Turkey on the Right Path

[mh16388]

First of all the taliban did not declare a jihad, they denied any involvement in 9/11 and they were attacked by America. Did they do 9/11 or did they not? If they did it was unlawful...it was not sanctioned by the shariah that such attacks are permissable. Tell me if the Rasul did millitary jihad first before he was the khalif of Madina or did he do it afterwards. This is the sunnah...you cannot create your own sunnah...that is bidah. The scholars who endorsed the emirate did not sanction the terror attack on 9/11 and as I said the taliban and osama both denied any involvement in this. So they did not do it according to them?

you have missed the point. i was talking about 1994-1995 and you are talking about 2001. they did declare J!ihad. the scholars supported their J!had, their emirate and their methods so your comments on the sunnah can remain just that: your comments. they cannot become shariah.
AQ in khorasan are bayt to Mullah Omar. did you know that?

The Sign of the Sword, is not soft or easy...however it is out of print, see here:

http://www.angelfire.com/ab2/bookwork/

and have a read of this:
http://bewley.virtualave.net/saq.html

All the fatwas you give giving permission of killing people in enemy lands are based on a khalif of the Muslims leading an army, not terror attacks. Also these Muslim rebels that you support hide behind the millions of Muslims in the world, they conduct their activities and hide back into the Muslim crowd, endangering all the Muslims. A mujahid does not do that...they fight openly with the enemy not putting others in front and hiding amongst them.

who hides? there are atleast 8 islamic emirates under the mujahideen around the world where shariah is implemented. they fight openly.

And be honest with yourself do you seriously think that as a result of the war which has now been going on for more than 10 years...the situation of Muslims has improved even a tiny bit? We have gained some victory or some success? We have prevented other Muslims from being killed or harmed? No we have made things worse...Rasululah will not be pleased with people who have caused un-necessary harm to his ummah. May Allah save us, protect us and guide us. ameen

yes i believe, and so do others, that Muslims now have a military front whether kuffar or other Muslims like it or not. to our detractors we point to the enemy losses inflicted that are not shown on the media, we point to the withdrawal of american and other troops, we point to the strain on US economy.
please again take a look at the aims of the international J!had before judging their assumed outcomes.

I've read lots of your books they all say the same thing, but all of them neglect the fact that you do not have a khalifah and therefore you have no authority to start a jihad on behalf of all Muslims. This is against the sunnah. You can fight a local jihad of defence, to protect your land, property, life or honour but you cannot expand it globally in the name of Islam. Otherwise we could all start doing it, killing people because we decide we do not like them..each group doing their own thing. This is why we need Khilafah first, and the Quran has so many verses asking the Muslims to practise sabr, until Allah gives them power.

there is no stipulation that there must be a khilafah for J!had. this is incorrect. the proof of its incorrectness is endorsement of the taliban in 1996 from majority of ulema. i have time and again asked you to read books of actual mujahideen yet you bring me the books of Murabitun? you don't take lessons on J!had from those who have not fought in any J!had. please read sh. azzam's book carefully.
you cannot have a Khilafah without J!had. it is the simple truth shown by Islamic history.

[mh16388]

I too had that impression.
Actually Bani Quraizah chose a Companion (RA), who was from their clan but had become a Muslim, to decide the matter. It is this Companion (RA) who decided the matter according to their own law.

is there any evidence of this? how have the scholars interpreted this?

ibn hajr (rh) combines many instances when those who had broken the contract were either killed or spared (including banu qurayzah's incident ) in lifetime of Rasul (SAW). so he concluded that the decision lies with the Imam. and it is what the jamhoor of the ulema have agreed upon.

Imam ibn Hazm (rh) says that killing of banu qurayzah was an " umoomi fa'yl " of Rasul (SAW).

Imam ibn Qayyim (rh) describes a fatwa in his time in syria where resident syrian christians who remained silent, showed jubilation over the christians burning Muslim property, cities and villages were all given the fatwa that they be killed.

[mh16388]

This legalising of killing non-combatants is clear cut false extrapolations. And this is just the one case of it in a matter as serious as violating a persons blood which is the second most sinful thing after shirk. How many such false extrapolations a.k.a extremism, would the rest of their ideology then be composed off then?

this is an incorrect interpretation on your part. the correct ruling is that it is legalized with conditions and not otherwise.

you need to reduce the usage of adjectives in your posts regarding fiqh of J!ihad and increase the evidences.
did you know that ulema such as imam nawwawi, imam shaf'i, imam ibn qudamah (rh) have the same opinions? how can you just label it a false extrapolation?

[mh16388]

If Muslims had any idea what a great triumph for Turkish Muslims the AK Party's government and its survival is and its success in dismantling the evil secularist deep state piece by piece, to a great degree - then they would not criticize them for their modernism and liberalism.

can you show us how that is being done?

