Terrorism: Its meaning and Reality

[Azzam]

as salamu alaykum

"To say bin Laden is an agent is a form of suspicision which is shunned in Islam."

are you saying he never received support from the CIA in the 80s? it is fact that even Shaykh Abdullah Azzam was welcomed by the US at that time, and in my opinion they used him to recruit in America... this is well documented. (by Americans)

"The timing of the video has nothing to do with anything. Near the election is a good time to be heard anyway. I do not see how it helps Bush."

that is naive bro. if you at Bush's presidential election campaign, he has basically relied upon the fear factor to gain momentum and support. psychologist have analysed his various speeches all around the country, and its very clever how he wins over the crowd. time and time again, he refers back to 9/11, changes his tone of voice... and eventually receives huge support for completely unrelated actions in Iraq. then a timley video appears from Bin Laden just in time to tip the balance in an otherwise neck-and-neck campaign. i do not know what is going on with Bin Laden, but whatever he does, it certainly works well for American interests.

<<About bin Laden claiming things, then in Jihad you are allowed to use deception and lie to the opposition.>>

and what about deceiving the Muslims? has he forgot that muslims the world over tales his words literally? or what about the Muslims that live in these lands, that he no long ago urged to 'stack food up' and 'stay out of populated areas' or 'make hijra'? are we now legitimate targets because we live here and pay taxes to a government that butchers Muslims in Iraq? Bin Laden is not leader. nor does he represent the Muslims. A recent massive conference in Abu Dhabi frequented by some of the most influential islamic scholars and leaders from the globe, made that quite clear.

<<Honestly, tell me even if bin Laden said I did not do it then who would believe him. What about you would you believe him? Even if a killer admits to a crime, he still goes through due process where the law is against him. Then after he is tried he is blameworthy. Not when he claims something.>>

if he sincerely come to the media and said that he did not commit the acts, then as Muslims, it is our duty to believe him unless proof showed otherwise. lets not forget his messages reach Muslims, not only non-Muslims.

<<Once againt this thread had to do with the definition of terrorism according to hamoud uqlaa, not with the intentions of bin laden>>

his article had flaws... and some good points.

regarding Abdullah Azzam, he was a well-respected scholar from Azhar; he was very different from Zawahiri who was a student of Qutb... and it was Zawahiri who eventually made the alliance with bin Laden. Their adoption of the opinion that Muslims could be murdered in Muslim countries was scathinhgly rejected by Azzam..... read your history..

As I said before, this topic about WTC and who did what is played out. I can answer your remarks, but I will forget it because its a waste of time. We dont document anything from the CIA and other garbage people like that. They Kuffar and thats it.

Abdullah Azzam studied in Syria and Al Azhar. He taught in Saudi.

If you think Abdullah Azzam is different than Zawahiri because Zawahiri learned from Syed Qutb than this is wrong. Abdullah Azzam mentioned in his memoirs that in terms of many thing Syed Qutb had more impact on him and changed him more than anyone else, and in spiritual matters, Abdullah Azzam said he looked to Ibn Qayyim Al Jawziyyah the most. So Syed Qutb was very influential in the life of Abdullah Azzam.

Muslims being murdered is not the correct term. Rather this is a fiqhi debate with difference of opinion as to what to do if you need to do when you need to attack and the enemy and Muslims are present. If you mean Muslims as in Muslim Rulers, once again this is a different situation with differences in opinion. Please be clear when you say murder Muslims collectively or specifically or situationally.

No one needs to admit they did not do it or did it. You play the war game as you see fit. People who sit at the side lines really should not be voicing their opinion from what they perceive to be happening. In reality what is required is support atleast in dua for the Mujahideen.

I know much about Abdullah Azzam you can fill me in on what I dont know since you seem to know.

[faqir]

salam alaykum bro Azzam,

You never seem to answer the questions being asked.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

<<If you think Abdullah Azzam is different than Zawahiri because Zawahiri learned from Syed Qutb than this is wrong. Abdullah Azzam mentioned in his memoirs that in terms of many thing Syed Qutb had more impact on him and changed him more than anyone else, and in spiritual matters, Abdullah Azzam said he looked to Ibn Qayyim Al Jawziyyah the most. So Syed Qutb was very influential in the life of Abdullah Azzam.>>

thats not the same thing. Qutb's ideas no doubt influenced most arabs during his time and the time that followed. but even Qutb's ideas turned extreme. which is why you witnessed the massacre of civilians in Algeria after the fall-out of the afghan jihad, carried out by ex-muhajidin, who didn't realise that they were being urged on by the ruling powers.

