured (along with his family), and is killed.

There are a few points to be remembered here.

First of all he should be happy about this as he will inshAllah be shaheed, so is this really a negative consequence, or is it just a scared alim.

Secondly is that really the "greater harm". no not really the greater harm is that the alim remains quiet about jihad and becasue of his quietness the 100 brothers that would/could have gone to fight remain in the dark about this issue of jihad, and so do no go for jihad and because of their absence from the lands of jihad 1000's of muslims get killed and tortured including women and children, by these kafir state terrorists, killings that could have been avoided if the much needed mujhaideen had been there.

So bro ask yourself what is the greater harm, the scholar getting tortured or the 1000's of muslims getting tortured?

Also there is another point here, if the scholar gets tortured and dies, 10 more scholars will follow his example and stand promoting jihad, and when they go another 10 will rise in each of there places so a 100 scholars have now risen (InshAllah), but if the muslims get tortured, other muslims get scared, islam becomes secularised, jihad becomes "unimportant" and jihad-un-nafs becomes the "greater jihad".

So by taking into account these points it can clearly be seen there is greater harm in the scholar remiaing quiet about jihad, not the other way around.

And Allah knows best
May he forgive us all and guide us

[GenN]

O and abyzayd reagrding your other point "how do i know" when was the last time you heard a speech entitled "the call for jihad" or "the obligation of jihad" or soemt like that? If they can come out with tons and tons on talks on fiqh about the 5 pillars, tons of talks on tazkiyah, can they not find time for tons and tons of talks on jihad (erm time for even one or 2 maybe).

Same goes for books. There are tons of books available on almost every topic on islam execpt jihad.

Man, Allah must have kept me away from these talks and books, if they are there but i have not come across them, even though i have come across books and tlaks on most other topics. So ho9w many have you come across bro?

[Mustafa]

As-salaam alaikum

You are making far too many accusations and assumptions. Your whole line of thought is "I haven't seen them speak on Jihad ergo they haven't spoken on Jihad" which is false logic.

Shaykh Hamza has a lecture entitled "Jihad: Why We are a Defeated Ummah" and also mentioned it plenty of times in various lectures both pre and post 9/11 (and, yes, it was in a military context). There was an interview he did in England a long time ago in which he clearly states that Jihad is military in its nature, is both offensive and defensive, and is neccesary for the Muslims. On his 'Sowing the Seeds' lecture he also states that (military) Jihad is neccesary for a Muslim revival, quoting the hadith 'When people say there is no more jihad, that is the best time for jihad.'

On his 'Purification of the Hearts' set he very briefly goes into what is neccesary before someone undergoes jihad (for if someone's heart isn't pure, then their jihad is just motivated by hate and anger which leads to defeat).

Imam Zaid Shakir and Habib Ali both have talks on Jihad. Shaykh Nuh goes into detail on why the current jihad movements are failing (though I don't know if that dars is available to the public). Shaykh Ramadan al Bouti has an interesting fatwa on his site regarding 'suicide bombing'.

As for books, the 'Reliance of the Traveller' has a section on jihad and the fiqh positions on it.

Your accusation that sunni ulema are 'secularising' Islam is way out of line, as is your accusation that they fear other than Allah (unless you've looked into their hearts, I don't know how you could possibly know that). The flesh of the scholars is poison, so be careful what you say about them.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[AbuZayd]

Assalamu alaykum,

Many of the classical books of Fiqh have an important section on Jihad. In addition, there are contemporary scholars who have also written on this important topic. The book "Jihad in Islam" (Al-Jihad fil Islam: Kayfa Nafhamuhu wa Kayfa Numarisuhu), by Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti, 2nd edition, Dar Al-Fikr, Damascus, Syria, 1997.] is meant to be excellent in this regard (see http://ireland.iol.ie/~afifi/BookReview/Buti.htm for a review). I am not an expert in the field but there are certainly other important works by the contemporary Sunni Ulema in Arabic on the topic of Jihad we are not aware of. And Allah knows best.

[GenN]

Assalm alykum

Bro mustafa, may Allah reward you for your response.

Akhi, you have totally misunderstood me.

First of all i have not accused the ulema of being scared or anything like, if you look carefully at what i wrote i did not accuse them i questioned them "or is a scread alim?" please do not accuse me of what i have not done, otherwise show me where i have accused the ulema nd i will repent, may Allah have mercy on me.

secondly what i am asking for are talks, not about jihad generally that jihad is militray and so forth but talks that PROMOTE jihad, i.e talk about jihad being fard ayn today (which without a shadow of a doubt it is) and that muslims should aspire to go for jihad, and that the lands of kashmir and palestine, and checniya and afghan and iraq are legitimate lands of jihad for the muslims to go fight in. Does any of the talks about sheikh hamza you mentioned talk promote jihad like this? i'm not taliing about some fiqh of jihad, or nature of jihad, but PROMOTION of jihad.

Thirdly if you look at the book "empire and cresecnt" people like zaid shaikr VIRTUALLY negate jihad today, and bascially give the impression to saty away fro jihad today.

This is where i have the probelms with sunni ulema. Sorry for the poor explanation earlier, i hope i have clarified myself.

[Mustafa]

Why do they have to secularise Islam so much? As far as most sunni ulema are concerned their jihad seems to be voting, and establishing small groups to "voice there opinions" (which is just a nicer way of saying "suck up to the west"). what do they fear? If they are the inheritors of the prophets(peace be upon them all) then WHY do they fear anyone else other than Allah?!

Your words above seem to make three accusations: 1) the Ulema secularise Islam and you want to know why 2) Most sunni ulema consider jihad to be voting, etc and not qital and thus they 'suck up to the West' and 3) That they fear something other than Allah and you want to know why (there's also an implicit accusation that they are not living up to the title 'inheritor of the Prophets').

However, if you're saying that the above does not mean those things, then alhamdulilah, but you should rephrase your questions so that they are clear.

I think you should listen to the lectures mentioned before you pass judgement on them.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

Maulana Masood Azhar actively promotes jihad and has written a book on it aswell. His speeches are available through www.aswatalislam.net

[Mossy]

I'm sorry, but this entire thread is just insulting.

Ever heard of backbiting? It's expiation? Situations in which it is "permissable"??

If you have, then please tell me which of these situations this one is for you to launch such an attack on a public forum.

If not take care when accusing scholars of fearing other than Allah (swt) and "secularising" their religion - in fact, saying that most do this. Small insult?

The exact position and obligation of jihad, with reference to it's aspect which is qitaal, is not an agreed upon position today.

Simple as that.

[Abu Usama]

Assalm alykum.

Bro abu usamaa, the truth of the matter is that most of the people of the lands of jihad like kashmir and checniyah ARE negligent onjihad, and many of the few mujahideen there are foreginers.

Also the truth of the matter is that the mujahhdeen there are weak and NOT capable of defending people of the lands they are fighting in. A simple proof for this is that how long has the jihad in kashmir being going on, and in paelstine? half a centuray and still the lands are not liberated, and the muslims are being massacred. If they were capable then how long would it have taken the lands to be liberated? a year 2 years, but ahlf a centuary?



Salam, you are wrong. If the mujahideen were negligent, then they wouldn't be fighting in the first place! In Kashmir, very little are foreigners, and most are kashmiris/pakistanis.
It is not for the mujahideen to defend the people of the land they are fighting in. It is for the people of that land to join the mujahideen and continue to fight against the enemy.
Your simple proof is no proof. Firstly, the sharie jihad has been going to nowhere near half a century in either case. 20 years at most in Palestine and about 15 in Kashmir. Before that, in Palestine it was secular resistance.
RasoolAllah (saw) said that Jihad will continue until the day of judgement, so don't have this idea that just because a war is dragging on, that it means the jihad is failing.

There are reasons why the sunni ulema say that Jihad isnt fardh ayn upon the muslims of the entire world. It is because they have reached that conclusion after there sound methodology, unlike that of the neo-salafis/maktabah al ansar.

Wasalam

[AbuZayd]

Asalamu alaykum, I know Akhi Genn from Ummahforums. I am sure he means well but I think perhaps he has chosen his words incorrectly.





“Among the Sufis who aided Islam with the sword as
well as the pen, to quote Reliance of the Traveller,
were:

such men as the Naqshbandi sheikh Shamil
al-Daghestani, who fought a prolonged war against the
Russians in the Caucasus in the nineteenth century;
Sayyid Muhammad ‘Abdullah al-Somali, a sheikh of the
Salihiyya order who led Muslims against the British
and Italians in Somalia from 1899 to 1920; the Qadiri
sheikh ‘Uthman ibn Fodio, who led jihad in Northern
Nigeria from 1804 to 1808 to establish Islamic rule;
the Qadiri sheikh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza’iri, who led
the Algerians against the French from 1832 to 1847;
the Darqawi faqir al-Hajj Muhammad al-Ahrash, who
fought the French in Egypt in 1799; the Tijani sheikh
al-Hajj ‘Umar Tal, who led Islamic Jihad in Guinea,
Senegal, and Mali from 1852 to 1864; and the Qadiri
sheikh Ma’ al-‘Aynayn al-Qalqami, who helped marshal
Muslim resistance to the French in northern Mauritania
and southern Morocco from 1905 to 1909.”

[Keller, Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim, The Place of Tasawwuf in
Traditional Islam and Reliance of the Traveller.]

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

I have only posted afew times on ummah.com, but it seems that a certain "abu zayd al brittani" is someone with whom i have had a conversation with. That I assume is yourself, with the Shaykh Yacoubi icon?

Wasalam

The Jihad of Imam Shamyl:
http://www.islamic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Biographies/imam_shamyl.htm

[AbuZayd]

Yep, thats the one bro. Am also known as sunni. I recognise quite a few from Ummahforums and Islamicaweb on here.

[GenN]

Assalm alykum.

Ok, ok, don't all jump me at once. :( it appears i have rather badily explained myself, so badly in fact that some people are accussing me of backbiting the scholars and so forth. anyway i think i now understand why you all misunderstood me. it is becaseu you guys don't actaully belive jihad to be fard ayn in the first place, so of course the rest of what i said would not go down to well with you all. Anyway first for a few clarifications.


First of all mossy and mustafa



Your words above seem to make three accusations: 1) the Ulema secularise Islam and you want to know why 2) Most sunni ulema consider jihad to be voting, etc and not qital and thus they 'suck up to the West' and 3) That they fear something other than Allah and you want to know why (there's also an implicit accusation that they are not living up to the title 'inheritor of the Prophets').

However, if you're saying that the above does not mean those things, then alhamdulilah, but you should rephrase your questions so that they are clear.

I think you should listen to the lectures mentioned before you pass judgement on them.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam


it appears i may have written what i should not have. I totally agree point one was indeed an accusation i should not have made, may Allah forgive me. However i do not accept your points 2 and 3 as these are just a misunderstanding of what i am saying.

mossy, please do not add insult to injury by saying i am backbiting, i can only backbite if i mention specific names, by keeping things genreal i have not backbitten anyone. And i'm sorry but MOST sunni ulema do NOT openly promote jihad (pleasae distinguish between fiqh and promotion before accsuing me again). There are thousands of sunni ulema, but how many of them are oenly promoting jihad?

secondly about your differnce of opinion thing, i would advise you to look deeper into the issue before simply putting it down to differnece of opinion, and you will see that indeed jihad is fard ayn without differnce, and any reliable alim would not say otherwise, i would ask you to go to the scholars you yourself refer to as i also refer to some of them (names that have been thrown around this forum), and i do not think they will say jihad is not fard ayn, as i have asked some of them anyway and they have affirmed it for me, and the only reason some of them feel any reluctancy in admitting this is becaseu most of the scholars are NOT upon jihad themselves, hence having to admit most of them are sinful, but of course just becsasue the scholars are sinful does not change the hukm of fard ayn.

brother aby zayd, may Allah reward you for defending me, and not doubting me.

Abu usamaa, i love mawlana masood azhar, and i know he openly promotes jihad, i am not including maulana masood azhar when is say "most sunni ulema these days" same goes for imam shamil. I'm sorry i gave the impression that no sunni uleam were upon jihad, and i'm only talking about these days not in the past like with imam shamil.

abu usamaa, you appear to have misunderstood the fatwa of mufti ibn adam. If a few people are fighting and they cannot resisit, then it doesnt mean that the obligation is now complete, the obligation is only complete once the enmy has been repelled (please speak to the author of the fatwa mufti ibn adam if you doubt me). Now the mere fact that even you admit the jihad has been going on for over a decade atleast, and the enemy has not been repelled, has in this time the obligation not spread to encompass the entire earth? or do we need to wait for another deacde of muslims being slaughtered?


However if you are saying that jihad is not fard ayn, i would be very intereseted indeed to see the evidecens as it will be an obligation off my back.

I would like to discuss this, please provide me evidences which make you conclude that jihad is not fard ayn today. May Allah reward you all and forgive us all, and guide us.

And Allah knows best.

Was salaam.

[Live for Islam]

And i'm sorry but MOST sunni ulema do NOT openly promote jihad (pleasae distinguish between fiqh and promotion before accsuing me again). There are thousands of sunni ulema, but how many of them are oenly promoting jihad?



Erm, there is more than one type of Jihad, you know...
We can't just put full emphasis on one type whilst totally ignoring the other...

[GenN]

Erm, there is more than one type of Jihad, you know...
We can't just put full emphasis on one type whilst totally ignoring the other...


assalm alykum,

noble sister, please try to understand that i am talking about the sharie defintion of jihad. It is amzaing when people talk about the sahrie defintion of jihad they always say there areo other types of jihad, but when someone talks about jihad-un-nafs, no one seems to say there are other types of jihad, why focus on only jihad-un-nafs.

was salaam.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

are you saying it is fard for all the muslims in the world to go and fight in Palestine, or Kashmir for example?

there are many issues here, which i believe the sunni ulama take into account.

first of all, the nature of the enemy must be analysed at great length. not to negate jihad, but one classical scholar did say that if the enemy outnumber you greatly, and fighting would actually cause more destruction than not, then the obligation to fight is removed.

secondly, unfortunate as it is, today the enemy is much greater than is perceived. generally, they have huge weapons of mass destruction, are technologically superior and advanced that they are quite easily able to wipe out whole cities, if not countries.

thirdly... one has to look at the methodologies of certain jihad groups. if, for example the muslims are fighting in an incorrect way or manner which does not comply with shari'a, are we obliged to join such groups?

fourthly, looking at the fatwa you posted, i shall quote something from it:

"Defensive Jihad (jihad ad-d'ifaa) is also a collective obligation (fard kifaya). This is when those Muslims who are directly being attacked are capable of defending themselves. For those Muslims who are being attacked, jihad is personally obligatory; while for other Muslims, it is Fardh Kifaya to join them.

However, if the Muslims who are being attacked are incapable of defending themselves or they are neglectful, jihad becomes Fardh Ain for the Muslims nearest them and then those nearest them and so forth, until it becomes personally obligatory for all the Muslims of the East and the West.

The preceding is on the condition that the Muslims know that other Muslims are being attacked and cannot resist due to some reason. If they are unaware, then they will not be sinful for not helping."

Clearly, as you say, the obligation falls on the muslims in the surrounding area if the muslims are unable to defend themselves. From what i have been taught is that this can be interpreted in two ways:

1. that, as you say the obligation falls on us now... and in which case we must if we are capable take part in jihad (and that is another whole thread's worth of an issue - for example, how many of us are able to fight, or have been trained; in addition, muslims are heavily disadvantaged in modern warfare; so any training would theoretically not be able to oppose the current enemy).

2. that the obligation is lifted from us here in the UK for example, until every capable adult muslim in THAT area is taking part in the Jihad. Clearly that is not the case. One may ask, why is that the case, which is again another thread's worth. And if those muslims are not fighting, why are the surrounding nations not helping them?

I am in no way rejecting jihad, but simply stating how it is. Jihad is a greatly misunderstood term amongst muslims today. I seriously believe too that most muslims need to understand that jihad of the tongue and the word is a pre-requisite to jihad of the sword. In addition, jihad of the nafs must come first. You can debate all day about this, but until muslims are satisfied that they are fighting for the sake of Allah and not for some blind hatred or revenge, then yes jihad is acceptable. Allah revealed verses of jihad during the Makkan phase when the prophet (s) was PROHIBITED fom fighting. This was the spiritual training that the muslims undertook that prepared them for the future battles.

I would advise the brother who has said "what's wrong with the sunni ulama" to really reconsider his question, as i see nothing wrong with them. The ummah is in a state of disarray, and it is the sunni ulama who are trying to solve that by instilling the love of the prophet (s) back into us.

I would advise the brother to read:

1. an address given in Tarim by Habib Ali al-Jifri on jihad.

2. the two DVD releases on jihad by Habib Ali al-Jifri (they are not the same)

3. Imam Zaid Shakir's article in the latest Seasons Journal "Jihad is not perpetual warfare"

4. Sherman Abdal-Hakim Jackson's article in the previous Seasons Journal "Jihad and the modern world"

5. a CD release by Imam Zaid entitled "Jihad or Terrorism".

