it is not allowed to kill civilians terrorism is Haram

[gag order]

terrorism is not the correct way of fighting jihad none of our predescessors engaged in the killing of civilians

REFUTATION: a muslim may put to death any mushrik combatant he siezes wether or not he is involved in combat" (akham as sultaniyyah p64).
israeli civilians are all mushrik combatants even the women and the children because they are all trained in "hisardut" and "krav maga" and in the use of UZI.

civilians who are not combatants can also be killed, imam ibn abdil barr states "they have ijma on the fact that the rasool killed duraid (unarmed civilian) on the day of the battle of hunayn because he contributed with his opinions and thus whoever is like that deserves to be killed according to all scholars (at tamheed 16/142)

killing civilians indiscriminately the "good" and the "bad" amongst the kuffar is allowed "it is halal to use a catapult (indiscriminate bombardment) against the kuffar even if children, women and old men and monks are killed inadvertantly because nikayah (doing what will weaken the enemy) is allowed according to the ijma of the ulema" (al hashiyah ala ar raad 4/271)

COMMENT: muslims have been carrying out acts of terror for centuries it used to be called piracy in an effort to criminalise jihad. instead of planes ships were used intsead of plastic explosives gunpowder was used instead of attacking cities coastal communities were attacked intead crashing into economic targets merchant shipping was hijacked instead executing hostages they were sold into slavery terrorism is the continuation of medieval piracy it was jihad then as it is jihad now no matter what they call it!

[Abuz Zubair]

Reply to His Eminence, Faqih al-Ummah 'Gag Order', may Allah guide him to his senses:

Samahat al-Sheikh! You went straight into the discussion about the legitimacy of 'terrorism' without first defining what it is. However, it does seem from your statement that you equate 'terrorism' with killing civilians, and you further claim that Islam legislates killing of civilians beause:

Al-Mawardi says (according to you in al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyah): "A Muslim may put to death any mushrik combatant he seizes whether or not he is involved in combat"

So where does it say its is permissible to kill civilians?

Then you say:
israeli civilians are all mushrik combatants even the women and the children because they are all trained in "hisardut" and "krav maga" and in the use of UZI.

Why are you brining Palestine/'Israel' into the discussion? Moreover, the Fuqaha do not classify the children to be sleeping combatants, rather they stipulate the condition that they must be adults and mature. See Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/386 (if you have it), or al-Kafi Fi Fiqh ahl al-Madina by ibn 'Abdil-Barr 1/466 (if you have it).

You then state:
Civilians who are not combatants can also be killed, imam ibn abdil barr states "they have ijma on the fact that the rasool killed duraid (unarmed civilian) on the day of the battle of hunayn because he contributed with his opinions and thus whoever is like that deserves to be killed according to all scholars (at tamheed 16/142)

So Duraid was a military advisor to the Mushrikeen against the Prophet, and not a civilian, according to what you quote! And something like this is accepted internationally, and this is why the Americans have in captivity two women, amongst them a scientist. You have not brought anything new.

You also state:
killing civilians indiscriminately the "good" and the "bad" amongst the kuffar is allowed "it is halal to use a catapult (indiscriminate bombardment) against the kuffar even if children, women and old men and monks are killed inadvertantly because nikayah (doing what will weaken the enemy) is allowed according to the ijma of the ulema" (al hashiyah ala ar raad 4/271)

I could not find this statement in al-Hashiyah al-Rad al-Muhtar. Although, I am not claiming it does not exist just because I couldn't find it. But I would be interested if you could paste the extract in Arabic. Because what I am pasting below from the same book is strikingly contrary to your claim above:

وقوله بالمجانيق أي برمي النار بها عليهم لكن جواز التحريق والتغريق مقيد كما في شرح السير بما إذا لم يتمكنوا من الظفر بهم بدون ذلك بلا مشقة عظيمة فإن تمكنوا بدونها فلا يجوز لأن فيه إهلاك أطفالهم ونسائهم ومن عندهم من المسلمين