<<Muslims being murdered is not the correct term. Rather this is a fiqhi debate with difference of opinion as to what to do if you need to do when you need to attack and the enemy and Muslims are present.>>

lol. so my block of flats counts as the 'enemy' because it houses non-cambatant non-muslims in the majority, and myself and my Muslim neighbours are also targeted, but somehow we become 'collateral'. this is utter nonsense. what you are implying is that the attack of 9/11 were permissible under Shari'a, which again is nonsense. this sort of attack which is 'fiqhi debate' according to you, has no basis in any of the texts of fiqh of the four madhhahib. i will remind what Imam al-Mawardi says in his Ahkam:

“It is not permitted to kill women and children in battle, nor elsewhere, as long as they are not fighting because of the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah (saas)…. If women and children fight, then they are fought and killed, but only face-to-face, not from behind while fleeing. If they use their women and children as shields in battle, then one must avoid killing them and aim only at killing the men; if however, it is impossible to kill them except by killing the women and children, then it is permitted."

this is not a suggestion that 9/11 is permissble, because it is not a legitmiate target - even in fiqh. he continues:

"If they are shielding themselves with Muslim captives, and it is not possible to kill them except by killing these captives, it is not permitted to kill them…. If one is killed, then the killer must pay blood-money and make expiation if he knew that he was a Muslim; he becomes liable for the expiation alone of he did not know.”

subhanallah!!!! take heed dear brother!

"If you mean Muslims as in Muslim Rulers, once again this is a different situation with differences in opinion. Please be clear when you say murder Muslims collectively or specifically or situationally."

algeria is my example. as are random attacks of carnage on innocent people such as the Jews in an Egyptian resort recently. No matter how sick it makes us feel that Jews go on holiday in Egypt... i will remind you what ibn Taymiyya said "it is not permissible to kill a jew simply because he is a Jew".

<<No one needs to admit they did not do it or did it. You play the war game as you see fit. People who sit at the side lines really should not be voicing their opinion from what they perceive to be happening. In reality what is required is support atleast in dua for the Mujahideen.>>

my du'a and support are for the people of Iraq who fight with nobility, and the people of Palestine who have been suffering for 60 years nearly. it is not with armed vigilante's who blow themselves up and kill innocent Muslims and non-Muslims around them, take non-combatants hostage and behead them.

<<I know much about Abdullah Azzam you can fill me in on what I dont know since you seem to know.>>

from his books or personally?

['Abd al-Mustafa]

Allah grant all the hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children and old people martyred in Algeria forgiveness of their sins and a place in Jannah

Ameen

[Azzam]

as salamu alaykum

<<If you think Abdullah Azzam is different than Zawahiri because Zawahiri learned from Syed Qutb than this is wrong. Abdullah Azzam mentioned in his memoirs that in terms of many thing Syed Qutb had more impact on him and changed him more than anyone else, and in spiritual matters, Abdullah Azzam said he looked to Ibn Qayyim Al Jawziyyah the most. So Syed Qutb was very influential in the life of Abdullah Azzam.>>

thats not the same thing. Qutb's ideas no doubt influenced most arabs during his time and the time that followed. but even Qutb's ideas turned extreme. which is why you witnessed the massacre of civilians in Algeria after the fall-out of the afghan jihad, carried out by ex-muhajidin, who didn't realise that they were being urged on by the ruling powers.

<<Muslims being murdered is not the correct term. Rather this is a fiqhi debate with difference of opinion as to what to do if you need to do when you need to attack and the enemy and Muslims are present.>>

lol. so my block of flats counts as the 'enemy' because it houses non-cambatant non-muslims in the majority, and myself and my Muslim neighbours are also targeted, but somehow we become 'collateral'. this is utter nonsense. what you are implying is that the attack of 9/11 were permissible under Shari'a, which again is nonsense. this sort of attack which is 'fiqhi debate' according to you, has no basis in any of the texts of fiqh of the four madhhahib. i will remind what Imam al-Mawardi says in his Ahkam:

“It is not permitted to kill women and children in battle, nor elsewhere, as long as they are not fighting because of the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah (saas)…. If women and children fight, then they are fought and killed, but only face-to-face, not from behind while fleeing. If they use their women and children as shields in battle, then one must avoid killing them and aim only at killing the men; if however, it is impossible to kill them except by killing the women and children, then it is permitted."

this is not a suggestion that 9/11 is permissble, because it is not a legitmiate target - even in fiqh. he continues:

"If they are shielding themselves with Muslim captives, and it is not possible to kill them except by killing these captives, it is not permitted to kill them…. If one is killed, then the killer must pay blood-money and make expiation if he knew that he was a Muslim; he becomes liable for the expiation alone of he did not know.”

subhanallah!!!! take heed dear brother!