[Allahslastsword]

can you show us how that is being done?

look Ergenekon case

Ergenekon is the name given to an alleged clandestine, Kemalist ultra-nationalist[1] organization in Turkey which, according to an instructor at the Police Academy in Ankara, most likely has ties to members of the country's military and security forces.[2] The would-be group, named after Ergenekon, a mythical place located in the inaccessible valleys of the Altay Mountains, is accused of terrorism in Turkey.[3]

Ergenekon is by some believed to be part of the "deep state."[4] The existence of the "deep state" was affirmed in Turkish opinion after the Susurluk scandal in 1996.[5] Alleged members have been indicted on charges of plotting to foment unrest, among other things by assassinating intellectuals, politicians, judges, military staff, and religious leaders, with the ultimate goal of toppling the incumbent government.

By April 2011, over 500 people had been taken into custody and nearly 300 formally charged with membership of what prosecutors described as "the Ergenekon terrorist organization," which they claimed had been responsible for virtually every act of political violence – and controlled every terrorist group – in Turkey over the last 30 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergenek...rganization%29

Turkey : speculations over an expected military coup

Monday 4 December 2006, by Onder Aytac & Emre Uslu

Zeyno Baran’s controversial commentary in Newsweek’s current issue brought up again the possibility of a military coup. She states that there is a 50-50 chance of a military coup in Turkey next year.
http://turquieeuropeenne.eu/turkey-s...tary-coup.html

Director of the Mossad Meir Dagan:

"The islamist become stronger in turkey. How long will the millitary keep silent?"

[mh16388]

look Ergenekon case



Turkey : speculations over an expected military coup

Monday 4 December 2006, by Onder Aytac & Emre Uslu

Zeyno Baran’s controversial commentary in Newsweek’s current issue brought up again the possibility of a military coup. She states that there is a 50-50 chance of a military coup in Turkey next year.
http://turquieeuropeenne.eu/turkey-s...tary-coup.html

Director of the Mossad Meir Dagan:

"The islamist become stronger in turkey. How long will the millitary keep silent?"

how does that show that the so-called islamists are gaining power?

if the 'deep state' is powerful and the 'islamists' dont have army as an ally (or do they?), how is that good for them?

then again one shouldn't take opinions from enemies. so to quote Dagan is fruitless. there is no way they can be trusted to be speaking honestly.

[Game theory]

Does anyone know why Turkey was so much more assertive on the Gaza issue than the Arab countries?

[Allahslastsword]

how does that show that the so-called islamists are gaining power?

if the 'deep state' is powerful and the 'islamists' dont have army as an ally (or do they?), how is that good for them?

then again one shouldn't take opinions from enemies. so to quote Dagan is fruitless. there is no way they can be trusted to be speaking honestly.

they are still the government of turkey, arent they?

The danger was real of a millitary coup 2006 2007 2008. Their advantage was they fixed the economy and they have the people behind them. The turkish people are well aware of the existence of a deep state especially after the susurluk scandal 1996, this is much more than a conspiracy theory.
To overthrow a government which is the strongest party (50%) in parliament would prepare the way for next economic crisis. This Ergenekon issue is very extensive, there are a lot good developments in the last years and operations and judical proceedings are ongoing. Look my previous post. Compare the last ten years of turkey with the 80ies and 90ies.

People who arent trust with turkeys domestic policy coming always with the same arguments. You cant abolish secularism in turkey within a single night. The history has shown a yearlong process was necessary, this process reaches til Adnan Menderes to the 60ies. The current goverment has achieved many successes.

Torn Country: Turkey Between Secularism and Islamism

This book covers all necassary information in this issue and it reaches til Attatürk. You can also find enough information about the Ergenekon case in various newspapers. I have just post the wiki link.

[Maripat]

is there any evidence of this? how have the scholars interpreted this?

ibn hajr (rh) combines many instances when those who had broken the contract were either killed or spared (including banu qurayzah's incident ) in lifetime of Rasul (SAW). so he concluded that the decision lies with the Imam. and it is what the jamhoor of the ulema have agreed upon.

Imam ibn Hazm (rh) says that killing of banu qurayzah was an " umoomi fa'yl " of Rasul (SAW).

Imam ibn Qayyim (rh) describes a fatwa in his time in syria where resident syrian christians who remained silent, showed jubilation over the christians burning Muslim property, cities and villages were all given the fatwa that they be killed.

Which point you are disagreeing with?

[mh16388]

Which point you are disagreeing with?

a suggestion that the beheading was an isolated incident which cannot be utilized today as it was based on their own jewish fiqh.

imam ibn hajr (rh)'s ruling is clear about this.