Meaning (in a summary), if there is no other way of getting the upper hand over them, except through using catapults, then and only then it may be permissible. Otherwise, it is not permissible to use catapults unnecessarily because it causes death to their children as well as women, as well as the Muslims amongst them. (4/129)

And now, let us direct your attention – your Eminence – to other Shara'ee texts which blow your argument to bits:

1) The Prophet SallAllahu 'Alaihi wa-sallam said: "March forth in the name of Allah… Do not kill an old man, nor a child, nor a woman" Abu Dawud and al-Bayhaqi
2) According to the real Mufti – Ibn 'Abbas – the Prophet would say upon despatching his armies: "March forth in the name of Allah! Fight those who disbelieve in Allah! But do not betray your trusts and covenants, nor should you kill children, nor monks in monasteries." Ahmad with Hasan chain according to Ahmad Shakir
3) According to Handhalah ibn al-Rabi', the Prophet send a message to Khalid saying: "Do not ever kill children nor labourer" Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud, al-Hakim calssified it Sahih and al-Dhahabi agreed.
4) 'Umar ibn al-Khattab said: "Fear Allah with regards to the farmers! Do not kill them unless that wage war against you" al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Abi Shaiba in his Musannaf
5) Jabir – may Allah be pleased with him – said about the early Mujahideen, that "they would not kill the Mushrikeen traders".

In light of this, your Eminence, the Mufti of Great Britain, we suggest that you change your profession. Al-Azhar would even pay you for Fatwas.

Ibn al-Salah quotes Malik saying that he was informed by a man who entered upon Rabi’ah ibn Abi ‘Abd al-Rahman, and found him weeping. He enquired: ‘What is it that is causing you to weep?’, for he was disturbed by his weeping. He asked: ‘Has some calamity befallen you?’ Rabi’ah replied: ‘No, but I asked someone who has no knowledge, hence, a great (distressing) affair has appeared in Islam.’ He also said: ‘Surely, some of those who give verdicts here, are more deserving to be imprisoned than thieves!’

Ibn al-Salah commented on this saying: ‘May Allah have mercy on Rabi’ah! What if he were to witness our time?!’

May Allah have mercy on Abi ‘Amr ibn al-Salah! What if he were to witness our forums!

[gag order]

why am i bringing the palestine/isreal into the discussion? because its my topic!

i want to illustrate my point and put it into a context we can all visualise.
we are all anti israel including yourself bro i know you dont give a toss about jewish women and children getting killed in tel aviv neither do i afterall we are brothers of the same camp despite our "disagreement".

his eminence faqih al ummah :lol:

mufti of great britain :lol:

you make a lot of valid points i welcome that but bro its a discussion refute the topic if you must but dont get personal and sarky with me its not good because you make it difficult for me to consider your points when you are bieng sarcastic and condeming me as a "scholar for dollar" :roll:

i qouted textual evidence and in return you quoted text eqaullay valid it would be a learning experince for me if you were able to reconcile them instead of smiting each others necks i hope we can at least agree on this.

i have also written topics on jihad un nafs and needing a caliph for jihad i suppose i have your approval since you have not made a counter argument.

and when you say that my argument is "blown to bits" i get the feeling you want to literally blow me to bits as well :lol:

now let us have your definition of terrorism minus the personal digs and sarky sarcasm!

[Abuz Zubair]

You said:

you make a lot of valid points i welcome that but bro its a discussion refute the topic if you must but dont get personal and sarky with me its not good because you make it difficult for me to consider your points when you are bieng sarcastic and condeming me as a "scholar for dollar"

I don't have a problem taking part in a knowledge based discussion where we know our worth, and show keen interest in knowing the truth.

What I see you doing, on the other hand, is passing Fatwas. Yes, to say 'This is Halal' or 'This is Haram' is considered passing a fatwa. For Ifta means: Ikhbar 'An Hukm Allah – to inform one of the Hukm of Allah, and this is exactly what you are doing, irrespective of whether you intend to pass a Fatwa or not.