I don't think any of the sunni ulama have ever condemned anyone joining the mujahideen in defending muslim lands. However, muslims in the west are in a unique position and we must recognise we have different roles and priorities here since this is now our home. In this respect, i would recommend you read Shaykh Nuh's interview post 9/11 which can be read at masud.co.uk.

I think what is happening is that the words of certain groups who have political aims and agenda's may have clouded your thoughts. What we must remember is that the sunni ulama are rightly-guided. They know the state of the ummah, and they know the solution. The very fact that they are not calling on us to go and fight should trigger some thoughts in your mind. They clearly know what is best for us here in the west, and what our duty is.

Allah knows best

'Abd al-Wakil

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

salams

another book that i have been recommended is 'Jihad wa Qital fil-Islam' by Muhammad Khair Haykal

unfortunately it is in arabic only :( but it outlines all the various opinions taken by the ulama on jihad - you see there is something in islam called ikhtilaf, which unfortunately today, some muslims do not want to accept.

'Abd al-Wakil

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as-salamu alaykum

i did forget to mention that there aspects to modern warfare which are completely haram, and i do believe Shaykh Hamza Yusuf has talked about this in his talks.

he did say it is haram to burn someone, or kill someone with fire, as it is haram to mutilate bodies after their death. Shaykh Yusuf al-Qardawi, i believe has also touched on these issues. If i can find them, i will post their opinions.

One may ask then, why is the ummah in such a vulnerable position? I sincerely believe that is a great test from Allah and there is wisdom in whats happening.

Allah remembers those who remember Him, and the leaders are but a reflection of you, as our traditions state.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya is known to have said that the sins of the community are made apparent through the rulers - please forgive me if i have misquoted anyone.

'Abd al-Wakil

[Abu Usama]

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=6385

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

thanks for the link.

brother, you said:

>>Why do they not speak about issues of muslims having their own state

Shaykh Hamza mentioned this at the recent talk in Oxford, UK. Listen to it. Apart from that, i would say that many muslims have completely misunderstood the concept of 'khilafah'. Of course, we are obliged as a community (kifaya) to govern by islam. So lets start at the grass-roots. In anycase, i don't believe that those groups who rave on about it all day are actually achieving anything, neither do i believe they are following the 'methodology of the prophet' (s).


>>about hudood

Watch 'Islam and Democracy, is a clash of civilisations inevitable?' with Shaykh Hamza and Noah Feldman. Shaykh Hamza clearly states that muslims CANNOT compromise on issues like the hudood which are wahi and qati.

>>As far as most sunni ulema are concerned their jihad seems to be voting

did they say that, or is that your analysis? I know of many ulama who advise muslims to stay well clear of politics (not because it is haram as such). In any case, muslims need to establish that 'we are muslim and here to stay whether you like it or not' while at the same time respecting the laws of the land and the people in it, and if that means voting then let it be.

>>and establishing small groups to "voice there opinions" (which is just a nicer way of saying "suck up to the west").

emmm... i would disagree. Whatever you see it as, if we achieve certain objectives and rights for muslims, then it is acceptable.

>>what do they fear?

only Allah my dear brother.

>>if they are the inheritors of the prophets(peace be upon them all) then WHY do they fear anyone else other than Allah?! What is this wisdom in not speaking about jihad openly?

i think you mean they fear the rulers, right? well, Shaykh Hamza, Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi and countless others have spoken vehemently against the US government [not its people] and its policies in the past. Shaykh Hamza and others have also often been extremely critical of muslim regimes. Regarding the shuyukh speaking against the rulers of their own land, then i fully understand the wisdom behind them not speaking out against them DIRECTLY [as they often do, indirectly, such that the listeners know full well who they are talking about]. These beloved men of Allah have thousands of followers and are able to effect change in the masses. Their imprisonment, or death would not be of benefit to no-body. Their very existence is a reason for Allah's mercy on the Earth.

Allah knows best

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

correction; i said:

"Their imprisonment, or death would not be of benefit to no-body."

i meant to say:

"Their imprisonment, or death would not be of benefit to anyone."

salams

'Abd al-Wakil (aka Shaykhs-Pir)

P.S. did you know Qadaffi reckons Shakespeare was actually an arab called Shaykh al-Zubair?

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

sorry to keep posting but brother GenN, you also need to consider one thing while asking your questions.

it is clear that the concept of Jihad has become of utmost importance amongst muslims these days. we have to ask why?

i believe that in addition to the real reasons and justifible causes for jihad, there is another secret hidden force called the 'war on islam' which is operating and having an effect on the muslims to, leading them to take more extreme paths.

also, the media undoubtedly give piles more media attention to muslims who want to 'kill the kafir' and call for 'operations' against western targets (innocent civilians, including muslims) to make us all look evil. you also have the orientalists and western writers who want to portray jihad as some 'spread by the sword' concept by which muslims want to kill everyone or convert them.

what one must remember in all of this is that the muslims are not represented by these jihadi groups. in fact the vast majority of muslims want to live here peacefully and not make things more difficult for us - which certain muslim groups are definitely doing.

[Mustafa]

As salaam alaikum

Sidi Genn, you wrote:

>>please do not add insult to injury by saying i am backbiting, i can only backbite if i mention specific names, by keeping things genreal i have not backbitten anyone.

No, you're not backbiting, but you are holding bad opinions about your fellow Muslims and that, in itself, is haraam.

You go on to say:

>>>and the only reason some of them feel any reluctancy in admitting this is becaseu most of the scholars are NOT upon jihad themselves, hence having to admit most of them are sinful, but of course just becsasue the scholars are sinful does not change the hukm of fard ayn.

And you know for certain that this is the only reason? How did you reach this conclusion?

And earlier you wrote:

>>it is becaseu you guys don't actaully belive jihad to be fard ayn in the first place, so of course the rest of what i said would not go down to well with you all.

Astaghfirullah! Where are you getting these conclusions from?!

What's worse is that you write:

>>brother aby zayd, may Allah reward you for defending me, and not doubting me

This makes it sound like that no one should doubt you, but you can doubt everyone else. And Allah knows best.

Imam Zaid Shakir once said that if you see a Muslim go into a nightclub, then your immediate thought should be: "Well, he's going in to pull someone out from fitnah" and not "Astaghfirullah! What a wretched Muslim he is!" as this is backbiting of the heart, which my own Shaykh says is completely haraam. Moreover, you're supposed to make seventy excuses for your brethren.

My advice to you is this: is you have a problem with the ulema then go to them and ask them to their faces: "Why aren't you doing/promoting jihad?" If you feel you can't do that to their faces, then you have no right to ask on a message board. If you feel you can do that, then khalas! Insha'Allah you'll get your answer.

I apologise for any offence.

Wa salam
Your brother in Islam

[GenN]

Assalm alykum,

After some thought i now know I was wrong in some of my views and had no right to make the general statements about sunni ulema that i did. Alhamdullillah i can now see how they can be taken offensivley (belive me, offense was not my intention, i only wanted to discuss why i thought it was better to openly promote jihad, instead of silence).

May Allah guide me and forgive me for the wrong i have done and have been the cause of.

May Allah reward you all for showing me my ignorance and naivety.

bro sheikh pir may Allah reward you for your replies and the recommended works.

akhi mustafa... well akhi i know my expalantions werent very good and were of offensive nature but you got me totally wrong, your last reply really hurt cos you totally misunderstood me. Anyway, i still love you for the sake of Allah, may Allah grant you high stations in jannah.

Apologies for any offense caused all, please forgive me.

And Allah knows best.

was salaam

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum dear brother

i can see from your other posts that you have a genuine love for the sunni ulema. thus i believe in many ways if you sat down and thought about it, you could have answered your questions yourself.

the ulama of ahl al-sunna w'al jama'a which includes scholars of our four madhhabs and Ash'ari and Maturidi schools of aqida, as well as the ulama of tasawwuf have always throughout history stressed on certain matters of the deen more than others.

to say that they never discuss jihad is false because:

1. you will find a chapter on jihad in almost all classical fiqh texts..

2. many of the most successful jihads were led by sufi shaykhs..

one may ask, well they are not leading any jihads now are they?

true, there may be a wisdom behind this. there is always an appropriate time and place (and this ties in with some of the other points i made earlier) for jihad. Allah knows best.

finally, i would ask you to just ponder over the type of muslims who are calling on muslims to fight, especially those that are attempting to recruit from the uk. I am not one to generalise, but i do often see a total lack of adab, and akhlaq, as well as inward 'peace' in these individuals. in addition, more often than not, the ones calling for jihad also greatly misinterpret shari'a and support such catastrophe's such as 9/11 and 3/11. the very fact that they show satisfaction at the death of people (even if it was permissible) should make one question their sincerity and understanding. i don't beleive the prophet (s) ever rejoiced at the death of even his enemy - Allah knows best..

May Allah grant us greater understanding of the deen; and show us the importance of sabr and tawba.

'Abd al-Wakil

[AbuZayd]

one may ask, well they are not leading any jihads now are they?

true, there may be a wisdom behind this. there is always an appropriate time and place (and this ties in with some of the other points i made earlier) for jihad. Allah knows best.





Actually Akhi, I beg to differ.

To say that the Sufis are not leading the Jihads is not true.

The truth is that there were many Naqshbandi, Qadiri (major tariqas in Afghanistan) and other masters amongst the mujahiddin of Afghanistan who fought against the Russians. It is the Naqshbandi shaykhs and murids that fought in Bosnia, and Kosovo, and fought in Chechnya. Then we should not forget that the Deobandis are sufis as well and few would deny that they have always been leaders of Jihad.

Perhaps the real issue is that the Sufis do not make as much noise as others preferring instead to get on with the job. :)

Wasalam.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

salams

thanks for correcting me... i was stating what anti-sufi's would say...

[Murabit]

I suggest all of you to read Sheikh Abdullah Azzam's short book "In defense of the Muslim Lands" which in very relevant to the matters discussed here and it clarifies many issues:
http://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/azzam/defense/defense.html

All the chapters are important to be read.

[AbuZayd]

Assalamu alaykum,

I have read it in the past and found the book very interesting. But I must say bro Murabit that the website you have linked to hosts some otherwise absolutely awful articles.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

i have to agree with abu zayd.

without at all lowering the status of Shaykh Abdullah Azzam, the muslims that tend to mention him a lot tend to adhere to some not-so authentic views and opinions.

Allahu a'lam

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

can you tell me a bit about shaheed sheikh abdullah azzam? such as like was he a sunni and whether his writings on the fiqh of juhad are accepted by the sunnis?

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

to be quite honest with you, i don't know the answer to that. i will quote this from the introduction to the book 'defence of the muslim lands':

" The Azzam family is a well-known family, one of its members being Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, distinguished as a child, who started making Da'wah at an early age. He was already showing signs of excellence and was recognised by his teachers while he was in elementary school. His peers knew him as a pious child. Since he was a small boy he was known for his determination and serious dispositions. Before he had even come of age, he joined the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sheikh Abdullah Azzam received his early elementary and secondary school education in his village, and continued his education at the agricultural Khadorri College where he obtained a Diploma. Although he was the youngest amongst his colleagues, he was the brigbtest and most astute. After he graduated from Khadorri College, he worked as a teacher in a village named Adder in the South of Jordan. Later he joined Shariah College in Damascus University where he obtained a B.A. Degree in Shariah in 1966. After the Jews captured the West Bank in 1967, Sheikh Abdullah Azzam decided to migrate to Jordan, because he could not live under the Jewish occupation of Palestine. The sacrilege of the Israeli tanks rolling into the West Bank without any resistance made him more determined to migrate, to learn the skills necessary to fight.

In the late 1960's he joined the Jihad against the Israeli occupation of Palestine from Jordan. During that time he received a Masters Degree in Shariah from the University of AI Azhar. In 1970 when the Jihad came to a halt, and the PLO was forced out of Jordan, he assumed a teaching position in the Jordanian University in Amman. In 1971 he was awarded a scholarship to the AI Azhar University in Cairo at which he obtained a Ph.D. Degree in Ussul al Fiqh in 1973. During his stay in Egypt he came to know the family of Saeed Qutb."

that should give us some information on his line of thinking at least. i do not know what the sunni ulama make of his work..

maybe others in the forum can elaborate on this one..

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

see what you make of this:

"A terrorist organisation called Mektab-al-Khadamat (MAK) was established at Peshawar in Pakistan by Abdullah Azzam, a Jordanian of Palestinian origin. The MAK worked in close cooperation with Osama bin-Laden (much wanted by America now) who established an organisation called Bayt-al-Ansar (House of Helpers) for providing recruits and finances to the MAK.5

An anti-Sufi campaign was launched from these establishments, which included a programme of destroying popular shrines of Sufi saints. Members of this group were responsible for burning down the famous Sufi shrine of Charar-e-Sharif in the Kashmir Valley in May 1995."

http://www.stratmag.com/Aakrosh/ac10201.htm

i am not one to beleive everything on the internet, but somehow i am not surprised by the above.

[GenN]

Assalm alykum

It is sad that Sheikh Abdullah azzam is claimed by qutobee salafees (but then again the qutoobee salafees respect hasan al bana the sufi also). The sheikh was an al-azahr graduate, and we know that alazhar is majority non-salafee (however ther are a minority salafees i think).

The sheikh was a shafie in fiqh, which alone says a lot as in those days you would not hear salafees call themselves by a madhab, although there are some salafees that do these days.

He whole purpose in life was to promote jihad, as he believed it to be the way for reveival of this ummah, and even the kuffar admit that he was "the greatest revivor of jihad in the 20th centuray" (Time magazine)

I do not think i am exagerating when i say there is probably no land of jihad in the world today that is not influenced in some way or another by the sheikh.

I know many sunni ulema hold the sheikh in respect amongst them maulana masood azar. Also the hanbali alim at htspub does not know of anything wrong with the sheikh azzam either (remeber whats the chance of an al-azahar graduate not being sunni, you only need to go and check shiekh azzams works on aqeedah at the al azhar logs, we already know he was a shafie in fiqh).

OBL was a student/companion of azzam in the 80's which is maybe why a lot of people like to claim sheikh azzam as salafee, but there is no authentic evidence, instead the evidence points to the other direction. As far as i am aware OBL in the 90's was largely affected by ayman al zawhairi (salafee) with whom shiekh azzam may have disagreed with (he was martyred in 89, i am not ware about any meetings between ayamn al zawharir and sheikh azzam), Also there are stamtetns from sheikh azzam where he respects Bin baz, but again this does not mean sheikh azzam is salafee as for example deobandis also respect the salafees to some extent, largly becaue they do not know the incorrect salafee aqeedah, and it may have been the same case with sheikh azzam, or it could have been for the sake of unity in these dire times or maybe some other reason.

The sheikh becasem a shaheed (Inshallah) in 1989.

indeed i hold Sheikh Azzam to be one of the mujajjadids of the centary. May Allah reward the sheikh jannah, and forgive him any mistakes he may have made.

and Allah knows best

was salaam

[GenN]

As for the issue of bannign and attacking sufis, then remeber in that part of the world there are many extreme sufis commiting much bidah, and sometimes even shirk, and it was these type of sufis that were banned by the likes of taliban. HOw can someone say taliban to be against sufis when taliban are sufis (deobandis) themselves? That news article does not seem to be telling the whole truth in context, but you gotta expect that with media.

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

I have read parts of his books "Defense of the Muslim Lands" and "Join The Caravan" and they are quite good. In one of them the shaykh also refers to Ahmed Shah Masood as one of the greatest mujahids against the Soviets.

The only book of his which i've ever purchased is "The Lofty Mountain" and I've only read a few pages as yet, but it seems to be quite interesting.

[GenN]

Assalm alykum,

yes, it is well ackowledged ahmed shah massod was indeed one of the greatest mujahids against the soviets. As for what happened amongst the mjahideen after the soviets were kicked out, only Allah knows best. But sheikh Azzam had passed onto his lord by that time.

was salaam.

[Muawiyah]

see what you make of this:

"A terrorist organisation called Mektab-al-Khadamat (MAK) was established at Peshawar in Pakistan by Abdullah Azzam, a Jordanian of Palestinian origin. The MAK worked in close cooperation with Osama bin-Laden (much wanted by America now) who established an organisation called Bayt-al-Ansar (House of Helpers) for providing recruits and finances to the MAK.5

An anti-Sufi campaign was launched from these establishments, which included a programme of destroying popular shrines of Sufi saints. Members of this group were responsible for burning down the famous Sufi shrine of Charar-e-Sharif in the Kashmir Valley in May 1995."

http://www.stratmag.com/Aakrosh/ac10201.htm

i am not one to beleive everything on the internet, but somehow i am not surprised by the above.


That's an Indian attempt to link the mujahideen of kashmir with al-Qaidah, what happened at Charaar-Shreef was that some mujahideen took shelter in the shrine and the Indian forces attacked and destroyed the shrine. The charge that mujahideen destroyed the shrine is false.