"If you mean Muslims as in Muslim Rulers, once again this is a different situation with differences in opinion. Please be clear when you say murder Muslims collectively or specifically or situationally."

algeria is my example. as are random attacks of carnage on innocent people such as the Jews in an Egyptian resort recently. No matter how sick it makes us feel that Jews go on holiday in Egypt... i will remind you what ibn Taymiyya said "it is not permissible to kill a jew simply because he is a Jew".

<<No one needs to admit they did not do it or did it. You play the war game as you see fit. People who sit at the side lines really should not be voicing their opinion from what they perceive to be happening. In reality what is required is support atleast in dua for the Mujahideen.>>

my du'a and support are for the people of Iraq who fight with nobility, and the people of Palestine who have been suffering for 60 years nearly. it is not with armed vigilante's who blow themselves up and kill innocent Muslims and non-Muslims around them, take non-combatants hostage and behead them.

<<I know much about Abdullah Azzam you can fill me in on what I dont know since you seem to know.>>

from his books or personally?

You have heavily relied on western sources about episodes in Algeria and so on. I am not going to get into circular arguments going nowhere with what you are saying. If you think I cannot answer your arguments, I can but choose not to because its a waste of time.

[Azzam]

salam alaykum bro Azzam,

You never seem to answer the questions being asked.

I try my best to answer them. Some of them I will not for various reasons.

In principle you brothers are looking at things in a different way than I. Therefore I look at the outcome of this argument and honestly, from my experiences it goes no where and is a waste of time. anything to me that is a waste of time I leave, basically thats it.

When I talk to Brother GenX its different because we agree on some things in principle, without this understanding it is impossible to discuss.

For instance, when people quote western sources, I do not use such sources in most cases anyway. At the same time I am given a hint to someone's personal beliefs the moment they start using emotionally charged language like "people who blow themselves up" and so on as well as other examples. Such emotional language presents an idea of what is on the opposing side. you cannot argue with emotionally charged people. The least out of this is that someone feels strongly about a particular issue and once again you cannot argue in this circumstance. Besides its completely inappropriate in Islamic ideology to argue for the sake of arguing.

Therefore it becomes an argument for the sake of arguing and loses its essence. In other words no conclusion will be reached.

If you think this is a sign of the white flag, then go ahead. I really dont care.

When I see that I know this argument is not for me because right in the beginning there are key differences. In order to have a good argument, there has to be a common point for referral, which if absent honestly is a waste of time.

I also do not sense that any questions were directed to gain some knowledge rather trying to lead me on to something. I dont want to get into these issues for the reasons mentioned above as well as others, such as board policies and so on. Besides that whatever I am going to say you wont understand. At this point questions will not be answered.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

dear brother... i must correct you, and the ever increasing number of Muslims who can see no wrong regarding the actions of extremists who act in the name of Islam.

<<You have heavily relied on western sources about episodes in Algeria and so on. I am not going to get into circular arguments going nowhere with what you are saying. If you think I cannot answer your arguments, I can but choose not to because its a waste of time.>>

don't answer me. answer the fuqaha. secondly, you are mistaken and assuming that my sources are western - this is what all the pro-bin laden's say... it is false. its the same with the Beslan incident... suddenly a school turned out to be a military hide-out???!!!! C'mon... Islam has been hijacked.. the prophet (s) and his companions would never committ such atrocites - think about it.


<<For instance, when people quote western sources, I do not use such sources in most cases anyway. At the same time I am given a hint to someone's personal beliefs the moment they start using emotionally charged language like "people who blow themselves up" and so on as well as other examples. Such emotional language presents an idea of what is on the opposing side. you cannot argue with emotionally charged people.>>

you cannot really judhe emotion from what is written. i was describing an act that has been increasingly carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam, Jihad and Martyrdom, an act which was unknown before the 1980s amongst Muslims, and is therefore a bid'a in warfare.

the prophet (s) warned against asabiyya (tribalism) i.e. my tribe - wrong or right. i understand your saying that we don't know what is happening in reality because we are in the west. but unfortunately brother, the reality is young muslims hear the misguided words of extremists day in and day out, and as such they start talking about that 'magnifincent day' (9/11) - rejoicing at acts such as the Bali bombing, and Madrid.. i know myself that the words of individuals such as Zawahiri and bin Laden have led people to justify the most heinous crimes, and justifying it in the name of Islam. these are people who would happily walk into central london and comdemn themselves to the Hellfire by 'blowing themselves up' (unemotional). i have seen and met far too many brothers like this. this is why we must stand up against this onslaught against islam from not only the west, but from vigilante groups.

the ulama in the greatest numbers have condemned acts such as 9/11, and the beheadings in Iraq. they are not pro-westerm just because they say that. they are pro-Islam...