I have told you this before, and I pasted a link for an article, I hoped will cause you to ponder over your actions and have a sense of humility before passing verdicts again. But you didn't seem to take heed, and instead, persisted on speaking about Allah without knowledge, which is worse than al-Fisq, al-Fujur, al-Baghiy and Shirk according to Ibn al-Qayyim – and you did that openly without feeling an ounce of shame. Therefore, any Muslim with an atoms weight of Gheerah in his heart for his religion should speak out against this Munkar in the strongest terms. What you are doing is an open Fisq.

Moreover, you actually top up your Fisq with misquotations and using classical texts completely out of context, as I have shown you on various occasions. So you cut and paste a quote about military advisers and say that this indicates permissibility of killing civilians in Islam. You quoted the incident regarding POW, and use it to say that it is permissible to take hostages.

Imam Ahmad said: "Beware of coming up with opinions where you have no predecessor". This is why Ahmad would give precedence to the opinions of Sahabah over Qiyas, for he hated coming up with opinions in which he has no predecessor. Yet, here you are, deliberately manipulating texts of classical scholars to pervert indisputable principles that Islam has adorned itself for over 1400 years!

In an Islamic state, people like yourselves deserve Ta'zeer.

You said:
i qouted textual evidence and in return you quoted text eqaullay valid it would be a learning experince for me if you were able to reconcile them instead of smiting each others necks i hope we can at least agree on this.

You did not quote any textual evidence. You merely quoted – in fact – misquoted text which in and of itself is no evidence in the scales of Sharee'ah. Therefore, the text I quoted is not equally valid, rather it is considered 'divine text' which supersedes any quote you may bring from the scholars of the past or present.

Secondly, if you really want to learn, you don't pass a Fatwa. You simply ask a question. For if you ask a question like: "I am a bit confused about this quote, does this mean killing civilians is allowed?" You would have got an appropriate response. However, if you take up the position of a Mufti on this forum and release bogus verdicts, expect a rebuttal.

Thirdly, after reading your posts, I honestly think you have a long way to go before you can actually begin to deal with various Fiqhi opinions. Let me ask you this, to see whether you are fit enough to engage in such discussions:

1) Do you know Nahw? If so, what level of Nahw are you at? Have you done Ajurumia? Qatr al-Nada? Or anything else?
2) Do you know Usul al-Fiqh? What classical book have you studied from cover to cover?
3) Have you ever studied Fiqh? Then which book and in which Madhab? If not, then have you even studied the Fiqh of Jihad ever?
4) Have you studied Mustalah, Jarh, Fiqh al-Hadeeth, al-Qawaid al-Fiqhiya, Tafseer

I do not mean to belittle you here, but if you haven't done any of the sciences above (as it is quite evident) you cannot take part in knowledge-based discussions. Yes, you can ask someone to clear your confusions. But under no circumstances can you give a verdict, which is what you have been doing so far!

You said:
i have also written topics on jihad un nafs and needing a caliph for jihad i suppose i have your approval since you have not made a counter argument.

Not necessarily, beause I don't get to read everything that goes on these forums, or sometimes I just don't get time. The only reason I became active in these discussions, is because I couldn’t hold myself back seeing you – not only speaking without knowledge – but deliberately distorting and misquoting text, and the subject you are speaking about is related to innocent lives, and the whole image of Islam, and indeed the entire Islamic heritage!

You said:
now let us have your definition of terrorism

That's the whole point! I am nobody to define anything for you. If I know of a scholar who has defined the term according to Islamic Sharee'ah, then I would love to relate that to you.

[gag order]

it is highly propbable that the vast majority of mujahideen wether in iraq or afghanistan have never studied fiqh not even the fiqh of jihad does this mean their jihad is invalid?

the average taliban footie probably doesnt know the level of nahw he is at
he doesnt know usul al fiqh
he has probably never studied mustalah, jarh fiq al hedeeth al qawaid al fiqiyah or tafsir

yet he is out there killing kafir soldiers and civilian NGo's forget about bieng qualified to discuss is he even qualified to fight and kill in fi sabil lillah? and if he is not then there is no jihad in the world today becuase the mujahideen have to be like "mujatahids" first before declaring and fighting jihad how ridiculous is that?

if a mujahid came to this forum and said i have killed civilian NGO's thinking it is okay and he is then later killed in battle does he die a fasiq or shaheed?

abuz zubair, the jiahd in iraq and aafghanistan is it or is it not jihad what is your belief??? because in both lands civilans are targetted wether they are contractors or NGO's

[gag order]

orientalists use the word terrorism to criminalise jihad but unfortunately the modernists and sufis and the saudisalafis also view jihad in the same way as a jewNAZI zionist would - terrorism.

