Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine

[Abu Zakir]

Brother yes I mean fard e ayn not kifaya.

The sunnah is khilafah first then jihad fee sabilil lah. Like I said Jihad to defend lands lives and property are allowed but only in the locality involved. Without a khalifah and without a base how can you expect others to join the jihad? They have no idea where they are going and who they are joining. A khalifah is a source of dawa and unity to all Muslims and non Muslims. He is out in the open not hiding in a cave, he declares his messages to everyone via his own media....he invites Muslims to learn from him, to see how the deen operates.

The first thing the rasul did when he entered Madina munawwara was he established a masjid and a market. This the sunnah. Why is it called munawwara (the enlightened)? Because the deen was established there..and only when the same model is followed will we have victory.

Who have I read? I have read the book knows as the sign of the sword by shaykh abdal qadir as sufi. He says when Muslims invade the lands of the kuffar fee sabililah they can kill preists and monks if they are fighters..otherwise not.

When Muslim armies invaded foreign states did they eat food from the trees and land or did they pay for it?

I heard a story where some Muslims took jizya from non Muslims...then they found that they could not defend the non Muslims so they gave them back the jizya, and left. This is Islam...it has its own laws.

Scheuer writes:

"The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that 'Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do.' Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society."

Imperial Hubris argues that Osama bin Laden's war against the U.S. is a classical example of defensive jihad waged against an enemy occupier rather than an apocalyptic attack on "freedom."

I agree with this. But osama had not authority and neither does ayman to declare war on behalf of all Muslims...they are not the Khalifs....they did not make themselves khalifs they are just ordinary Muslims...and some might even say rebels who would be punished by a khalif for causing fitna.

you mean fard e ayn, yes? fard e kifaya is communal not individual.

who have you read regarding J!had and khilafa? please tell me.

who are the ulema with AQ kindly tell me.

let me be very precise: there is no khilafa without J!had. and there are no such restrictions as you have given.

also you are displaying ignorance about the gains of the 'endless' war. do you take the news from secular media or mujahideen themselves? i believe i have asked you atleast three times to go and read michael sheuer's wiki page to know his opinion on this. please do me a favour and do that. it will tell you all about the war.

p.s here you are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Hubris

some other books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_S...nly_Superpower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_t...American_Order

then of course there are actual AQ resources. one of them you just saw.

[mh16388]

Without a khalifah and without a base how can you expect others to join the jihad? They have no idea where they are going and who they are joining. A khalifah is a source of dawa and unity to all Muslims and non Muslims. He is out in the open not hiding in a cave, he declares his messages to everyone via his own media....he invites Muslims to learn from him, to see how the deen operates.

already discussed this in turkey thread. read the bold part there.

as for sh. abdal qadir's book well the established rule is to take knowledge of J!had from those waging it. even if one doesnt accept that then on the turkey thread i shared a book in urdu and arabic. we shall translate it into english shortly and it has excellent points on killing of "non combatants" under certain conditions supported by views of Imam Nawwawi, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam ibn hajar and other fuqaha. please be patient for that translation.

[Starting_anew]

if you would read my posts below you will find this isn't my opinion exclusively. the ruling regarding soldiers in armies which are enemies of Islam are simple. and i have discussed them in a post below.

if you can read urdu I can share the exact ruling on this which was signed by 500 muftis of Pakistan.

Unfortunately I cannot read urdu (well i can with assistance haha!) - I do want to know though genuinely. I think you know my opinions, and I think I know yours regarding one issue. But as I am a muslim in the UK - i follow the law - i do not engage in (what I consider to be) treasonous behaviour. I try to be a good Muslim, and inshallah i try to contribute to the muslim community in the UK. I oppose the wars the UK fights -verbally. I would consider a British Muslim who bombed civilians in the UK to be a terrorist. if he reneged his passport and left the country, it would be one thing to then fight soldiers, but to seek shelter in this country, and then to kill his fellow unarmed citizens, i find that treasonous. And this isn't about me loving the UK - I am just talking ethics.

[Maripat]

I disagree with your premise. He made a mistake to be in the US Army for sure. But he committed the act of a traitor. He had sworn an oath, and he broke that oath.
I am curious as to what you expect from Muslims in the US and UK. Genuinely.

In one of the BBC reports it is clearly mentioned that another US Army psychiatrist had concluded that Major Nidal Hasan was prone to psychosis. In view of this it was incumbent upon the employer to take necessary precaution so as the feared calamity, Major Hasan falling into psychosis, does not precipitate. Clearly there is a lapse of duty on part of the US Army. You don't just send the soldiers to kill and get killed - you also bother about their welfare. Here the US Army failed to take the necessary action to protect Major Hasan.

May be these words should be sent to Major Hasan's lawyers. But any way I bumped the thread to make a case in favour of Major Hasan and not enough attention is being paid to that aspect.