That is aside from the fact that building structures over the graves of the awliyaa is wrong.

[fnaeem]

Assalmu Alaikum,
Brothers and Sisters. I am really happy to find this forum on traditional islam. On the topic of Jihad dont you think that we are currently not poised for a military Jihad.

At the time of Rasool Allah (PBUH) he put up with a lot of trials and tribulations during his stay in Makkah. Only when Allah helped him thru the Ansar did he mount a militaristic Jihad.

We currently are not capable of making our own weapons.
The AK-47, the Stinger are not made in Damishiq.
Should our Jihad not be for education and the ability to develop and sustain our own industrial processes. Are we in a position to mount a militaristic Jihad based upon borrowed weapons and funds. In 65 when Pakistan fought India ( a largely secular war), USA imposed an arms embargo on Pakistan. Pakistan ran short of Ammo.

The glorious example of Afghan Jihad was fought on the back of American arms and ammuniation. I am not discounting the help of Allah Subhan wa Talla. It was definitely there. but are we not akin to the Bedouin who came to Rasool Allah (PBUH) and said I leave my she-camel to the trust of Allah. Then Rasool Allah (PBUH) instructed him to tie the camel and then leave it in the care of Allah.

Could Badr really have been fought if the Sahaba did not have the knowledge how to make shields, swords and spears. If all they were able to do is throw stones ( which is all we are able to do today) the struggles of early Islam may have had a different turn. Should our ja-ha-da (struggle) not be focused on getting ourselves to the status of Medina (figuratevly speaking) before we say lets mount a military Jihad or should we just say that every shaheed indicates one less shell for the enemy guns. Just my worthless thoughts.

Jazak Allah Khair
Faisal

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

when the time for jihad comes, there is no postponing it regardless of whether you are equipped or not. If it means that you fight with stones, then you fight with stones. If it means you fight with your fist, then you fight with your fist

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

if the enemy is overwhelming, it is permissible to make hijra, and build up arms/support to resist the enemy.

e.g French in Algeria

[GenN]

Assalmu Alaikum,
Brothers and Sisters. I am really happy to find this forum on traditional islam. On the topic of Jihad dont you think that we are currently not poised for a military Jihad.

At the time of Rasool Allah (PBUH) he put up with a lot of trials and tribulations during his stay in Makkah. Only when Allah helped him thru the Ansar did he mount a militaristic Jihad.

We currently are not capable of making our own weapons.
The AK-47, the Stinger are not made in Damishiq.
Should our Jihad not be for education and the ability to develop and sustain our own industrial processes. Are we in a position to mount a militaristic Jihad based upon borrowed weapons and funds. In 65 when Pakistan fought India ( a largely secular war), USA imposed an arms embargo on Pakistan. Pakistan ran short of Ammo.

The glorious example of Afghan Jihad was fought on the back of American arms and ammuniation. I am not discounting the help of Allah Subhan wa Talla. It was definitely there. but are we not akin to the Bedouin who came to Rasool Allah (PBUH) and said I leave my she-camel to the trust of Allah. Then Rasool Allah (PBUH) instructed him to tie the camel and then leave it in the care of Allah.

Could Badr really have been fought if the Sahaba did not have the knowledge how to make shields, swords and spears. If all they were able to do is throw stones ( which is all we are able to do today) the struggles of early Islam may have had a different turn. Should our ja-ha-da (struggle) not be focused on getting ourselves to the status of Medina (figuratevly speaking) before we say lets mount a military Jihad or should we just say that every shaheed indicates one less shell for the enemy guns. Just my worthless thoughts.

Jazak Allah Khair
Faisal

Assalm alykum.

Although logically speaking this seems the right path, however Islam is not run by logic it is run by the shairah first (and ten if there is room for logic/wisdom it can be applied) of Allah. The afghan jihad is proof of this.

When the soviet attacked Afgahnistan, NOBODY helped the afghans initially, becasue everybody thought that within 2 months at MOST (some said 2 days) afghan would be in soviet control. However the muslims of Afghan may Alah be weel pleased them, new the Hukms of Allah, about defendin the lands of Islam REGARDLESS of militray weakness. And so the afghna mujahideen fought. And they shocked the world by resisting the Soviets onsalught. When they stood frim inthe APth of Allah for the sake of Allah, THEN ALLH SENT THEM HIS HELP. This help from Allah can be in many ways and in that land it appears Alah sent his help via the weapons support from the other nations like Pakistan, which was supplied by US.

Now had those muslims decided to make hijra with the excuse that we are weak, lets go and become stronger elsewhere and let this land of Islam fall to the kuffar no help of Allah would have. No they would either become shaheed or be victorious. And indeed many attained shahadaa may Allah be well pleased with them. And thos who remianed became victorius, Allahuakbar.

Now the probelm i see with a lot of ulem these days is the same "we are too weak to fight" excuse and so they leave jihad. But the afghan is proof of their incorrect judegment, and indeed it is not the only proof. From the earliest times of Islam the proof stands clear.

How much weaker were we at the battle of badr, and yet we stood firm for Allah.

How much weaker were we at the battle for kurasan where alp arslaan defeated the byzantines.

How much weaker were we aginst the mongols and almost suffered defeat but Abudl Qutuz stood firm.

Never will this nation rise until it until tawakul is understood and acted upon instead of materialsm, becasue once tawakul is understood and acted upon jihad will become manifest amongst the nation and if Allah wills he will send the nation its help from unexpected places and the virctory it has been waiting for.

And Allah knows best.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

some fair points.

>>Now the probelm i see with a lot of ulem these days is the same "we are too weak to fight" excuse and so they leave jihad.

clearly, this is not an excuse. In the above situation, the afghan jihad was clearly helped by the americans, who were the major opposition to the russians since the cold war. in fact, the afghani's were even trained by special forces, as well as being supplied with weapons of equal might. i don't know any ulama who say per se that 'we are too weak to fight'.

>>But the afghan is proof of their incorrect judegment, and indeed it is not the only proof. From the earliest times of Islam the proof stands clear.

i don't agree. Look at all the wars of islam, and look at the TYPES of weapons used, and the terrain over which the battles are fought. look at the strategies of warfare.

>>How much weaker were we at the battle of badr, and yet we stood firm for Allah.

...yes, this is true. but also look at the status of the muslims who took part in that war. i agree, muslims don't truly understand the meaning of tawakkul...

[GenN]

as salamu alaykum

some fair points.

>>Now the probelm i see with a lot of ulem these days is the same "we are too weak to fight" excuse and so they leave jihad.

clearly, this is not an excuse. In the above situation, the afghan jihad was clearly helped by the americans, who were the major opposition to the russians since the cold war. in fact, the afghani's were even trained by special forces, as well as being supplied with weapons of equal might. i don't know any ulama who say per se that 'we are too weak to fight'.

>>But the afghan is proof of their incorrect judegment, and indeed it is not the only proof. From the earliest times of Islam the proof stands clear.

i don't agree. Look at all the wars of islam, and look at the TYPES of weapons used, and the terrain over which the battles are fought. look at the strategies of warfare.

>>How much weaker were we at the battle of badr, and yet we stood firm for Allah.

...yes, this is true. but also look at the status of the muslims who took part in that war. i agree, muslims don't truly understand the meaning of tawakkul...

Assalm alykum

you have mis-read some of my post akhi. Please re-read where i said about how NONE, let alone the americans, INITIALLY helped the afghan mujahideen (other natins only helped when they realised the that afghns were actaully able to stand up tp the soviets), the only real weapon they had in those intial months/years was tawakul and becasue of this Allah sent them weapons thorugh other nations. Pleas re read my post bro.

Also in many of the battles before afghan jihad muslims were much weaker materially speaking like at the battle of kurasan and their only real weapon was tawakul, and what about the corssing of the river when persia was conquered, and what bout against the mogols, when they were defeated and many other examples

to say "look at the satatus of the muslims at the battle of badr" is not a reason to say today we are too weak to fight. that is the same as saying we shouldnt bother trying to emuilate the sunnah and nawafil actions of the shaba, beccasue they were sahaba, who are we comapred to them? Of course we are nothing compared to them but that doesnt mean we shouldnt atleast try to emulate them, even though we will not even be able to compare to the dust on thier horses. materialistic weakness has never been excuse in muslim warfare and will never be inshallah, indeed the muslims were weaker than the enemy in many battles in history but with tawakul were able to win incredible victories.

was salaam

[AbuZayd]

Asalam alaykum,

Is it true that it is only the Salafis who are fighting and leading the Jihad around the Muslim world and that the Orthodoxy have given up on Jihad?
reply | quote











Abu Ja`far al-Hanbali

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,

Noble brother,

Thank you for your reply. In answer to your question, there are some points,

1. No, the Orthodox have not stopped defending themselves. However, the Salafi Organisation, upon interfering has brought great shame upon this principle of faith.

2. The campaign in Chechnya for the past 100 years up until the mid 1990s was conducted by Orthodox theologians and the laity. Since the arrival of the Salafi movement, both Muslims and kuffar have been killed indiscriminately and still no state. In fact there has been another incursion into the Caucus area where mostly Muslims have been killed.

3. In Afghanistan, most of the campaign organisers were Orthodox, but in the late 1980s, the Salafi involvement yet again wrecked things. Then the Taliban came. But not long after them, the Salafis infiltrated their government, did campaigns outside of the country without the permission of the amir and then brought the world against what could have been a bastion of Shari`a.

4. In Indonesia, the Orthodox were defending themselves against Christian persecution in the outlying islands. But then the Salafis came in the late 80's and began doing tit-for-tat violence, such as beheadings, rapings and the like.

5. Algeria has had a strong history of striving for truth and seeking liberation, but in the late 1980s, the Salafiyyh organisation slithered in and began killing Muslims and kuffar indiscriminately.

6. The same can be said of the situation in Palestine.

7. In Arabia, the unlawful detention of Orthodox theologians and the murder of these scholars continues, a sort of perverted 'internal jihaad' that has been taking place for now more than 2 centuries.

8. Bosnia was subjected to the same horror and now the people are further from Islam than previous and receive the preaching of the Salafi rhetoric, which the people are not receptive to, as they know the Orthodox creed

The point in saying this is that the Orthodox have not had problems with practicing principles. The problem has been the appearance of the Salafiyyah. Under the banner of stopping criminals and war crimes, they began/have begun slaughtering people in a haphazard fashion. How could war criminals stop war criminals?

Iraq is just one of the most recent examples of this behaviour, with extra-judicial murders being carried out by people who are neither amirs of any sanctioned Islamic army nor khalifas nor their representatives. Therefore, how could such a penalty as execution be carried out in the absence of legal authority? It is due to the fact that Salafiyyah has made itself the authority.

One of (if not the #1) greatest threats to the expansion and renewal of Muslim Orthodoxy is the world-wide global menace of Salafism, which if we do not confront it and defeat it will carry terrible consequences for us and our loved ones. I hope this answer helped. And with Allah is every success,

was-Salaam,

brother in Islam

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as-salamu alaykum

i have to agree with what sidi abu ja'far posted from the hanbali text society forum.

brother gen, i did not mis-read your post. however, i did ask you who of the sunni ulama has said 'we are too weak to fight'?

finally i will quote Imam Zaid Shakir's response to the suicide operations in Palestine because it contains some relevant lessons to this discussion:

"Suicide operations that specifically target civilians would have to be considered forbidden in Islam. The reason for that is that Islam strictly forbids targeting non-combatants during war. Also there are very strong prohibitions in Islam against suicide or taking ones own life through ones own direct action.

When looking at the issue of Palestine one has to consider the political efficacy of suicide bombings. In judging the efficacy of these actions, one has to consider several issues. One being, international, public opinion especially public opinion in the United states because of the critical role played by the America in this conflict. Therefore, one must ask have suicide bombings turned public opinion in this country for or against the Palestinians. Secondly, have suicide bombings led to the ability of the Israeli's to create a form of moral equivalency between their brutal occupation and policies and the suicide bombers who specifically target Israeli civilians. Thirdly, one has to consider, the nature of the Israeli response. Have suicide bombings led to an increase or a decrease in the scope and the intensity of the occupation. Fourthly, one has to consider do suicide bombings broaden or narrow the range of political options available to the Palestinians.

If one considers all of these issues one has to conclude that suicide bombings are not only wrong from an ethical perspective but also from a political and strategic perspective. We may note in conclusion that those who justify the permissibility of killing Jewish civilians that the great jurist Ibn Taymiyyah in one of his Fatawa mentioned that it is not permissible to kill a Jew based on the fact that he is a Jew. Such an action undermines the basis for civil society. I may add that when we expand our Islamic definition of Jihad to include acts which are essentially terrorism and/or indiscriminate attacks on civilians we abandon the lofty moral parameters established by our Creator to govern our conduct during times of conflict and we adopt the Western idea of total war. In these trying times Muslims must realize that our strength lies in our ethical and moral superiority. Once we abandon that, we are not better then the forces arrayed against us and the conflict will be decided by the position of superior armaments and other strategic resources. Such a calculus at work, we Muslims are doomed to defeat.

Surely Allah knows best"

...and to add to sidi abu ja'far's post; did you know many of the sunni ulama from iraq had to flea or were threatened and kicked out of the country due the salafiyyah spreading hatred of them and the sufi's among the people, by telling the people they were allies of the west AND Saddam?

It is true to a certain extent that Saddam didn't fear the sufi's and let them preach in the mosques - irrespective of that, the people generally loved them and appreciated their work..

how can muslims fight a jihad and persecute other muslims in the process?

not only that, what happens after jihad? a bunch of salafi extremists in power screaming and shouting bid'a?

Allah knows best

[GenN]

Assalam alykum,

brother shayk pir you are confusing me now, first it appears you were saying that we cannot do effective jihad becasue we are not militarily as capbale as the enemy, but now it appears you are saying that that materil weakness is no reason for avoiding jihad (whcih i agree with), (please clarify your position)

now as for which scholars say that becaseu we are weak we should not fight then please see zaid shakirs article in empire and crescent (his articl is split into 2 parts, please see the last couple of paragraphs of the first part). I read it a while ago now but if i recall correctly he appears to be saying we are too weak (materially) to fight.

As for this quote of zaid shakirs

>>Suicide operations that specifically target civilians would have to be considered forbidden in Islam. The reason for that is that Islam strictly forbids targeting non-combatants during war. Also there are very strong prohibitions in Islam against suicide or taking ones own life through ones own direct action. >>

then it appears he is not at all well acquainted with the political reality of paelstine, becaseu who says that the brothers carrying out martyrdom operations are TARGETTING civilans? If they are targetting military or economicail zion assets and inncocent civilans get killed accidentaliy on the side i.e collateral damage, then this is permissbale in islam from 3 out of the 4 madhabs (i think its only the malikis that don't even allow this but theri opion is weak as testified to 3 out of the 4 madhabs)

As for the actaul action of martyrdom operations then there is valid differnece of opion on this which is noted by great living ulem today like mufti taqi uthamni, and even if they are wrong and martydrom operaions are not allowed then they will still inshalla get one reward. And where does zaid shakir stand in comapriosn to one of the top living sunni scholoars of our age mufti taqi uthamni.


as for the stratgic implications, then how can you even weigh out the strategic implications and advantages and befits whiclst in a differnet country, having only second hand information? You need to understand the cowardice nature of the isreail army, you need to know things like every person in israel is trained andserves in the army and so on.

and Allah knows best.

was salaam.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

Assalam alykum,

as salamu alaykum

please endeavour to find the articles which quote sunni ulama stating that 'we are too weak to fight'. In addition, lets be clear on what 'weakness' actually entails, whether it is material, ethical, moral or spiritual or whatever.

<<brother shayk pir you are confusing me now, first it appears you were saying that we cannot do effective jihad becasue we are not militarily as capbale as the enemy, but now it appears you are saying that that materil weakness is no reason for avoiding jihad (whcih i agree with), (please clarify your position)>>

what i am saying is that the sunni scholars have never discouraged jihad or denied its obligation. However, they have stressed on other aspects of the deen which are perhaps more urgent for muslims in the west.

Material strength IS a factor whatever anyone says. Even in the Qur'an, Allah instructs the muslims to build up arms and strength. To deny material strength and replace it with tawakkul is a misunderstanding of tawakkul. For example, if an enemy force threatened a muslim land with a nuclear attack, and the leader of the jihad ignored the threat, he would not only be putting himself in danger, but his whole force AND the land containing millions of innocent muslims. Who is accountable here?

A group of fuqaha advised Mullah Omar to remove Osama bin Laden from his land (not handover to the kuffar), and gave the proofs from a fiqhi perspective that keeping Osama in Afghanistan is actually against islam, because it would result (and did result) in complete destruction of them, their land and spilling of innocent afghani MUSLIM blood.