[ali]

my brother gag said

it is highly propbable that the vast majority of mujahideen wether in iraq or afghanistan have never studied fiqh not even the fiqh of jihad does this mean their jihad is invalid?

Aisha narrated to us radhiyallahu anha that "every deed done not in accordanance with our affair is rejected" so how is someone's jihaad done for other than Allah or done in a way not understood by the sahaba nor the salaf considered to be accepted by allah azawajal.


I cant find no other way to say it by ABu Zubair blasted you to another galaxy with his proofs against you regarding your miasunderstood affair of of what is jihaad and also passing off hukaam. On top of this he exposed your great sin openly since it was doen openly of al-Fisq and even shirk. So that means according to your understanding (if I mistakely adopted it) that you are a kaafir punishable by execution on site for making shirk with Allah and judging by other than what Allah has revealed. It is clear as the daylight sun that in your discussion that you have not only judged by other than what Allah has revealed but you duid it blatently.

Im not tryng to rag on you but ony to show you the deficiency of were certain parts of your understanding in the matters of usool fi jihaad wal hukaam feellah lies at. Im in no way a person who also has no shortcomings but I see it is plain clear that much of how you understand the issues of jihaad and other areas has a stray going.

then you said

yet he is out there killing kafir soldiers and civilian NGo's forget about bieng qualified to discuss is he even qualified to fight and kill in fi sabil lillah? and if he is not then there is no jihad in the world today becuase the mujahideen have to be like "mujatahids" first before declaring and fighting jihad how ridiculous is that?


They are to have some type of knowledge of this deen. Shaykh uthaymin the non government scholar has said in kitaabu-ilm that ilm and jihaad is the protectors of the religion in what takes precedence is ilm.

then you say
orientalists use the word terrorism to criminalise jihad but unfortunately the modernists and sufis and the saudisalafis also view jihad in the same way as a jewNAZI zionist would - terrorism.

In the time of the sahabah and the first generations I mknow and you better agree with me that they were the most knowledgeable among the muslims all the way till yaumul-qiyaamah. If you dont agree with this then the discussion ends here and now. If you do then we can progress.

you also and better agree that who is the most unjest and wicked person that exist. it is the one who does shirk with Allah. Allah says and that (shirk) is the greatest of opression. So in our times were most of the ummah is upon shirk, and falling into t'aweel of Allah's names and attributes, then nhow is a jihaad going to be accepted from them. In the first generations their ilm was complete so they were able to perfect what they had with jihaad.

Nowadays everyone wishes to leave off their base and foundation (ilm) and go straight to jihaad. Were does this reasoning come from. We are deficeint if we lack the ilm the base and protector oft he religion. No the both must be paid attention to in the most strongets of ways and it is through realizing this aspect that real and true salafees see that our infatuation needs to be in ilm and reviving the correct aqeeda and manhaj so that our deeds would be rightoues and accepted AND the victory of Alah would come. so through this realization is what causes those in whose hearts conceal a certain disease and hawaa that causes people to make accusations regarding realizing this haq that ahlu-sunnah abandon jihaad. No ahlu-sunnah view jihaad to be obligatory and if one dies without desireing it in his heart then he dies a death of a munaafiq and jihaad is one of the noblest and greatest stations that a muslim can achieve. Our stress is on ILM because you have demonstrated with your lack of ilm on this issue that jihaad can be very dangerous with you and definately dangerous if you were the commander in cheif and could cost the muslims their victory. This is why Ilm is most important so that those who fight jihaad can know what the heck they're fighting about.

to abu zubair subhanallah that was a good read.

asalamu alaikum

[Abu Hatim]

Ackhi we see 500 fatwas saying it is not allowed to kill civilians and you take the one that is not even clear to us or you to be what the Sheikh meant as being true. To be fair I will say that Islam isn't America and the majority dosn't rule but the daleel does.