[Azzam]

Ok...I really dont want to get into this. As I said earlier, if you have credible shuyukh then follow them. Secondly, I do not believe I said anything regarding the WTC incident really that would support something like that.

you cannot really judhe emotion from what is written. i was describing an act that has been increasingly carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam, Jihad and Martyrdom, an act which was unknown before the 1980s amongst Muslims, and is therefore a bid'a in warfare.

What are you referring to here. Warfare is a worldly term. There are principle rules in warfare which cannot change in general situations, but when situations are different than that warrants a different course of action.

There are many other bidaat in warfare, but we dont care about this because we are not speaking in terms of the deen but its a worldly means to a religious goal. So bida in such situations is not only allowed but recommended to keep in pace with the worldly situations.

Abdullah Azzam addressed this issue when he refuted those who still wished to fight with swords. Whereas people shy away from the reality of warfare.

You must distinguish between false asaabiyah such as nationalism and al wala and bara. They are really different, if you mix it up, it is very problematic.

Muslims are people of Tawheed. The earth loves them and has bias for them just for this reason. There is also the reality of accepting good deeds of Muslims and erasing their sins whereas Allah cancels the good deeds of Kuffar and takes them to account for there bad deeds. Therefore there is bias, and love for Muslims only because of the kalimah. The same thing in principle is that if a Muslim says one things Muslims should take his opinion over any kafir any day and Muslims are told in suratul hujurat to verify the news of the faasiqoon and the kuffar. All because of one statement.

Even from the hadith that if Allah cared about the dunya or given some high value to it, He would not even give water the size of a mosquito's wing to the Kuffar, only for one statement, which is the Kalima.

As a Muslim you must have this zeal and passion for the sake of Allah and love for those that atleast in the most minute sense do not ascribe partners to Him, may he be glorified. This is not the false tribalism that is something of love along the lines of language or race etc...Rather this is about the reality of the kalima.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

<<What are you referring to here. Warfare is a worldly term. There are principle rules in warfare which cannot change in general situations, but when situations are different than that warrants a different course of action.

There are many other bidaat in warfare, but we dont care about this because we are not speaking in terms of the deen but its a worldly means to a religious goal. So bida in such situations is not only allowed but recommended to keep in pace with the worldly situations.>>

so what you are in implying that Muslims can use 'any means necessary' to achieve a religious goal - and therefore break all the rules of engagement, and al the prohobitions regarding jihad, and self-sacrifice?

<<You must distinguish between false asaabiyah such as nationalism and al wala and bara. They are really different, if you mix it up, it is very problematic.>>

nationalism is but one example of asabiyya - possibly a modern asabiyya as opposed to the tribalism of the past and the jahili period. now the asabiyya is adherence to extremist groups who cross all bounds of shari'a to achieve worldy goals which have no benefit for Islam or the Muslims at large, thats enough alone to make the actions haram in shari'a.

<<Muslims are people of Tawheed. The earth loves them and has bias for them just for this reason. There is also the reality of accepting good deeds of Muslims and erasing their sins whereas Allah cancels the good deeds of Kuffar and takes them to account for there bad deeds.>>

indeed, but the kuffar have not been presented a true image image of Islam. Rather it is distorted. Imam al-Ghazali said that such non-Muslims may not be accountable.

<<Therefore there is bias, and love for Muslims only because of the kalimah. The same thing in principle is that if a Muslim says one things Muslims should take his opinion over any kafir any day and Muslims are told in suratul hujurat to verify the news of the faasiqoon and the kuffar. All because of one statement.>>

so why is it that the prophet (s) gave justice the Jew, and not the Muslim?

Why is that probably the most powerful and strong companion, during his khilafah, punished a Muslim for injustice to a Christian dhimmi...? yes, we must verify. so do u believe that bin laden is responsible for 9/11? or what about Madrid? do u believe he supports such actions? what exactly do you thinkk he is involved with - and what are his aims and goals, if it is not to kill american civilians and soldiers anywhere?