<<now as for which scholars say that becaseu we are weak we should not fight then please see zaid shakirs article in empire and crescent (his articl is split into 2 parts, please see the last couple of paragraphs of the first part). I read it a while ago now but if i recall correctly he appears to be saying we are too weak (materially) to fight.>>

please quote the words. But material strength is most certainly a factor. Read Imam Zaid's latest article in Zaytuna Seasons Journal. He quotes a classical scholar stating that if the enemy outnumbers the muslims greatly, it is permissible and possibly beneficial not to fight to avoid greater destruction of muslim life.

<<then it appears he is not at all well acquainted with the political reality of paelstine, becaseu who says that the brothers carrying out martyrdom operations are TARGETTING civilans?>>

well, there is plenty of proof of that. this is a reality. no further discussion on this is required.

<<If they are targetting military or economicail zion assets and inncocent civilans get killed accidentaliy on the side i.e collateral damage, then this is permissbale in islam from 3 out of the 4 madhabs (i think its only the malikis that don't even allow this but theri opion is weak as testified to 3 out of the 4 madhabs)>>

this is not the same, is it? i don't entirely agree with the extremists definition of economical assets. For example, the extremists use exactly this principle to falsely justify the attack on the world trade centres.

<<As for the actaul action of martyrdom operations then there is valid differnece of opion on this which is noted by great living ulem today like mufti taqi uthamni, and even if they are wrong and martydrom operaions are not allowed then they will still inshalla get one reward.>>

acknowledge the fact that he said they were wrong. in addition, most of the people carrying it out probably don't know the shari'a arguments behind them. in any case, this is a different topic which i don't think is relevant here. I quoted the article to highlight that in a war situation, several factors need to be taken into account. In shari'a, there is a priniciple that emphasises on whether there is benfit in one or a groups actions. Quite clearly, bombing a cafe or bus load of children has no benefit, apart from being clearly haram; and invites an even greater destruction on the palestinians as well as stronger propaganda against them.

<<And where does zaid shakir stand in comapriosn to one of the top living sunni scholoars of our age mufti taqi uthamni.>>

brother, i think such a comment is completely unnecessary. As sunni muslims, we love all the ulama and don't compare. But if you want to talk in such a manner, i know of several GIANTS of 'ilm in the modern era who have categorically denied the permissiblity of suicide bombings from a fiqh point of view. In any case, do you not agree with his points? and if not, why not?

<<as for the stratgic implications, then how can you even weigh out the strategic implications and advantages and befits whiclst in a differnet country, having only second hand information?>>

of course, you have raised a valid point. But analysis of the situation even in the land of warfare should not cloud the islamic judgement on matters. I cannot personally analyse the events. However, the scholars have a greater knowledge of such matters and are in contant with ulama in those regions.

<<You need to understand the cowardice nature of the isreail army, you need to know things like every person in israel is trained andserves in the army and so on.>>

same usual arguments. You cannot hold a child accountable for something they MAY do in the future (like join the army). This is against basic aqida. That child may leave Isreal; that child may even become muslim! To be honest, i find such arguments very weak..

>>and Allah knows best.

indeed

was salaam.

[GenN]

Assalam alykum,

as salamu alaykum

please endeavour to find the articles which quote sunni ulama stating that 'we are too weak to fight'. In addition, lets be clear on what 'weakness' actually entails, whether it is material, ethical, moral or spiritual or whatever.

<<brother shayk pir you are confusing me now, first it appears you were saying that we cannot do effective jihad becasue we are not militarily as capbale as the enemy, but now it appears you are saying that that materil weakness is no reason for avoiding jihad (whcih i agree with), (please clarify your position)>>

what i am saying is that the sunni scholars have never discouraged jihad or denied its obligation. However, they have stressed on other aspects of the deen which are perhaps more urgent for muslims in the west.

Material strength IS a factor whatever anyone says. Even in the Qur'an, Allah instructs the muslims to build up arms and strength. To deny material strength and replace it with tawakkul is a misunderstanding of tawakkul. For example, if an enemy force threatened a muslim land with a nuclear attack, and the leader of the jihad ignored the threat, he would not only be putting himself in danger, but his whole force AND the land containing millions of innocent muslims. Who is accountable here?

A group of fuqaha advised Mullah Omar to remove Osama bin Laden from his land (not handover to the kuffar), and gave the proofs from a fiqhi perspective that keeping Osama in Afghanistan is actually against islam, because it would result (and did result) in complete destruction of them, their land and spilling of innocent afghani MUSLIM blood.

<<now as for which scholars say that becaseu we are weak we should not fight then please see zaid shakirs article in empire and crescent (his articl is split into 2 parts, please see the last couple of paragraphs of the first part). I read it a while ago now but if i recall correctly he appears to be saying we are too weak (materially) to fight.>>

please quote the words. But material strength is most certainly a factor. Read Imam Zaid's latest article in Zaytuna Seasons Journal. He quotes a classical scholar stating that if the enemy outnumbers the muslims greatly, it is permissible and possibly beneficial not to fight to avoid greater destruction of muslim life.

<<then it appears he is not at all well acquainted with the political reality of paelstine, becaseu who says that the brothers carrying out martyrdom operations are TARGETTING civilans?>>

well, there is plenty of proof of that. this is a reality. no further discussion on this is required.

<<If they are targetting military or economicail zion assets and inncocent civilans get killed accidentaliy on the side i.e collateral damage, then this is permissbale in islam from 3 out of the 4 madhabs (i think its only the malikis that don't even allow this but theri opion is weak as testified to 3 out of the 4 madhabs)>>

this is not the same, is it? i don't entirely agree with the extremists definition of economical assets. For example, the extremists use exactly this principle to falsely justify the attack on the world trade centres.

<<As for the actaul action of martyrdom operations then there is valid differnece of opion on this which is noted by great living ulem today like mufti taqi uthamni, and even if they are wrong and martydrom operaions are not allowed then they will still inshalla get one reward.>>

acknowledge the fact that he said they were wrong. in addition, most of the people carrying it out probably don't know the shari'a arguments behind them. in any case, this is a different topic which i don't think is relevant here. I quoted the article to highlight that in a war situation, several factors need to be taken into account. In shari'a, there is a priniciple that emphasises on whether there is benfit in one or a groups actions. Quite clearly, bombing a cafe or bus load of children has no benefit, apart from being clearly haram; and invites an even greater destruction on the palestinians as well as stronger propaganda against them.

<<And where does zaid shakir stand in comapriosn to one of the top living sunni scholoars of our age mufti taqi uthamni.>>

brother, i think such a comment is completely unnecessary. As sunni muslims, we love all the ulama and don't compare. But if you want to talk in such a manner, i know of several GIANTS of 'ilm in the modern era who have categorically denied the permissiblity of suicide bombings from a fiqh point of view. In any case, do you not agree with his points? and if not, why not?

<<as for the stratgic implications, then how can you even weigh out the strategic implications and advantages and befits whiclst in a differnet country, having only second hand information?>>

of course, you have raised a valid point. But analysis of the situation even in the land of warfare should not cloud the islamic judgement on matters. I cannot personally analyse the events. However, the scholars have a greater knowledge of such matters and are in contant with ulama in those regions.

<<You need to understand the cowardice nature of the isreail army, you need to know things like every person in israel is trained andserves in the army and so on.>>

same usual arguments. You cannot hold a child accountable for something they MAY do in the future (like join the army). This is against basic aqida. That child may leave Isreal; that child may even become muslim! To be honest, i find such arguments very weak..

>>and Allah knows best.

indeed

was salaam.


>>please endeavour to find the articles which quote sunni ulama stating that 'we are too weak to fight'. In addition, lets be clear on what 'weakness' actually entails, whether it is material, ethical, moral or spiritual or whatever.

Like i said before please seee the book "empire and crescent", and read the last couple of paragraphs of the first part by zaid shakir.


>>what i am saying is that the sunni scholars have never discouraged jihad or denied its obligation. However, they have stressed on other aspects of the deen which are perhaps more urgent for muslims in the west. >>

so what is more urgent than a fard, the fard of Jihad?


>>Material strength IS a factor whatever anyone says. Even in the Qur'an, Allah instructs the muslims to build up arms and strength. To deny material strength and replace it with tawakkul is a misunderstanding of tawakkul. For example, if an enemy force threatened a muslim land with a nuclear attack, and the leader of the jihad ignored the threat, he would not only be putting himself in danger, but his whole force AND the land containing millions of innocent muslims. Who is accountable here? >>

no one denies material strnegth is a a factor if Allah wills, what i am saying is that however material strneght you can get then use it and rely on Allah. Don't say "its not enough, lets wait until we are more powerful". someone saying that as in your example of the nuke, then there is a lack of tawakul. from the quran and sunnah you fight even if you are the only one left. So in this where is the material power (with only one person)?


>>>A group of fuqaha advised Mullah Omar to remove Osama bin Laden from his land (not handover to the kuffar), and gave the proofs from a fiqhi perspective that keeping Osama in Afghanistan is actually against islam, because it would result (and did result) in complete destruction of them, their land and spilling of innocent afghani MUSLIM blood.


dosent matter if OBL wasn't in afghan, afghan would have been attacke anyway, some excuse would have been thought of, after all america needed the oil in caspian sea, and afghanistan was the way. WTC has no links to OBL, nothing has been proven only a lt of false media claims, which if you, like some scholars, want to belive then that is upto you. WTC was muslims, but NOT OBL, OBL was just an excuse for america to attack afghan, if he had not been there some other excuse by america would have been though of.

>>please quote the words. But material strength is most certainly a factor. Read Imam Zaid's latest article in Zaytuna Seasons Journal. He quotes a classical scholar stating that if the enemy outnumbers the muslims greatly, it is permissible and possibly beneficial not to fight to avoid greater destruction of muslim life.


the entire context of waht the scholar is saying needs to be taken into account. And to be quite honest i donot take knowledge from zaid shakir. what level of schoalrship exactly does zaid shakir hold? (sincere question)

>>well, there is plenty of proof of that. this is a reality. no further discussion on this is required.

pleanty of proof for what, that one or 2 people may target innocnets, the media picks up on this and then we get clouded and start generalising and criticsing all the mujahideen whilst we live lifes of luxury in the west?

>>>this is not the same, is it? i don't entirely agree with the extremists definition of economical assets. For example, the extremists use exactly this principle to falsely justify the attack on the world trade centres.

i agree with you here, that the WTC center were NOT permissbale but i still hold that there is a possibility of legitimate differnece of opion on the matter. The fatwa of the hanbali alim sheikh humeed bin uqlaa as suhabi bears witness to this.


>>>> acknowledge the fact that he said they were wrong. in addition, most of the people carrying it out probably don't know the shari'a arguments behind them. in any case, this is a different topic which i don't think is relevant here. I quoted the article to highlight that in a war situation, several factors need to be taken into account. In shari'a, there is a priniciple that emphasises on whether there is benfit in one or a groups actions. Quite clearly, bombing a cafe or bus load of children has no benefit, apart from being clearly haram; and invites an even greater destruction on the palestinians as well as stronger propaganda against them.

brother, he may hold the opion that it is wrong, but atleast he understands the concpet of differnec of opion, and knows that in this matter there is differnece. You on the other hand seem to come across like the salafees, that your opion is the only correct one and thats it no matter what anyone elses says. as for the one sharia point, you cannot just go based on one sharia point you have know and understand all of them and then weigh them out and take all other factors into account


>>brother, i think such a comment is completely unnecessary. As sunni muslims, we love all the ulama and don't compare. But if you want to talk in such a manner, i know of several GIANTS of 'ilm in the modern era who have categorically denied the permissiblity of suicide bombings from a fiqh point of view. In any case, do you not agree with his points? and if not, why not?


you are correct, may Allah have mecy on me, there was no need for such a comment. However i would indeed be interested to know of these giants of ilm of today you refer to.

May Allah guide us all.

And Allah knows best

Was salaam.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

<<Like i said before please seee the book "empire and crescent", and read the last couple of paragraphs of the first part by zaid shakir.>>

i will endeavour to read it. and you must read the article by him in the latest Seasons journal, which i recall is an update of that one you are mentioning, so in effect i have read it already.

<<so what is more urgent than a fard, the fard of Jihad?>>

like i said in my original post, there is difference of opinion on whether it is fard upon us here in the west. this is a huge fiqhi matter which i am not prepared to get into on this forum.

<<no one denies material strnegth is a a factor if Allah wills, what i am saying is that however material strneght you can get then use it and rely on Allah. Don't say "its not enough, lets wait until we are more powerful". someone saying that as in your example of the nuke, then there is a lack of tawakul. from the quran and sunnah you fight even if you are the only one left. So in this where is the material power (with only one person)?>>

really, one person? are you sure?

read the qur'an, chapter 2 verse 195 WITH a shaykh.. and possibly study the tafsit if you can WITH a shaykh.. [and the hadith that go with it]


<<dosent matter if OBL wasn't in afghan, afghan would have been attacke anyway, some excuse would have been thought of, after all america needed the oil in caspian sea, and afghanistan was the way.>>

a'lim al-ghayb!! would have? are you sure? how do you know?

<<WTC has no links to OBL, nothing has been proven only a lt of false media claims, which if you, like some scholars, want to belive then that is upto you. WTC was muslims, but NOT OBL, OBL was just an excuse for america to attack afghan, if he had not been there some other excuse by america would have been though of.>>

fair enough. sidi murabit would disagree with you though!

<<the entire context of waht the scholar is saying needs to be taken into account. And to be quite honest i donot take knowledge from zaid shakir. what level of schoalrship exactly does zaid shakir hold? (sincere question)>>

that is open for you to find out. search the internet. more importantly, find out who he studied with, and what they have to say. NON-ISSUE.

<<pleanty of proof for what, that one or 2 people may target innocnets, the media picks up on this and then we get clouded and start generalising and criticsing all the mujahideen whilst we live lifes of luxury in the west?>>

please akhi - lets be serious here...

<<i agree with you here, that the WTC center were NOT permissbale but i still hold that there is a possibility of legitimate differnece of opion on the matter. The fatwa of the hanbali alim sheikh humeed bin uqlaa as suhabi bears witness to this.>>

he was wrong. this is not open to ihtihad dear brother. Stick with the jama'a. He has clearly taken things out of context. i am confident of that. You read the sira, study the shama'il and sit with a wise man... then tell me if you believe that such an act would be permitted by our believed prophet (s) or the salaf.

<<brother, he may hold the opion that it is wrong, but atleast he understands the concpet of differnec of opion, and knows that in this matter there is differnece. You on the other hand seem to come across like the salafees, that your opion is the only correct one and thats it no matter what anyone elses says. as for the one sharia point, you cannot just go based on one sharia point you have know and understand all of them and then weigh them out and take all other factors into account>>

ikhtilaaf is on certain matters only. there is no difference of opinion on the deliberate taking of innocent life, no matter how you want to twist, turn and misuse the primary texts..

<<you are correct, may Allah have mecy on me, there was no need for such a comment. However i would indeed be interested to know of these giants of ilm of today you refer to.>>

no need to mention names, for fear of attack on their names, for which i would feel responsible in front of Allah. however, please trust me dear brother. In any case, suicide operations is a matter of difference of opinion, even though i believe it to be impermissible. that was not what i was talking about, nor was it my intention.

May Allah guide us all.

And Allah knows best

Was salaam.

[GenN]

>>>i will endeavour to read it. and you must read the article by him in the latest Seasons journal, which i recall is an update of that one you are mentioning, so in effect i have read it already.

PLease advise where i can read article from again, May Allah reward you. however the first article in the book was ridicoluous (i had another quick browse through it earlier and he gives 2 evidecnes from quran which he claims is what the mujahids use!!! what about all the tons of other evidences????). And he doesnt categorically sate we are 2 weak to fight, but implies this and states we should be looking for other ways rather than armed conflict.


>>>

like i said in my original post, there is difference of opinion on whether it is fard upon us here in the west. this is a huge fiqhi matter which i am not prepared to get into on this forum.

No problem bro. However i would advise you to speak to a few differnet ulema aout this including some who claim it is fard in here in the west. That way you can get an unbiased view of all the evidences. (alhamdullillah i have spoken to ulems even YOU would go to and trust who have said "it does appear that it is fard ayn world wide")

>>>really, one person? are you sure?

read the qur'an, chapter 2 verse 195 WITH a shaykh.. and possibly study the tafsit if you can WITH a shaykh.. [and the hadith that go with it]

yes akhi the hadith i think it is, finsihes along the lines of "even if you are alone". if i find it soon i will post it. JazakAllah khair for the ayha, Inshalla i'll look into it.

>>>>a'lim al-ghayb!! would have? are you sure? how do you know?

so all the political analysts of Islam in the past, of all the caliphs, who had to make strategic moves based upon politcal analysis were alim ul gahybs??? Akhi you may think and assume america to be so noble and pious that they only attacked afghan for the terrorists there, and had they (the terrorists) noty been in afghan then america would not have attacked it, but most of us are better at poitical analysis and know the true nature of america, and realise how without any evidecn of OBL involvement went in to attck Afghan, and from this and other factors realised that the real intention of America was oil.