MH, you are on the side of G!h@d and you accept collateral damage.
AZ you against G!h@d without caliphate and you do not accept collateral damage.

We understand that. Now would both of you please quit G!h@d? I mean here at SF.

[mh16388]

Unfortunately I cannot read urdu (well i can with assistance haha!) - I do want to know though genuinely. I think you know my opinions, and I think I know yours regarding one issue. But as I am a muslim in the UK - i follow the law - i do not engage in (what I consider to be) treasonous behaviour. I try to be a good Muslim, and inshallah i try to contribute to the muslim community in the UK. I oppose the wars the UK fights -verbally. I would consider a British Muslim who bombed civilians in the UK to be a terrorist. if he reneged his passport and left the country, it would be one thing to then fight soldiers, but to seek shelter in this country, and then to kill his fellow unarmed citizens, i find that treasonous. And this isn't about me loving the UK - I am just talking ethics.

you are not serving in the military you are a civilian. the fatwa i pointed to you is talking about serving soldiers in such kafir armies (or murtad armies).
and the fatwa only talks about declining the call of duty from such armies.

i cannot possibly explain in detail here about the permissiveness of attacking non-Muslim combatants their property etc in non-Muslim lands(as it would require loads of translations which i dont have atm), but rest assured there is an opinion that it is permitted. this explains major nidal, and other actions such as 2004 madrid, london 2005, september 11. they all happened in dar ul harb. a country that is not participant in wars against Muslims is not dar ul harb even if it is Non-Muslim. so what we are discussing cannot be permitted in some place say mongolia.
Allahualam
if you wish to follow another opinion that is fine too i guess. as for ethics: like common sense, they are a product of our upbringing and education and personal reflections do not necessarily translate to shariah rulings if one is a layman.

[Abu Zakir]

To have a darul harb you need a darul Islam and maybe a third category those who the Muslims have a treaty with. We do not have a darul islam...so there is no darul harb...when these categories were defined by people in the past they were in place.

Islam raises up the human being, kufr disgraces the human, our laws are secure and bring protection to human beings, their laws do the opposite.

[mh16388]

To have a darul harb you need a darul Islam and maybe a third category those who the Muslims have a treaty with. We do not have a darul islam...so there is no darul harb...when these categories were defined by people in the past they were in place.

Islam raises up the human being, kufr disgraces the human, our laws are secure and bring protection to human beings, their laws do the opposite.

this is not correct. this is an extension of your no J!had before khilafah theory which i refuted in another thread.

[AK-1990]

To have a darul harb you need a darul Islam and maybe a third category those who the Muslims have a treaty with. We do not have a darul islam...so there is no darul harb...when these categories were defined by people in the past they were in place.

Islam raises up the human being, kufr disgraces the human, our laws are secure and bring protection to human beings, their laws do the opposite.

Any evidence for the claim in bold above?

There are references i can quote from Aimma and pious predecessors which otherwise. You say if there is no Dar ul Islam there can be no dar ul harb which simply means that J!had can only be fought when there is a dar ul Islam. Ridiculous!

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and many other scholars even deobandi state that it is farz e ayn to establish Islamic laws on the peace of land where Muslims live. and if that piece of land is attacked by the kuffaar regardless of whether shairah is implemented there or not, J!had become automatically farz e ayn, there is no relation of Dar ul Islam with it. its ajeeb how you mold ahkaam for your nafs so as to stay away from J!had and wait for Khilafah to descend from the sky one fine day!

[Abu Zakir]

I heard it in a speech by Zaid Shakir. If a Muslims life, land, property or honour are attacked then you can make a defensive jihad to fight them off. You cannot declare an endless war against government to be fought globally. And if the shariah allowed this it would mean that any group anywhere globally can designate someone an enemy and attack them...we would have chaos, mass killing and fitna.

Oh ask yourself if it is fard e aiyn to establish a khalifah? Why do you think they are going to fall from the sky? Its the job of Muslims to establish Khilafah first. It is sunnah.

Any evidence for the claim in bold above?

There are references i can quote from Aimma and pious predecessors which otherwise. You say if there is no Dar ul Islam there can be no dar ul harb which simply means that J!had can only be fought when there is a dar ul Islam. Ridiculous!

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and many other scholars even deobandi state that it is farz e ayn to establish Islamic laws on the peace of land where Muslims live. and if that piece of land is attacked by the kuffaar regardless of whether shairah is implemented there or not, J!had become automatically farz e ayn, there is no relation of Dar ul Islam with it. its ajeeb how you mold ahkaam for your nafs so as to stay away from J!had and wait for Khilafah to descend from the sky one fine day!

[Abu Zakir]

this is not correct. this is an extension of your no J!had before khilafah theory which i refuted in another thread.

You did not refute it, or if you did I did not see it.