<<As a Muslim you must have this zeal and passion for the sake of Allah and love for those that atleast in the most minute sense do not ascribe partners to Him, may he be glorified. This is not the false tribalism that is something of love along the lines of language or race etc...Rather this is about the reality of the kalima.>>

we love the Muslims for the shahadah, and we hate the kufffar because of there kufr, not hate for them as a creation of Allah.

secondly, the Qur'an clearly states that Muslims stand for the truth and justice. we do not support the wrong actions of Muslims simply because they are Muslim; and likewise the same for the kuffar.

in terms of bara':

* Bara'

Prohibition of taking as awliya’ Q[5:51-8]

The friendship prohibited here clearly does not refer to amicable and just dealings with those who have not shown themselves as enemies of Islam. Rather, it refers to taking unbelievers as intimate friends to whom one divulges all his secrets (Bitanah: see Q[3:118]), in whom one confides and places trust, or whom one takes as allies and protectors, especially if they are being preferred over Muslims. Such intimacy is prohibited, for it may confuse the landmarks of Islam, making the distinction between Islam and unbelief unclear to others, and also affecting the Muslim himself in his practice of Islam, for he may start to become accustomed to unbelief and evil, and perhaps even to approve and love it. A Muslim who associates with non-Muslims in that way is revealing a grave deficiency in faith, and is approaching unbelief if he has not completely entered it.

"Whoever among you takes them as awliya' is one of them."

Such as person, though, we are assured, will not be able to harm Islam.

"O you who believe! Whoever among you turns back from your religion, [let him know] Allah will bring a people who love Him and whom [Allah] loves, soft towards the believers, hard against the unbelievers, striving/performing jihad in the path of Allah, not fearing the blame of any blamer."

This verse gives the characteristics of the true believer; he loves Allah, is gentle with the believers, respecting their rights, and making personal concessions for his brothers and sisters, while hard with the unbelievers - in the sense of standing strong in iman, not compromizing his religion, and fighting the enemies of Islam - and not being concerned with people's criticisms as long as he knows he is acting Islamically.

so while we make 70 excuses, there is a limit of the crime is indiscrimate... it must highlighted that the actions are against Islam...

since you mentioned al-hujurat:

Allah does not prohibit you from being kind and just to those who have not not fought you on account of religion, nor expelled you from your homes. Allah loves those who are just. Allah only prohibits you from being intimate friends with those who have fought you on account of religion, and expelled you from your homes, and assisted others in your expulsion. Whoever befriends them is a wrongdoer.) [al-.hujuraat]
(Oh believers, take not the Jews and Christians as protectors/friends. [alma'idah]
Oh believers, take not as friends/protectors those who have taken your religion as a joke and game, from among those who were given scripture before you, as wellas from among the Pagans. And keep your duty to Allah if indeed you are believers. [al-ma'idah]
Whoever does that, ALlah has nothing to do with him [aali `imran]
"O you who believe! do not take as allies a people upon whom is Allah's wrath."
"Indeed, there was an excellent example for you in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, 'Indeed, we have nothing to do with you, nor with that which you worship besides Allah. We reject you, and there has appeared ebtween us and you enmity and hatred until you believe in Allah alone.'"

Part of separating ourselves fom them is avoiding imitation of their ways. For by becoming assimilated with the kuffar, we incline towards their ways, and are led toward Hell.
(Then, We set you upon a code of life, so follow it and do not follow the lusts of those who do not know. They will not benefit you at all before Allah.)[Qur'an]
And do not incline towards those who commit injustice (.zulm), lest the fire smite you, in which case you would not have any helper or protector besides Allah, and then you would not be helped.) [Surah Hud]

The scholars of tafsir have said that ``inclination'' comprises love, attachment of the heart and feeling pleasure in their actions, and to feel honor and respect for them. Ibn Abbas said that ``inclining'' towards the disbelievers means being favorably disposed towards them. We should behave similarly towards unjust rulers who do not rule by the law of Allah and do not establish Islam as a complete system. In the same vein, the Prophet has said,
Do not say ``Sir'' to the hypocrite, for if he is indeed your master, then you have displeased your Lord, the Mighty, the Majestic. [Riyadh -as-Saliheen]

wala & bara is not supporting bin laden, wala and bara is not compromising the deen and supporting the Muslims in times of strife... NOT supporting actions against Shari'a.