>>>please akhi - lets be serious here...

serious about what? you hoenstly belive ALL the mujahideen in paelstine, all the martyrdom operators are terrorsits????? You cactually belive this???? whatever happend to confirming news, and making 70 excuses for your brother, not to mention you only ave second (if not third or fourth) hand info on the actual reality there in palestine.

>>he was wrong. this is not open to ihtihad dear brother. Stick with the jama'a. He has clearly taken things out of context. i am confident of that. You read the sira, study the shama'il and sit with a wise man... then tell me if you believe that such an act would be permitted by our believed prophet (s) or the salaf.

i am currently looking into the fatwa from other ulema, so at the moment am in no place to comment. but he is a trustowrthy hanbali alim, and even if he is wrong there is one reward for him Inshallah.

>>>fair enough. sidi murabit would disagree with you though!

no he wouldnt, ask him, he quite clearly said in the other thread it is not allowe dbecasue of the innocents that died in it, however the aim (i.e injure, hurt america) is what he said was good, he disagreed with the method due to the innocents that were killed.

>>that is open for you to find out. search the internet. more importantly, find out who he studied with, and what they have to say. NON-ISSUE.


you asked about the qalifiactions of OBL and others, and murabit gave you an answer. Now please do likewise for me. May Allah reward you.

>>>ikhtilaaf is on certain matters only. there is no difference of opinion on the deliberate taking of innocent life, no matter how you want to twist, turn and misuse the primary texts..

i agree theres no difference on taking innocent lives, but if you read the topic again that was iktilaaf on martyrdom operations, it is a totally spearte topic to taking inncocent lives.

>>>no need to mention names, for fear of attack on their names, for which i would feel responsible in front of Allah. however, please trust me dear brother. In any case, suicide operations is a matter of difference of opinion, even though i believe it to be impermissible. that was not what i was talking about, nor was it my intention.


as you wish, but i would not attack them, i have learnt my lessons from the past, at the most i would say along the lines of "i do not take them for knowledge".

I agree with you, i would never be martyrdom operator but due to acceptable itikahaaf i will never Inshallah criticse the brothers/sisters that are martyrdom operators.

Do not worry about your intention, i do not doubt your sincerity at all, it is a fact sometimes we may not come across clearly over the net and so things need clarification.

MAy Allah guide us and have mercy on us

and Allah knows best.

Was salaam dear brother.

[AbuZayd]

Akhi GenN, are you saying you agree with the fatwa of U.B.L.?

[AbuZayd]

Mullah Omar: bin Laden - 'Null and void'


UPI Editor at Large
Published 12/10/2001 7:42 PM





KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Dec. 10 (UPI) -- Arnaud de Borchgrave interviewed the Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar Akhund on June 13, 2001, and this story was published the following day.

Any fatwa (Islamic holy decree) issued by Osama Bin Laden, America's most wanted alleged terrorist, declaring "jihad," or holy war, against the United States and ordering Muslims to kill Americans is "null and void," according to Taliban's supreme leader.

"Bin Laden is not entitled to issue fatwas as he did not complete the mandatory 12 years of Koranic studies to qualify for the position of mufti," said Mullah Mohammad Omar Akhund, known to every Afghan as amir-ul-mumineen (supreme leader of the faithful).

He also said the Islamic Emirate, as the Taliban regime calls itself, has "offered the United States and the United Nations to place international monitors to observe Osama pending the resolution of the case, but so far we have received no reply."

Omar, 41, is a soft-spoken man of very few words. He relies on Rahmatullah Hashimi, a 24-year-old multilingual "ambassador-at-large," rumored to be Afghanistan's next foreign minister, to translate and expand his short, staccato statements.

The one-eyed, 6-foot-6-inch, five-times wounded veteran of the war against the Soviet occupation in the 1980s was also the architect of Taliban's victory over the multiple warring factions that followed the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

Sitting cross-legged on the carpeted mud floor of his Spartan adobe house on the west end of town, Omar's shrapnel-scarred face, topped by a black turban, shows no emotion as he answers in quick succession a military field telephone, walkie-talkies and a sideband radio.

"We're still fighting a war," he says impatiently, referring to Ahmed Shah Masud's guerrilla forces that still hold 10 percent of Afghan territory in the northeastern part of the country.

United Press International was accompanied by UPI consultant Ammar Turabi, a Pakistani-born American who is the son of one of Pakistan's Founding Fathers, Allamah Rasheed Turabi, widely respected in Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan.

Omar made clear to UPI that the Taliban regime would like to "resolve or dissolve" the bin Laden issue. In return, he expects the United States to establish a dialogue to work out an acceptable solution that would lead to "an easing and then lifting of U.N. sanctions that are strangling and killing the people of the Emirate."

The two issues are linked, both in Washington and in Kandahar. Kabul is the official capital of Afghanistan, but Kandahar, a sprawling, dust-choked city of 750,000, is the country's religious capital where Omar and his 10-man ruling Shura (council) have their headquarters.

According to U.S. intelligence reports, bin Laden has issued instructions, which his followers have described as fatwas. But Omar said, "Only muftis can issue fatwas."

Bin Laden "is not a mufti and therefore any fatwas he may have issued are illegal and null and void."

Omar's aides remind visitors that pictures are not allowed under Islamic law. There are no portraits of Omar on the streets or inside stores and houses. Omar himself travels in a Land Rover with dark windows.

The Afghan supreme leader also said bin Laden is not allowed any contact with the media or foreign government representatives. Bin Laden himself has sworn fealty to Omar in a statement published locally last April:

"Amir-ul-Mumineen is the ruler and legitimate amir who is ruling by the shariah of Allah," bin Laden wrote.

Afghanistan, according to Omar, has suggested to the United States (via the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan) and to the United Nations that international "monitors" keep bin Laden under observation pending a resolution of the case, "but so far we have received no reply."

Hashimi, in flawless English, added, "We also notified the United States we were putting bin Laden on trial last September for his alleged crimes and requested that relevant evidence be presented. The court sat for 30 days without any evidence being presented against him. It then extended its hearing for another 10 days to give the U.S. side time to act. But nothing materialized. Bin Laden, for his part, swore on the Koran he had nothing to do with those terrorist bombings and that he is not responsible for what others do who claim to know him. If others acted in his name, that does not make him the culprit. Moreover, the Koran forbids the taking of the lives of women, children and old people in strife, conflict and war."

Omar said the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which the U.S. says bin Laden ordered, are "criminal acts and the perpetrators are criminals and should be so judged."

Hashimi explained that the U.S. case against bin Laden was "based on a plea bargain, a concept unknown under Islamic law. Justice is black and white. Plea bargains pervert the very essence of justice."

On Tuesday, a New York court sentenced one Saudi Arabian to life in prison in connection with the embassy bomb attacks: three more men -- a Tanzanian, a U.S. citizen and a Jordanian -- have also been found guilty and are awaiting sentencing. All claimed to have been acting on orders from bin Laden.

Bin Laden was America's creation at the beginning of his career "and that was 16 years before Taliban came to power," Omar reminded UPI.

After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan Dec. 27, 1979, bin Laden worked closely with Saudi, Pakistani and U.S. intelligence services to recruit mujahedin -- islamic warriors -- from many Muslim countries. They became known as Arab Afghans.

Encouraged by the CIA's psychological warfare specialists, the Koran and the Islamic banner became the sword and the shield against atheist communism. After the mujahedin forced a Soviet withdrawal following nine years of bitter fighting, the United States closed down an operation that cost (shared 50/50 with Saudi Arabia) about $1 billion a year. Afghanistan, by then a war-ravaged country of 22 million with no working infrastructure, was left in the lurch by the earlier Bush administration.

Bin Laden's career took a new turn after Iraq invaded Kuwait and President George Bush hammered together a 29-nation coalition that moved 700,000 military personnel to the Gulf region and defeated Saddam Hussein's army.

Afghan officials in Pakistan, speaking not for attribution, said bin Laden remains convinced to this day that the United States "deliberately entrapped Saddam into invading Kuwait in order to occupy the region permanently and guarantee cheap oil from its corrupt Saudi puppets."

U.S. intelligence believes that throughout the 1990s, bin Laden painstakingly developed a global terrorist network whose backbone is made up of embittered Arab-Afghan veterans.

In March, Pakistan's leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf told UPI that by demonizing bin Laden, the United States had turned him into a cult figure among Muslim masses and "a hero among Islamist extremists." Since then, the U.S. State Department has decided to play down the importance of bin Laden. Omar clearly wishes to do the same. But politically, he cannot afford to deport him lest he arouse the wrath of his fellow extremists and risk his own political demise.

His trusted No. 2, Mullah Rabbani Muhammad, who was his liaison with financial backers in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, died of cancer last month.

Omar in effect confirmed his dilemma when he said, "U.S. and U.N. threats and sanctions cannot force us to expel Sheikh Osama or to abandon our Islamic methodology. He is a Muslim immigrant to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and a guest of the Afghan people, and to expel him or extradite him is contrary to Islam and Afghan tradition. Moreover, if the Islamic Emirate and the Afghan people were to alter their stance regarding Sheikh Osama, many problems would result."

Omar also said that bin Laden is "a hero of the war against the Soviet occupation of our country. He does not operate against anyone from the soil of Afghanistan. We requested that of him. We have his verbal and written pledge that he will abide by it in order that the relations between the Islamic Emirate with other nations are not affected."

Unspoken, but confirmed by several non-official Afghan sources, bin Laden's fortune, once reported to be about $300 million (he originally inherited $80 million from his late father, a Saudi construction tycoon), has been dissipated in largesse to the Taliban.

For Hashemi, "the fact is that the issue of bin Laden is just a pretext that America and the United Nations make use of to harm Afghanistan, which they falsely accuse of being a terrorist nation. If that were not the case, they would have provided the evidence or corroboration for their allegations against Osama."

The last of three proposals put forward by Afghanistan is in line with a similar idea suggested by Musharraf in his March interview with UPI: a panel of three distinguished Islamic scholars -- one each from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and a neutral Muslim country agreeable to the United States -- would examine the evidence presented by U.S. authorities. The third country most frequently mentioned is the United Arab Emirates.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are the only three countries that recognize Afghanistan's present government.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE secretly fund the Taliban government by paying Pakistan for its logistical support to Afghanistan.

Despite Pakistan's official denials, Taliban is entirely dependent on Pakistani aid. This was verified on the ground by UPI. Everything from bottled water to oil, gasoline and aviation fuel, and from telephone equipment to military supplies, comes from Pakistan, along the Quetta-Kandahar and Peshawar-Jalalabad roads. Until last month, the Afghan phone exchange was a Pakistani area code. Afghanistan now has its own area code (93) but many continue to use the more reliable Pakistani connection.

Asked about the U.N. decision to pull its political staff out of Kabul because of the Taliban's interference with its activities, Hashemi is instructed to respond: "The U.N. wanted to recruit 600 Afghan women to conduct field surveys. That would have been more personnel than any of our government ministries. An NGO would have become a GO, a government within a government, and we said no."

The questions that are most often asked were fielded by Hashemi, a highly intelligent high school dropout who toured the United States for six weeks earlier this year "battling feminists," as he put it. Omar feels these questions have been answered repeatedly in recent months:

--On the lack of schools for girls: "We don't even have enough schools for boys. Everything was destroyed in 20 years of fighting. The sooner U.N. sanctions are lifted, the sooner we can finish building schools for both boys and girls."

--On the treatment of women: ""You forget that America and the rest of the world are centuries ahead of us. If you introduced your manners and mores suddenly in Afghanistan, society would implode and anarchy would ensue. We don't interfere with what we consider your decadent lifestyle, so please refrain from interfering with ours. Do you tell your Saudi allies to change the status of women and adopt your lifestyle?"

--On the destruction of TV sets: "Try to imagine what would have happened in 18th or even 19th century America or Europe with the overnight introduction of television and all the sex that is now part of programs everywhere except Iran. We are not against television, but against the filth that pollutes the airwaves. What reaches us from the former Soviet republics on our northern border, relayed from Moscow, is sex and more sex. The only acceptable programs are broadcast from Iran. But there is no way of filtering out the others. And if we had our own official channel, no one would tune in if the others were available. Remember how the Soviet Union tried to break down our resistance just before its troops invaded us in 1979? They broadcast tapes of women in mini-skirts that were not even allowed in their country at that time."

--On distinctive patches to be worn by non-Muslims: "Everything we decide is immediately castigated as worthy of history's bloodthirsty dictators. This decision was designed to protect Hindus who kept complaining to us that they were being harassed by the religious police for not going to the mosque at prayer time."

Hashemi's explanation was confirmed in man-in-the-street interviews conducted by UPI's Pashto-speaking Pakistani security guard who blended easily into crowds with his regulation-length beard (one fist below the chin).

--On the destruction of the 1,500-year-old giant statues of Buddha last March: "It was an act of defiance against all those nations who cared more about our statues than about our people whose suffering has been compounded by cruel and heartless U.N. sanctions. I was in America when our decision was announced and called home to ask our leadership to reconsider. But I can see

why I was overruled."

Omar is a crack marksman who is credited with a number of Soviet tank kills during the Afghan jihad. He was wounded five times and lost his right eye to an exploding Soviet artillery shell that left two other shrapnel wounds on his right cheek and forehead. He turned down a Pakistani offer of an artificial eye. Taliban members say he is proud of having offered "this sacrifice to Allah for the sake of Islam."

Omar resumed fighting after the Soviet pullout because he found the victorious mujahideen militia to be "corrupt and immoral."

The son of a poor farmer's family, he dropped out of a mosque school in the seventh grade in Jowzjan, a province that shares common borders with Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Like bin Laden, he is neither a mufti nor a mullah. Both titles are awarded to men who have completed 12 years of formal religious education in mosque seminaries.

Omar himself, his associates say, does not issue fatwas, only "farmans" that are rulings and orders. Full-fledged mullahs on his 10-man Shoora put fatwa suggestions forward and Omar has the final word. He was declared amir-ul-mumineen at a congregation of 1,500 mullahs in Kandahar in April 1996. They all pledged allegiance by kissing his hand.

Is Taliban popular? Hard to gauge. Their official members are an estimated 20 percent of the population. Kandahar's hustle and bustle has the almost identical appearance of any major town on the Pakistani side of the frontier provinces.

In Pakistan, the police carry sidearms. Not in Afghanistan.

Gen. Kamal Matinuddin, a Pakistani soldier diplomat and leading expert on Taliban, says in his recent book "The Taliban Phenomenon," the Taliban's sincerity, honesty and thorough devotion to their cause has been their main strength.

"Their ability to disarm the various militias and to maintain law and order, with a minimum of force, was their biggest achievement. Rough and ready justice, in accordance with Koranic injunctions, but mixed with Afghan traditions, and given out immediately without fear or favor, was appreciated by a people not accustomed to western laws. No talib (student) engaged in looting or forcible occupation of houses or doing anything for personal benefit, and this endeared them to the people."


Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International

[Abu Usama]

Salam Abu Zayd,

2 problems with your post

1 - Many ulema signed Bin Ladens fatwa, so even if he "wasnt qualified", those who ratified it were.
2 - We dont take our religious knowledge from the kuffar, especially in a time when they seek to destroy the mujahideen.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

this is getting tiresome, however for the sake of the Allah i would like to clarify some misunderstandings:

<<May Allah reward you. however the first article in the book was ridicoluous (i had another quick browse through it earlier and he gives 2 evidecnes from quran which he claims is what the mujahids use!!! what about all the tons of other evidences????). And he doesnt categorically sate we are 2 weak to fight, but implies this and states we should be looking for other ways rather than armed conflict>>

are you clear on what you are talking about here. Imam Zaid Shakir was mainly talking about OFFENSIVE jihad, not defensive. Therefore, the evidences are different and CANNOT be used for the same thing. However, there are principles in it which are valuable for all muslims to read.

<<No problem bro. However i would advise you to speak to a few differnet ulema aout this including some who claim it is fard in here in the west. That way you can get an unbiased view of all the evidences. (alhamdullillah i have spoken to ulems even YOU would go to and trust who have said "it does appear that it is fard ayn world wide")>>

i didn't deny that it was a valid opinion brother. You started this thread with a very bold question which i have endeavoured to answer, yet seem to be misunderstood and attacked for defending muslims.

<<yes akhi the hadith i think it is, finsihes along the lines of "even if you are alone". if i find it soon i will post it. JazakAllah khair for the ayha, Inshalla i'll look into it.>>

fine. post the hadith. And lets also hear what the scholars have said about it. I am patiently waiting for your response and views.

<<so all the political analysts of Islam in the past, of all the caliphs, who had to make strategic moves based upon politcal analysis were alim ul gahybs???>>

clearly, the political analysts of the past considered the benefit of their actions upon the muslims and the ummah as a whole, and the uplifting of the word of Allah. It is evident that actions of certain members of our ummah are lowering our deen to the gutter.

<<Akhi you may think and assume america to be so noble and pious that they only attacked afghan for the terrorists there, and had they (the terrorists) noty been in afghan then america would not have attacked it, but most of us are better at poitical analysis and know the true nature of america, and realise how without any evidecn of OBL involvement went in to attck Afghan, and from this and other factors realised that the real intention of America was oil>>

true. But it is a fact that his presence there has justified their attack. Just look at the response to Afghanistan, and that of Iraq. People were convinced that Afghanistan needed to be invaded, they were not so convinced about iraq. By the way, i don't believe the american government to be pious and noble. I do believe there are pious and noble citizens of America though.

<<serious about what? you hoenstly belive ALL the mujahideen in paelstine, all the martyrdom operators are terrorsits?????>>

this is what i mean by misunderstanding. Please do not make assumptions. I never said that. I said those who target innocent civilians are going against shari'a.

<<You cactually belive this????>>

i believe my last sentence above. Mujahideen who fight for the sake of Allah, and target combatants, from the Israeli military deserve praise and credit. They are the ones who are brave. One would only have to look into the factions of HAMAS to see the reality of what is going on there, and the diversity of views.

<<whatever happend to confirming news, and making 70 excuses for your brother, not to mention you only ave second (if not third or fourth) hand info on the actual reality there in palestine.>>

of course, we make excuses for them because they are being oppressed. However, if they go against islam clearly, then we must speak out. Also, I do not think you are in a position to assume what my knowledge is of the reality.

<<i am currently looking into the fatwa from other ulema, so at the moment am in no place to comment. but he is a trustowrthy hanbali alim, and even if he is wrong there is one reward for him Inshallah.>>

insha Allah. Speak to hanbali students of ilm brother. Try Shaykh Abu Ja'far at his website. This is a modern phenomenon. Nowhere in islamic history have such fatwa been released from the ahl al-sunna.

<<no he wouldnt, ask him, he quite clearly said in the other thread it is not allowe dbecasue of the innocents that died in it, however the aim (i.e injure, hurt america) is what he said was good, he disagreed with the method due to the innocents that were killed.>>

The aim was false, because it did not hurt "America" as you like to call it. Personification is the first error made by the extremists. Who is America? Is it the government or the people in the country, which includes a large population of muslims. W'Allahi, i have heard from scholars that to attack America is such a way is completely HARAM, because muslims live there, and it is their home. So who did it hurt? It hurt the families of the thousands of innocent people who were killed in them, not the real culprits who are behind America's imperialism.

i find it ridiculous that one agrees with the aim, but disagrees with the method and thus defends the act! In Jihad, the aim and method must be in conformity with Islam. Otherwise it is not jihad. Simple as that.

<<you asked about the qalifiactions of OBL and others, and murabit gave you an answer. Now please do likewise for me. May Allah reward you.>>

Unfortunately, i was not convinced by his response. I doubt very much anyone in this forum was either. If you see that as a satisfactory response, it makes things a lot clearer for me regarding your stance. For your benefit, i will give a proper response to the question:

1. "Imam Zaid Shakir is an American convert who lectured in political science at university level for 6 years before leaving his post to go and study the sacred knowledge. He is another great mujahid in the way of Allah, who sacrifices everything in working for the deen. He spent several years at the feet of some of the leading scholars of Damascus gaining knowledge of the various Islamic sciences, before returning to Conneticut where he is Imam of Masjid al-Islam."

2. "Imam Zaid Shakir

Imam Zaid Shakir was born in Berkeley, California in 1956, the second of seven children. Most of his formative years were spent in public housing projects where he was able to experience a rich childhood. Upon completion of high school, he completed one year of college. However, his higher education was temporally halted due to a tragic death in his immediate family. He subsequently entered the US Air Force in 1976, where he resumed his university education, and accepted Islam in 1977. Upon completing his military service, he enrolled at American University, Washington, DC, where he obtained a BA in International Relations with honors in 1983. In 1986 he obtained an MA in Political Science from Rutgers University. After spending a year in Cairo, he became a lecturer in Political Science at Southern Connecticut State University in New Haven, Connecticut, a position he held until 1994 when he bade farewell to academia and left for Syria to study Arabic and Islamic Sciences. Imam Zaid also studied the traditional sciences of Islam in Morocco. He served as the Imam of Masjid al-Islam in New Haven, Connecticut from 1988 until 1994. He has lectured extensively on Islam, Middle East Politics, and issues related to African Americans. He has written for numerous Islamic publications, and has appeared on national television for Lou Gosset, Jr.'s "The Story of a People."

<<i agree theres no difference on taking innocent lives, but if you read the topic again that was iktilaaf on martyrdom operations, it is a totally spearte topic to taking inncocent lives.>>

i was not talking about martrydom operations as such.

<<as you wish, but i would not attack them, i have learnt my lessons from the past, at the most i would say along the lines of "i do not take them for knowledge".>>

not you, but as clearly shown... brothers who have your 'persuasion' have attacked ulama, and had their posts censored or removed on this forum.

<<Do not worry about your intention, i do not doubt your sincerity at all, it is a fact sometimes we may not come across clearly over the net and so things need clarification.>>

indeed. the internet is a place of great danger. we should think before we type as well as speak.


<<Was salaam dear brother.>>

wa alaykum as salam wa rahmatullah

[AbuZayd]

Salam Abu Zayd,

2 problems with your post

1 - Many ulema signed Bin Ladens fatwa, so even if he "wasnt qualified", those who ratified it were.
2 - We dont take our religious knowledge from the kuffar, especially in a time when they seek to destroy the mujahideen.

Wa alaykum asalam,

1- Could you post their details and qualifications?

2- this particular interview which was done prior to 9/11 is from a Non Muslim source but as far as I know from Muslim and non Muslim sources Mullah Muhammad Umar was against any attacks on foreign soil and against the 9/11 attack. or have you got any other information to suggest otherwise?

Wasalam.

[GenN]

>>>>are you clear on what you are talking about here. Imam Zaid Shakir was mainly talking about OFFENSIVE jihad, not defensive. Therefore, the evidences are different and CANNOT be used for the same thing. However, there are principles in it which are valuable for all muslims to read.


your wrong, read his article, how can it be about offensive jihad, when he is talking about the ummahs state today? and then he says due to our militray backwardsness we should think of other alternatives instead of armed conflicts??? And he is wrong about jihad not being prepetual war, there are many hadith saying jihad will continue until day of judgement (a hadith some scholars have interperd day of judgment here tro be until madhi conquers world). But zaid shakir is trying to drag people away from jihad, and it appears he is quite successful with people like you who follow him blindly. i advise you brother, don't take knowledge from zaid shakir, refer to more authentic sunni ulema.


The Prophet (saw) said in a sahih hadith narrated by Ahmad and Tabarani: "I have been raised between the hands of the Hour with the sword, until Allah the Exalted is worshipped alone with no associates. He has provided sustenance from beneath the shadow of spears and has decreed humiliation and belittlement for those who oppose my order. And whoever resembles a people, he is of them." Allah the Exalted, in His wisdom, established the salvation of humanity by this rule of fighting,

>>>i didn't deny that it was a valid opinion brother. You started this thread with a very bold question which i have endeavoured to answer, yet seem to be misunderstood and attacked for defending muslims.


your trying to defend muslimes???? i only see you attacking muslims that have given their wealth and lives for Allah, but you seem to be quick at defending muslims living lifes of luxury in the west, muslims that the western goverments are quite pleased with!


>>>>

here you go bro. heres the ayah first


"Then fight (OMohammed s.a. w.) in the cause of Allah, you are not tasked (held responsible) except for yourself, and incite the believers (to fight along with you) it may be that Allah restrain the evil might of the disbelievers. And Allah is Stronger in might and Stronger in punishing." (Surah an Nisa:Verse 84)."

now before you get a dodgy interpretation of that i have also provided you with the tafsir of ibn kathir to prove that this measn go and fight even if you are alone.



""Allah commands His servant and Messenger, Muhammad , to himself fight in Jihad and not to be concerned about those who do not join Jihad. Hence Allah's statement,


[áÇó ÊõßóáøóÝõ ÅöáÇøó äóÝúÓóßó]


(you are not tasked (held responsible except for yourself,) Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Abu Ishaq said, "I asked Al-Bara bin `Azib about a man who meets a hundred enemies and still fights them, would he be one of those referred to in Allah's statement,


[æóáÇó ÊõáúÞõæÇú ÈöÃóíúÏöíßõãú Åöáóì ÇáÊøóåúáõßóÉö]


(And do not throw yourselves into destruction (by not spending your wealth in the cause of Allah)) He said, `Allah said to His Prophet,


[ÝóÞóÇÊöáú Ýöì ÓóÈöíáö Çááøóåö áÇó ÊõßóáøóÝõ ÅöáÇøó äóÝúÓóßó æóÍóÑøöÖö ÇáúãõÄúãöäöíäó]


(Then fight in the cause of Allah, you are not tasked (held responsible) except for yourself, and incite the believers (to fight along with you)).'' Imam Ahmad recorded Sulayman bin Dawud saying that Abu Bakr bin `Ayyash said that Abu Ishaq said, "I asked Al-Bara', `If a man attacks the lines of the idolators, would he be throwing himself to destruction' He said, `No because Allah has sent His Messenger and commanded him(Then fight in the cause of Allah, you are not tasked (held responsible) except for yourself,) That Ayah is about spending [in Allah's cause].''"

Also bro, please notice the hadith

As in a Hasan hadith reported by Ahmad and Abu Daud, Mohammed (saw) said: "Our Lord marvels at a man who attacks in the cause of Allah while his companions are beaten back and he knows what is upon him and he returns towards the fight until his blood is spilt and Allah the Almighty the Majestic says to His Angels: look at My slave he returned desiring that which is with Me and fearing that which is from Me until his blood was spilt."

>>>clearly, the political analysts of the past considered the benefit of their actions upon the muslims and the ummah as a whole, and the uplifting of the word of Allah. It is evident that actions of certain members of our ummah are lowering our deen to the gutter.

What are you going on about now? I said to you that America would have attacked afghan even if OBL was not, you criticsed me of being an alim ul gahib, and i said to you its just political analysis like the ummah has been doing, and out of nowhere you now start criticisng the mujhahideen in afghan for their poitical analysis, and you actaully belive the poitcal analysis of people like zaid shakir is anyweher in as good and authemtic as the actual leaders like Mullah Umar and the other mujhedeen in afghan!!!??


>>>>true. But it is a fact that his presence there has justified their attack. Just look at the response to Afghanistan, and that of Iraq. People were convinced that Afghanistan needed to be invaded, they were not so convinced about iraq. By the way, i don't believe the american government to be pious and noble. I do believe there are pious and noble citizens of America though.


are you actaully understanding anything here? how many times have i states if OBL was not there america would have attacked afghn with some other excuse, read a bit of political analysis, check out what actually is happening in the world out there. And why are you bringing american citizens into this, when you know full well by saying america i am referring to the leaders.

>>>this is what i mean by misunderstanding. Please do not make assumptions. I never said that. I said those who target innocent civilians are going against shari'a.

May Allah reward you for the clarification. I misunderstood.

>>>of course, we make excuses for them because they are being oppressed. However, if they go against islam clearly, then we must speak out. Also, I do not think you are in a position to assume what my knowledge is of the reality.

but thats what i'm saying, you have no primaryu evidcene of the full story, context and situaion there, so how can you say whetehr they are truly going against Islam or not? It may be portrayed by media in such a way that they are going agisnt Islam, when in fact they were not, and this is the excuse you have to make for them, until you can calrify things from primary sources, not secondary sources.

>>>insha Allah. Speak to hanbali students of ilm brother. Try Shaykh Abu Ja'far at his website. This is a modern phenomenon. Nowhere in islamic history have such fatwa been released from the ahl al-sunna.

maybe thats becaseu such means were not really that possible in the past, not even 50 years ago. However I don't necassarily agree with the fatwa but you can't deny its a fatwa from an authentic scholar so he will still get one reward Inshallah, if he is wrong.

>>>he aim was false, because it did not hurt "America" as you like to call it. Personification is the first error made by the extremists. Who is America? Is it the government or the people in the country, which includes a large population of muslims. W'Allahi, i have heard from scholars that to attack America is such a way is completely HARAM, because muslims live there, and it is their home. So who did it hurt? It hurt the families of the thousands of innocent people who were killed in them, not the real culprits who are behind America's imperialism.

i find it ridiculous that one agrees with the aim, but disagrees with the method and thus defends the act! In Jihad, the aim and method must be in conformity with Islam. Otherwise it is not jihad. Simple as that.

your not thiking straight. Aim is one thing and method is different, for example someone may aim to revise, and the method of this is revision may differ with some methods being more effective than others. In the same way the aim was to hurt the oppresive american statre and weaken it (are you saying this aim is wrong and you think amwerica should not be hurt or weakend?) but the method that was used i.e flying the planes in wtc and killing a number of inncoecnts, then this method is incorrect. You have to distinguish between aim and method. Please think about this brother.

>>>>Unfortunately, i was not convinced by his response. I doubt very much anyone in this forum was either. If you see that as a satisfactory response, it makes things a lot clearer for me regarding your stance. For your benefit, i will give a proper response to the question:

did i say it was satisfactory for me?? You assume waaay toooo much brother in a lot of your opinions, such as reading in between my lines, such as assuming mujhadeen target innocents, such as assuming people on purpose try to distort evidences and so on. If you stopped assuming so much and went on what was proven, a lot of your misunderstanding and incorrect opions would be cleared about the mujhaideen and jihad in the islamic lands.

>>>not you, but as clearly shown... brothers who have your 'persuasion' have attacked ulama, and had their posts censored or removed on this forum.

really, i didnt know some brtojers posts were removed.

And May Allah reward you for the short bio of Zaid shakir, but it doesnt give his qalifications or the teachers he studied under. what it does show however is that he was highly influenced by political though before he came to Islam, so in his political though it appears he may not be fully thinking from the islamic perspective, but instead allow some of his older views to interfere rather than from a complete islamic perspective. This can clearly be seen from a lot of his politcal articles, but as you tend to aree with him, you probably can't see this anyway.

MAy Allah have mercy on us and guide us.

Was salaam,.

[GenN]

Assalm alykum,

aby zayd where did you get the idea from that i agree with the fatwa og OBL?

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

<<your wrong, read his article, how can it be about offensive jihad, when he is talking about the ummahs state today? and then he says due to our militray backwardsness we should think of other alternatives instead of armed conflicts??? And he is wrong about jihad not being prepetual war,>>

in fact brother YOU are wrong. When he talks about jihad not being perpetual warfare, he is referring to OFFENSIVE jihad, that which is fard kifaya, obligatory on the community at least once a year in order to expand the borders of islam and spread its message. read it again.

<<there are many hadith saying jihad will continue until day of judgement (a hadith some scholars have interperd day of judgment here tro be until madhi conquers world). But zaid shakir is trying to drag people away from jihad, and it appears he is quite successful with people like you who follow him blindly. i advise you brother, don't take knowledge from zaid shakir, refer to more authentic sunni ulema.>>

you have misunderstood Imam Zaid, and you have accused me of blind following. And you have accused him of being 'inauthentic'. I don't recall Imam Zaid ever saying the muslims shoudn't defend themselves! Go and meet him yourself, ask him the questions instead slandering ulama and shuyukh!

<<your trying to defend muslimes???? i only see you attacking muslims that have given their wealth and lives for Allah, but you seem to be quick at defending muslims living lifes of luxury in the west, muslims that the western goverments are quite pleased with!>>

wrong again. I, like most muslims condemn those who deliberately target civilians. read my posts again.

<snip>

yes, no denying your quotes. However, read the tafsir of Imam al-Qurtubi, and read the work of scholars who have particularly written about throwing yourself into destruction. this is pointless unless you have the information.

<<What are you going on about now? I said to you that America would have attacked afghan even if OBL was not, you criticsed me of being an alim ul gahib, and i said to you its just political analysis like the ummah has been doing, and out of nowhere you now start criticisng the mujhahideen in afghan for their poitical analysis>>

which mujahideen?

<<and you actaully belive the poitcal analysis of people like zaid shakir is anyweher in as good and authemtic as the actual leaders like Mullah Umar and the other mujhedeen in afghan!!!??>>

assumptions again.

<<are you actaully understanding anything here? how many times have i states if OBL was not there america would have attacked afghn with some other excuse, read a bit of political analysis, check out what actually is happening in the world out there. And why are you bringing american citizens into this, when you know full well by saying america i am referring to the leaders.>>

so why are citizens and civilians constantly attacked. please don't get emotive brother..

<<but thats what i'm saying, you have no primaryu evidcene of the full story, context and situaion there, so how can you say whetehr they are truly going against Islam or not? It may be portrayed by media in such a way that they are going agisnt Islam, when in fact they were not, and this is the excuse you have to make for them, until you can calrify things from primary sources, not secondary sources.>>

so what if i tell you its true from the primary sources?

<<maybe thats becaseu such means were not really that possible in the past, not even 50 years ago.>>

not true. research a bit more brother.

<<your not thiking straight. Aim is one thing and method is different, for example someone may aim to revise, and the method of this is revision may differ with some methods being more effective than others. In the same way the aim was to hurt the oppresive american statre and weaken it (are you saying this aim is wrong and you think amwerica should not be hurt or weakend?) but the method that was used i.e flying the planes in wtc and killing a number of inncoecnts, then this method is incorrect. You have to distinguish between aim and method. Please think about this brother.>>

brother, don't state the obvious. In Jihad, the aim, the method and the reason must all be in conformation with islam. If not, it is a crime. its that simple.

<<did i say it was satisfactory for me??>>

by saying he has 'responded' it means you accept it as a response. i didn't. Forgive me if i assumed.

<<such as assuming mujhadeen target innocents, such as assuming people on purpose try to distort evidences and so on.>>

i have proof of the latter, and the first is clear - even from primary sources.

<<really, i didnt know some brtojers posts were removed.>>

brother murabit showed his true colours and defamed many a shaykh - this is not surprising i am sad to say.

<<And May Allah reward you for the short bio of Zaid shakir, but it doesnt give his qalifications or the teachers he studied under.>>

ok fine - i can tell you those - the point is, it is known and available. you make an issue about Imam Zaid, but not Osama bin Laden, and Zawahiri!

<<what it does show however is that he was highly influenced by political though before he came to Islam, so in his political though it appears he may not be fully thinking from the islamic perspective, but instead allow some of his older views to interfere rather than from a complete islamic perspective.>>

i agree in principle with what you are saying, but give examples...

by the same token, many of these jihad groups were influenced by arab nationalism and communism. one can say the same thing. In fact, not so long ago, islam and jihad groups were not the major resistance; they were in fact communist and marxist groups.

<<This can clearly be seen from a lot of his politcal articles, but as you tend to aree with him, you probably can't see this anyway.>>

no probably not, because i 'blindly' follow, just like i 'bllindly' follow a madhhab too.

salams brother.

PS. simply reflect on your initial question and look what is has brought on from brother murabit and yourself. Both of you have attacked scholars of islam; i attacked the methodology of certain groups, not individuals per se, nor did i ever mock the shuyukh even if i displayed my disagreement (which is not isolated).

[GenN]

Akhi shayky pir, your speaking against jihad and mujahids will get you no where. you can continue to follow your westernised form of Islam, it is your loss. The mujahdeen were indeed correct when they said "we are not in need of a westernised islam" call it "traditional" isalm as much as you like, the truth satnds clear from falsehood. To you your way, to me mine.

was salaam.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

misquote me as much as you wish. everyone knows what has been said here, by you, by murabit and by me.

as salamu alaykum

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

for the benefit of others in the forum, sidi abu qanit - a student of maliki fiqh, and in no exageration a shaykh, translator of 'murshid al-muin', a text on maliki fiqh wrote the following on laws of defence:

"This issue on the top level involves two issues:

a) The means of attack
b) The object of attack

In today's media, we often hear about suicide bombers (and we will not
delve into whether such acts are actually performed by Muslims or if in
many cases it is only made to "appear" that they are performed by Muslims
to defame Islam).

As for the means of attack, there are five basic possibilities:

a) Attack the enemy from where the enemy is not on equal footing with one and is less likely to harm one.

b) Attack the enemy from where the enemy is on equal footing with one and may well harm one

c) Attack the enemy from where it is most probable that the enemy will harm one

d) Attack the enemy from where it is almost certain that the enemy will harm/kill one

e) Attack the enemy using oneself as an "intelligent" bomb

It is provable that the Companions of the Prophet (May Allah bless him and give him peace) used methods (a), (b), (c), and (d). For example, Badr (on a
statistics scale) was of level (c). And Khandaq was at level (a) [since the Prophet had built a trench and signed treaties to make sure that the disbelievers were not on equal-footing in that battle]. Uhud was on level (b) as statistically speaking, both armies were well-equipped to fight and on near equal-footing.

We would label (a), (b), and (c) as generally permissible.

And we would label (d) as permissible in exceptional circumstances in which
the Muslims are far outnumbered or under-equipped. For example, in a battle
with the Persians (in which the enemy was throwing heated iron hooks from
aloft their fort], many Companions committed attacking maneuvers (e.g.,
climbed the fort walls) which almost certainly (statistically speaking)
would lead to death invoked by the enemy. This is all in conformity with
what Sidi Khalil has said and what most of the scholars of Jurisprudence
have said about this matter.

As for level (e), which is what a suicide bombing is, we have been unable to
find a reference in the stories of the early Muslims that justifies it.
And the difference between (d) and (e) is that the person who initiates the
death of the attacker is the enemy (in (d)) and is the attacker himself
(in (e)).

In (a), (b), (c), and (d) the enemy is the person who kills the attacker.
Whereas in (e), it is the attacker who kills himself. And that is a big difference.

To further clarify this, we will give two scenarios:

i) A Muslim attacker enters an enemy fort and opens fire until he is shot down. This is a level (d) attack.

ii) A Muslim attacker enters an enemy fort and detonates a bomb strapped to his body when in a strategic location. This is a level (e) attack.

We would not see (e) as being part of our traditional military training that
the Prophet (May Allah bless him and give him peace) left us with. Rather,
those who claim that (e) is permissible and is not the same as suicide must
provide their proofs and also demonstrate that such was the practice of the
Prophet (May Allah bless him and give him peace) and the early Muslims. If
they cannot demonstrate that the Prophet taught such and the early Muslims
performed such, then their form of attack is a bid`ah, untraceable to the
military training of the Prophet (May Allah bless him and give him peace).

Second section:
==============

As for the object of attack, it cannot be civilians (e.g., a bus, a public/commercial building, a plane, etc.) but must be a military target. This is regardless of the level of attack that is used (i.e. (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e)).

After reading the above, you can see how much confusion exists because people do not know how to distinguish between various categories when dealing with an issue of Jurisprudence."

..and these are not the words of someone who has studied islam in the west under 'secular' scholars who teach a 'western islam'. He was taught by scholars of the middle east, escpecially morocco.

i would like to add that before we get into a debate on suicide bombings - i can accept that there is difference of opinion on it but i have not been convinced by the opposing opinion.

in addition, with reference to situation (d) above, there are strict rules behind this, which i have referred to elsewhere. Imam al-Qurtubi mentions some in his tafsir and the ulama of the four madhhahib have also.

Allah knows best

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

and if anyone assumes that i deny defensive jihad, i will quote the following taken from Shaykh Azzam's book 'Defence of the Muslim Lands', specifically the hanafi opinion:

"Ibn Aabidin said : "Jihaad becomes Fard Ayn if the enemy attacks one of the borders of the Muslims, and it becomes Fard Ayn upon those close by. For those who are far away, it is Fard Kifaya, if their assistance is not required. If they are needed, perhaps because those nearby the attack cannot resist the enemy, or are indolent and do not fight jihaad, then it becomes Fard Ayn upon those behind them, like the obligation to pray and fast. There is no room for them to leave it. If they too are unable, then it becomes Fard Ayn upon those behind them, and so on in the same manner until the jihaad becomes Fard Ayn upon the whole Ummah of Islam from the East to the West"."

he says 'if they are needed, perhaps because those nearby cannot resist the enemy...."

which eventually means the obligation falls upon us here in the west. What i was trying to explain to the brothers in this thread that the alternate opinion is that every capable muslim must fight before the obligation falls on the those nearby - and if those nearby don't fight then we are not obliged until they do.

in addition, there are several other factors, such as the groups defending the lands, their methodology and capability and unity of the muslims. I for one cannot fight alongside inidividuals who wish to target civilians.

For instance, Shaykh AbdalQadir has mentioned that while some ulama from deoband defend suicide operations, it is something to ponder over why the sunni muslims of kashmir do not engage in this methodology.

Allah knows best

P.S. I will insha Allah post more about this in the near future.

[GenN]

as salamu alaykum

for the benefit of others in the forum, sidi abu qanit - a student of maliki fiqh, and in no exageration a shaykh, translator of 'murshid al-muin', a text on maliki fiqh wrote the following on laws of defence:

"This issue on the top level involves two issues:

a) The means of attack
b) The object of attack

In today's media, we often hear about suicide bombers (and we will not
delve into whether such acts are actually performed by Muslims or if in
many cases it is only made to "appear" that they are performed by Muslims
to defame Islam).

As for the means of attack, there are five basic possibilities:

a) Attack the enemy from where the enemy is not on equal footing with one and is less likely to harm one.

b) Attack the enemy from where the enemy is on equal footing with one and may well harm one

c) Attack the enemy from where it is most probable that the enemy will harm one

d) Attack the enemy from where it is almost certain that the enemy will harm/kill one

e) Attack the enemy using oneself as an "intelligent" bomb

It is provable that the Companions of the Prophet (May Allah bless him and give him peace) used methods (a), (b), (c), and (d). For example, Badr (on a
statistics scale) was of level (c). And Khandaq was at level (a) [since the Prophet had built a trench and signed treaties to make sure that the disbelievers were not on equal-footing in that battle]. Uhud was on level (b) as statistically speaking, both armies were well-equipped to fight and on near equal-footing.

We would label (a), (b), and (c) as generally permissible.

And we would label (d) as permissible in exceptional circumstances in which
the Muslims are far outnumbered or under-equipped. For example, in a battle
with the Persians (in which the enemy was throwing heated iron hooks from
aloft their fort], many Companions committed attacking maneuvers (e.g.,
climbed the fort walls) which almost certainly (statistically speaking)
would lead to death invoked by the enemy. This is all in conformity with
what Sidi Khalil has said and what most of the scholars of Jurisprudence
have said about this matter.

As for level (e), which is what a suicide bombing is, we have been unable to
find a reference in the stories of the early Muslims that justifies it.
And the difference between (d) and (e) is that the person who initiates the
death of the attacker is the enemy (in (d)) and is the attacker himself
(in (e)).

In (a), (b), (c), and (d) the enemy is the person who kills the attacker.
Whereas in (e), it is the attacker who kills himself. And that is a big difference.

To further clarify this, we will give two scenarios:

i) A Muslim attacker enters an enemy fort and opens fire until he is shot down. This is a level (d) attack.

ii) A Muslim attacker enters an enemy fort and detonates a bomb strapped to his body when in a strategic location. This is a level (e) attack.

We would not see (e) as being part of our traditional military training that
the Prophet (May Allah bless him and give him peace) left us with. Rather,
those who claim that (e) is permissible and is not the same as suicide must
provide their proofs and also demonstrate that such was the practice of the
Prophet (May Allah bless him and give him peace) and the early Muslims. If
they cannot demonstrate that the Prophet taught such and the early Muslims
performed such, then their form of attack is a bid`ah, untraceable to the
military training of the Prophet (May Allah bless him and give him peace).

Second section:
==============

As for the object of attack, it cannot be civilians (e.g., a bus, a public/commercial building, a plane, etc.) but must be a military target. This is regardless of the level of attack that is used (i.e. (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e)).

After reading the above, you can see how much confusion exists because people do not know how to distinguish between various categories when dealing with an issue of Jurisprudence."

..and these are not the words of someone who has studied islam in the west under 'secular' scholars who teach a 'western islam'. He was taught by scholars of the middle east, escpecially morocco.

i would like to add that before we get into a debate on suicide bombings - i can accept that there is difference of opinion on it but i have not been convinced by the opposing opinion.

in addition, with reference to situation (d) above, there are strict rules behind this, which i have referred to elsewhere. Imam al-Qurtubi mentions some in his tafsir and the ulama of the four madhhahib have also.

Allah knows best

MAy Allah reward you sahyks pir and grant you hight staion in jannah, this is the sort of articels i like to see. Indeed i do not find anything to disagree with in this article, and as for suicide bombings i have stated before i would never do it, but like you hold that their is a valad differnce of opion, and obvioulsy the reason i would never do it is cos i am not enitelry convinced of the evidences for it.


however i hope that this articel also goes to show that materialistic power is not a factor and that just becaseu you are materalistically weaker than the enemy doesnt mean that you don't fight and defend yourselves

was salaam.

[GenN]

as salamu alaykum


he says 'if they are needed, perhaps because those nearby cannot resist the enemy...."

which eventually means the obligation falls upon us here in the west. What i was trying to explain to the brothers in this thread that the alternate opinion is that every capable muslim must fight before the obligation falls on the those nearby - and if those nearby don't fight then we are not obliged until they do.

in addition, there are several other factors, such as the groups defending the lands, their methodology and capability and unity of the muslims. I for one cannot fight alongside inidividuals who wish to target civilians.

For instance, Shaykh AbdalQadir has mentioned that while some ulama from deoband defend suicide operations, it is something to ponder over why the sunni muslims of kashmir do not engage in this methodology.

Allah knows best

P.S. I will insha Allah post more about this in the near future.


Your statment >>>>alternate opinion is that every capable muslim must fight before the obligation falls on the those nearby - and if those nearby don't fight then we are not obliged until they do.

is wrong. this is also explained in defence of muslim lands and join the caraven, please read them. just becaseu all the muslims don't join in doesnt mean the obligation is just stopped until eveyone close joins in, no.

and your stament

>>>>in addition, there are several other factors, such as the groups defending the lands, their methodology and capability and unity of the muslims. I for one cannot fight alongside inidividuals who wish to target civilians.

this is also explained in defence of muslim lands and join the caravan, that you still go and fight even if the others are sinners and below acceptable levels of islmaic knowledge, as you are responsible for yourselve, not others.

these 2 points have never been any strong opion from classical scholars (instead the opposite appears to be the truth) as far as i am aware and are the excuses i am talking about people make when the times comes for fighting.


Was salaam.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

ok, regardless of the above opinions, which you don't accept; brother i advise you to go and fight jihad.

what is most surprising is that the people who talk about it all day don't go. The real mujahideen don't make this an issue. they go, they come back.

fine - you are calling for jihad. accepted. Now lets discuss what we can do here in the west.

your brother

'Abd al-Wakil

P.S. even if you believe that it fard upon us to go and fight, i will be posting some information this soon insha Allah

[GenN]

as salamu alaykum

ok, regardless of the above opinions, which you don't accept; brother i advise you to go and fight jihad.

what is most surprising is that the people who talk about it all day don't go. The real mujahideen don't make this an issue. they go, they come back.

fine - you are calling for jihad. accepted. Now lets discuss what we can do here in the west.

your brother

'Abd al-Wakil

P.S. even if you believe that it fard upon us to go and fight, i will be posting some information this soon insha Allah

how do you know i havent been and come back (temporarily or for some other reason)?

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

i didn't say you haven't. i was simply explaining my knowledge of brothers who go, and even recruit.

they quite clearly tell me certain groups and individuals out there talk about it all day - and for the most part they do it for media attention which obviously doesn't help.

[GenN]

And did they tell you the difference between the media attention grabbers like amj and abu hamza, and the jihad promters? They themselves were promtres.

[AbuZayd]

P.S. even if you believe that it fard upon us to go and fight, i will be posting some information this soon insha Allah


Look forward to what should be interesting reading :)


Akhi GenN could you perhaps a more detailed quote or a link to Mufti Shafi's work on the subject?








Should i Ask my mothers permission to go to jihad in AFGHANISTAN or PALESTINE?


Answer 6385 2002-10-01


At present, the Jihaad in Afghanistan and Palestine is Fardh-e-Kifaayah. If the local Muslims are engaged in Jihaad, the entire Ummah will be absolved.

A Sahaabi (Radhiallaahu Anhu) requested permission from Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) to participate in Jihaad. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) enquired from him if he had parents. The person said, ‘Yes’. Upon that, Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, ‘Go and make Jihaad in them (by assisting them).’

That was the Fardh-e-Kifaayah Jihaad.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

[GenN]

Look forward to what should be interesting reading :)


Akhi GenN could you perhaps a more detailed quote or a link to Mufti Shafi's work on the subject?



its a book bro, ican't upload a whole book but i think its published by the karachi publishers Darul Islaah.

[AbuZayd]

what is the name? is it available at albalagh?

[GenN]

the name is simply "jihad" it was written for one of the wars of pakistan against india, toinspire the muslims to jihad and gives some of its rulings and conditions. I have not come across it on the net anywhere. It is about as big as defence of muslim lands by Sheikh Abdullah azzam.

was salaam

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

i have a question for you brother GenN. you yourself have said that you do not believe in suicide bombings - correct?

secondly, it is clear that in Palestine there are salafi elements operating.

thirdly, it is clear that certain groups, HAMAS in particular are leading the jihad there.

fourthly it is clear that some muslims there consider ALL israeli citizens as legitimate targets.

my question to you is, in such an area where there is no organisation of the defence, and in effect there is guerilla warfare - how can a western muslim go to Palestine and fight? (i want to know what you have to say about this - because i have a vague but accurate knowledge of how things operate there)

in you answer, please include the following points:

1. aligning yourself with the Jihad groups

2. taking up arms

3. training

4. receiving orders from these groups.

jazak Allahu khair

'Abd al-Wakil

P.S. the sunni ulama are not quiet and pacifist; defensive jihad and its ahkam are well-known. if you think they are, then seek them and ask them before blanket saying 'they are quiet'. Yes they are quiet in that they don't rant and rave like Abu Hamza and completely ruin dawa efforts in this land - but none of them deny defensive jihad.

[GenN]

>>my question to you is, in such an area where there is no organisation of the defence, and in effect there is guerilla warfare - how can a western muslim go to Palestine and fight? (i want to know what you have to say about this - because i have a vague but accurate knowledge of how things operate there)

you can't get training in paelstine, there have hardly any wepaons, with tight security and from neghoubring countries aslo, hardly any wepaons get into paelstine for the mujhedeen. If you look at the whole history of palestine, it was always liberated from the outside, i do not recall anytime when it was liberated by palestinians themselves.

in you answer, please include the following points:

1. aligning yourself with the Jihad groups - as they have hardly any wepaons (very few and far between, you probably won't even see them)the only real weapon they have is martyrdom operations, so i can't join em as i follow the opion it is not permissable, so if i was to go there it would be to setup another jihad groups with difernt tactics, but as i do not know the language, culture etc it would be better to choose a different land of jihad.

2. taking up arms - as explained above

3. training - without weapons there is no real training, any real trainig would have to be elsewhere, but again for what if there are no wepaons there? differnt tactics have to be developed for palestine, ones that use even less wepaons, such as the martyrdom operations for those that belive they are permissbale.

4. receiving orders from these groups - as explained above.

>>>P.S. the sunni ulama are not quiet and pacifist; defensive jihad and its ahkam are well-known. if you think they are, then seek them and ask them before blanket saying 'they are quiet'. Yes they are quiet in that they don't rant and rave like Abu Hamza and completely ruin dawa efforts in this land - bu none of them deny defensive jihad.

hence for the western muslims paelstine is not the preferreed choice, there are other more suitable lands.

Perhaps, but there is a difference between the rantings of amj and abu hamza and promoting jihad. promoting jihad is what sheik Abdullah azzam did and what maulana masood azahr has done. I do not see such things from some western sunni ulema, hence i prefer to stick to eastern sunni ulema. you may say that our situation is differnt in the western world, but that is only if you have made the western world your home. It is not your home, you should not be thinking like that, you should be here temporarily for preferably dawa purposes but if your temporarily here for business or whatever then fine, but it is not your home, when you realise this is not your home and that you are here temporarily you will see where i am coming from inshAllah. If you ask where to make hijra to then make it to where islma is likely to reappear in strength from, and the fitnahs in those lands are there, but they are not as bad as the fithnas in the west. This is another great fallcay that some sunni uleam have pushed into the minds of the muslims, that the west is there home, and we have to adapt here as we we were to stay permananelt (adapting temporarily is differnet to adaptin here permanantrly).

And Allah knows best
Was salaam.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

May Allah reward you for your responses.

<<as they have hardly any wepaons (very few and far between, you probably won't even see them)>>

the first thing you have mentioned is something of material strength. I can't remember if you said this was an issue or not.

<<the only real weapon they have is martyrdom operations, so i can't join em as i follow the opion it is not permissable,>>

in other words, are you saying that as muslims - we cannot currently join the mujahideen in palestine?

<<so if i was to go there it would be to setup another jihad groups with difernt tactics>>

i thought you knew the reality there. In any case, what tactics would these be, under whose leadership, and from where would you derive support (material/spiritual/man-power)?

<<but as i do not know the language, culture etc it would be better to choose a different land of jihad.>>

is that a fiqhi justification?

<<hence for the western muslims paelstine is not the preferreed choice, there are other more suitable lands.>>

you have ruled out a whole islamic land and thus a fard al-ayn for reasons which are not based on shari'a according to your own arguments earlier. Please correct me if i am wrong.

<<Perhaps, but there is a difference between the rantings of amj and abu hamza and promoting jihad.>>

can you outline these differences with respect to jihad.

<<promoting jihad is what sheik Abdullah azzam did>>

i don't recall him coming to the west to 'promote jihad'.

<<I do not see such things from some western sunni ulema>>

why do you think they do not publicly speak about fighting US and UK forces abroad?

<<hence i prefer to stick to eastern sunni ulema>>

yes, you named a few.

<<you may say that our situation is differnt in the western world, but that is only if you have made the western world your home. It is not your home,>>

where is your home? where are the homes of millions of muslim reverts whose families live here?


<<you should not be thinking like that, you should be here temporarily for preferably dawa purposes but if your temporarily here for business or whatever then fine, but it is not your home, when you realise this is not your home and that you are here temporarily you will see where i am coming from inshAllah.>>

temporarily? so where is your 'permanent' home? please explain - i am finding this very difficult to understant.

<<If you ask where to make hijra to then make it to where islma is likely to reappear in strength from>>

where do you think that is?

<<and the fitnahs in those lands are there, but they are not as bad as the fithnas in the west.>>

same question

salams

[GenN]

Assalm alykum,


akhi i have now realised why you are not understanding me. its becaseu you are taking every line apart and reading it WITHOUT refernce to the rest of the paragrahp and everything else i say, so by taking every line seprately you are asking questions that need not be asked as they are answered in the following paragraphs and so forth. anyway i will answer some of yuour questions for further clarification.


>>>the first thing you have mentioned is something of material strength. I can't remember if you said this was an issue or not.

read what i wrote next, it answers the question i.e that they amke use of what they can i.e martyrdom operations, and no matter how weak it is they make use of the best of what they have and then rely on Allah.

>>in other words, are you saying that as muslims - we cannot currently join the mujahideen in palestine?

again read what i wrote next as it answersthis question also, i.e that we can by by creating a jihad group with differnet tactics (if you do not agree with martyrdom operations) or join the current ones if you do agree with martyrdom operations.

>>>i thought you knew the reality there. In any case, what tactics would these be, under whose leadership, and from where would you derive support (material/spiritual/man-power)?


read what i wrote next, that as i do not know culture language way of life etc, i am not able to answer that question, you need to ask the people therewho know the exact reality and so can decide best what tactics would be best. This reality of knowing EXACTLY the way things work so as to know what tactis are bet is differnet ot knowing the general reality of what is happening there.

>>>you have ruled out a whole islamic land and thus a fard al-ayn for reasons which are not based on shari'a according to your own arguments earlier. Please correct me if i am wrong.

brother you are not understanding at all. yes that is right jihad is fard ayn, NOT jihad IN palestine, so whetehr you fight jihad in kashmir, afghan iraq or palestine or anywhere else that jihad is fard ayn, the point is you have to fight jihad in ONE of the lands. How can you be at all the places at once? Brother so long as you fight in ONE of the palces which ever one that may be the fard is lifted off your back Inshallah. And of course where you decide to fight will depend on a number of factors like what is easily accessible to you, a place you will be more adpatable, a place you can get to more easily and so on.

>>>can you outline these differences with respect to jihad.

i answered it in the following lines brother, you really have got to learn to stop reading each line indvidually and relate differnt points.

>>>i don't recall him coming to the west to 'promote jihad'.


how could he when he was fighting himself. his message was sent to the west also alhamdullilllah.

>>>why do you think they do not publicly speak about fighting US and UK forces abroad?

worried about getting labelled "terrorists"? Worried about losing their citizenship? Worried about being extradited? Worried about geting arrested? Maybe some other reason, maybe they feel Islamically they are justified in being quiet (although i do not know how when these goverment massacre their brothers everyday) Allah knows best, but whatever happens to the person who promotes jihad, his reward will be with Allah Inshalla, and in his place will rise 10 more people INshallah.

>>>where is your home? where are the homes of millions of muslim reverts whose families live here?

and by hijra i don't mean get up and leave staright away, it mauy takes years, and usuualy will take years in preparation, however i was trying to imply that one should not have the mentality that the west is your permanaent home, either you will move to Khilafah when it is established, otr you will go to the islmaic lands to help restore it as soon as posibel, cos you certainly aint restoring it from here in the west, and the converts can also migrate once they are ready. As for whilst here you study be engaged in dawah, educating yourself in scieneces to help muslims, business to fund muslim organisations and so on. NOT for political reform, you aint getting ANY political reform from th people that are massacaring you day in day out.

>>>temporarily? so where is your 'permanent' home? please explain - i am finding this very difficult to understant.

permamnet home is in jannah Inshalla, but i know thats not what you mean. In this context permanent home will be either khilafha when it is re-established or until then those lands which were once muslims and today majority of the public are still muslim, and from where it is likely that the strength of the muslims will re-emerge. In these lands one can not only do dawa edcuate and so on but ALSO political revival is possible for muslims wheterh through jihad or other means in the muslim lands, which it is NOT possible from the west. Now all this is aside from the issue of Mahdi, you may think muslims wont revive politically untuil mahdi comes but taht does NOT mean you just sit back and wait and do not even try. no you try and do what sharia asks yot to and then Whatever Allah wills will happen.

>>>>where do you think that is?

answered above

So i hope this calrifies more of my SUNNI politcal views, and why i do not take the political views of the western sunni scholars. If you actaully belive you can achieve any sort of political revival of the ummah from the west then go ahead and continue trying. But i do not belive you will get anywhere,

and Allah knows best.

Was salaam.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

i am understanding full well what you are writing brother.

<<read what i wrote next, it answers the question i.e that they amke use of what they can i.e martyrdom operations, and no matter how weak it is they make use of the best of what they have and then rely on Allah.>>

but you don't agree with it. For the sake of discussion - if they rejected this method tomorrow on the same basis you and i do, the what? you mentioned the issue of weapons. i did too. is this not material strength?

<<again read what i wrote next as it answersthis question also, i.e that we can by by creating a jihad group with differnet tactics (if you do not agree with martyrdom operations) or join the current ones if you do agree with martyrdom operations.>>

fine i read that. Assuming we don't align ourselves with the method of suicide bombing, and until that 'alternate' group is established then, are you saying that jihad is suspended?

secondly, forget all the hypothetical reasoning and consider this. You said you don't agree with suicide bombing as a method. what can you do with respect to Palestine? Create another group? how can you do this? please explain? are you calling for this now, or is this scholarly advice? which amir would you fight behind?

<<read what i wrote next, that as i do not know culture language way of life etc, i am not able to answer that question, you need to ask the people therewho know the exact reality and so can decide best what tactics would be best. This reality of knowing EXACTLY the way things work so as to know what tactis are bet is differnet ot knowing the general reality of what is happening there.>>

you originally said:

"so if i was to go there it would be to setup another jihad groups with difernt tactics, but as i do not know the language, culture etc it would be better to choose a different land of jihad."

so effectively you are saying because of the language barrier, the methodology and the culture, one chooses another land to fight jihad? and this is criteria for muslims in the west is it?

does that mean we only go to places where we speak the same language?

what if none of the lands of jihad consist of acceptable methodologies, languages you don't understand and cultures you don't know about?

<<brother you are not understanding at all. yes that is right jihad is fard ayn, NOT jihad IN palestine, so whetehr you fight jihad in kashmir, afghan iraq or palestine or anywhere else that jihad is fard ayn, the point is you have to fight jihad in ONE of the lands.>>

but you said it is better to fight in another land. What is the basis for this preference? Is it a shari'i based judgement or is it a personal judgement?

what if the situation in kashmir, afghanistan and iraq resembled palestine? Where would it be 'better to fight' then?

<<How can you be at all the places at once?>>

i never said that. Based on your reasoning, we neglect palestine and fight in Afghanistan for example. If the same circumstances were present there, we would 'choose' another land. And so on.... eventually you would neglect the fard would you not?

putting the 'what ifs' aside, you are basically saying that until a legitimate jihad is under way in palestine, then we do not fight?

<<And of course where you decide to fight will depend on a number of factors like what is easily accessible to you, a place you will be more adpatable, a place you can get to more easily and so on.>>

are these shari'i reasons?

with respect to 'promoting jihad' - how do you think the 'pacifists' should 'promote' jihad in your opinion?


<<worried about getting labelled "terrorists"? Worried about losing their citizenship? Worried about being extradited? Worried about geting arrested?>>

in response to the above, i ask you why you have a problem with Abu Hamza and ALM, who 'promote' jihad?

secondly i believe it is far wiser in this climate to discuss these matters (to do with qitaal and individual aspirations) in a private manner. If not, it invites further attack on islam which is of no benefit to the muslims here, in fact it makes it worse. So this is wisdom - not fear of being locked up. The scholars can do a lot more for islam, for the muslims and for dawa free, not behind bars.

what does it do for dawa when a muslim publicly invites other muslims to fight the uk abroad? rather why not invite people to islam, and through islam they will understand the aggression of the west.

<<Maybe some other reason, maybe they feel Islamically they are justified in being quiet (although i do not know how when these goverment massacre their brothers everyday) Allah knows best, but whatever happens to the person who promotes jihad, his reward will be with Allah Inshalla, and in his place will rise 10 more people INshallah.>>

again, just because they are publically quiet does not mean they deny the fard. And it certainly does not mean that they do not support the jihad.

the prophet (s) said "The best form of Jihad is a word of truth before an unjust ruler" - and i believe all of them speak of the injustices of the west.

<<and by hijra i don't mean get up and leave staright away, it mauy takes years, and usuualy will take years in preparation, however i was trying to imply that one should not have the mentality that the west is your permanaent home, either you will move to Khilafah when it is established>>

until then it is my home. What if khilafah is established here?

<<otr you will go to the islmaic lands to help restore it as soon as posibel, cos you certainly aint restoring it from here in the west, and the converts can also migrate once they are ready.>>

is that 'certain'? Allah has power over all things - and many an empire has fallen, and many an imperialist force has become muslim. this is the same defeatist attitude you were accusing some ulama of.

<<As for whilst here you study be engaged in dawah, educating yourself in scieneces to help muslims, business to fund muslim organisations and so on. NOT for political reform, you aint getting ANY political reform from th people that are massacaring you day in day out.>>

this is another topic which we are not discussing here, and that is political participation. The latter does not only involve changing the foreign policy of a nation, but also the safety and protection of muslims in this land.

<<permamnet home is in jannah Inshalla, but i know thats not what you mean. In this context permanent home will be either khilafha when it is re-established or until then those lands which were once muslims and today majority of the public are still muslim, and from where it is likely that the strength of the muslims will re-emerge.>>

this is still my home now. And we have to treat it as such until then.

<<So i hope this calrifies more of my SUNNI politcal views, and why i do not take the political views of the western sunni scholars. If you actaully belive you can achieve any sort of political revival of the ummah from the west then go ahead and continue trying. But i do not belive you will get anywhere,>>

fine... but this is a defeatist attitude. Anything is possible by the Power of Allah.

Allahu a'lam

[Ahmed]

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19121

http://themajlis.net/

[Ahmed]

Proclaim The Haqq

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commanded:

"Do not allow the fear of people to prevent you from proclaiming the Haqq (the truth of Allah's Deen)."

This command in particular is directed to the Ulama who are supposed to be the Guardians of the Shariah.

While there are many Ulama-e-Haqq, most have chosen silence in the face of baatil (falsehood).

This silence is misconstrued and it misleads the Muslim masses. When the Ulama take refuge in silence in the face of baatil, ordinary Muslims believe that the baatil is correct. By their silence, the Ulama become unintentional aids for the mission of falsehood.

CRITICISM

In these times the Ulama are not called o*n to make sacrifices of life in the way in which the former Muslims had to offer.

In our time the persecution islain confined to verbal criticism and villification. For the sake of Allah's Deen, Imaan and Islam, to be the victim of such villification emanating from the enemies of the Deen and from the people of baatil, is not a great sacrifice.

Haraam, bid'ah, fisq and fujoor are openly displayed and propagated. The moral code of Islam is being eliminated. Aqaaid are distorted. In the hues of the Deen, learned people s22 are leading unwary and ignorant masses along the path of Jahannum.



PUNISHMENT

If the Ulama-e-Haqq will not abandon their attitude of apathy and speak up for the Pleasure of Allah Ta'ala, the Athaab of Allah Ta'ala will take its course and engulf the Ulama and the Buzroogs as well. Stating this fact, the Qur'aan Majeed says:

"Beware of a calamity (fitnah -Allah's athaab) which will not befall o*nly the transgressors among you."

This calamity will destroy all - the masses and the Ulama - the transgressors and the pious. All will be ruined and eliminated. The Shar'i principle underlying the destruction of all (transgressors and the pious), is that whoever condones with his presence or silence sin and transgression, is regarded to be present in the arena of the evil and a participant.


We should reflect o*n the calamities which have settled o*n other sections of the Ummah and take lesson before it is too late for regret and reformation.

ALLAH'S FRIENDSHIP

Hadhrat Ma'roof Karkhi (rahmatullah alayh) said:

"The sign that Allah Ta'ala has befriended a man is that He involves him in activities which are beneficial for him (in this world and the Hereafter), and He saves him from things which are futile and harmful."


http://www.themajlis.net/Sections-article16-p1.html