If we take the statements of the Ulema closest to us we find that they say this issue is clear. Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, said that if the Kuffar kill out women and children then we kill theres, this was his opinion from his Itjihad BUT this still has conditions and is not a issue we can get into because we are not from the Ulema.

[Abu Hatim]

Sorry I didnt mean to post that without adding this.

But if you want to take that statement from Ibn Uthaymeen to be true then take his other advise and dont be from the people who take somethings that benefit them to be correct and reject the things that dosnt benefit them.

Ibn Uthaymeen was famous for advising the people to refere to the Ulema for fatawa's and advise and not to act on ANY statment without being shown the daleel and understanding the daleel in the correect manner.

Were falling into the catagory of the people who reject the statements of the scholars and just take the statements of "my sheikh". You can gather together all the Jihaadi hizbe's out there and there knowledge would not be equal to the knowledge of Ibn Uthaymeen. And I would be willing to say, there knowledge wouldn't evan equal half of our Sheikhs knowledge.

So leave this issues to the Ulema and seek the knowledge that is obligatory upon you such as Tawhid and salah. We will never regain our honour when we choose to skip the most important things and go straight for Jihad. Thiis is a clear characteristic of the Khawarij.

[Perestroika]

They are to have some type of knowledge of this deen. Shaykh uthaymin the non government scholar has said in kitaabu-ilm that ilm and jihaad is the protectors of the religion in what takes precedence is ilm.



Arguing is no good, but I would like to make a few points as well, bismillah. First of all, akhi, u would be surprised, what a powerful Daawa comes with Jihad. I know this form my home. Jihad has moved the process of Islamization maybe 50 years forward in a decade, in my homeland, whereas without Jihad, it was politically heading towards the religion of secularism. U'd be surprised, how powerful Jihad is, in correcting Aqida, masha Allah. Moreover, u'd be surprised to hear, that many muslims consider Jihad as a Mercy of Allah, masha Allah. Brother Gag, I dont agree with you that Mujahedeen know little about Jihad. I dont know about afghan plp, but at my home, Mujahedeen are constantly making progress in Ilm in the field of Jihad especially, since it is wajib to know about that which u deal with.

There is no arguement about Ilm, alhamdulillah. But from Ilm, we know that on many occasions, people would come up to the Prophet (SAW), convert to Islam, and start fighting straight away, without centuries upon centuries of "learning". Or is there an opinion that there since no fard ayn Jihad around the globe?

Jihad is so important before Allah, that He even allowed us to shorten and combine the fard prayer, not fast the fard, abandon completely all nafil prayers etc.

May be I am wrong, but I've come to believe that its not an issue of having little or much Ilm, as much as it's about being brave enough, and about loving Duniya. No doubt, without some Ilm, we would not even know what Jihad is, however, today I think, one doesn't need to spend 10 years learning all details about fiqh of menstrual periods etc., before setting off, especially since one can learn all he needs on the field nowadays.


Nowadays everyone wishes to leave off their base and foundation (ilm) and go straight to jihaad. Were does this reasoning come from.


I tell you from where, from the Prophet (SAW) and Sahaba (RA). If you want daleel, open any seera or hadith book. Much of the seere is about Jihad, and how the muslims acted, when for example a kafir tied one muslimah's dress. Dont start the 13 years of daawa before Jihad argument, because Daawa has been going on for 1400 years now, not to mention that in those 13 years, alcohol, riba, etc. were still not prohibited, while Haj, Zakat, and Ramadan were'nt fard, if I remember correctly.

Moreover, do you think there was less Shirk, and less Jahil, in the times of Rasool (SAW)? Or in the times of Sheikh Ibn Abdul-Wahhab? Why did they not do daawa for a few centuries before Jihad, hey?


Our stress is on ILM because you have demonstrated with your lack of ilm on this issue that jihaad can be very dangerous with you and definately dangerous if you were the commander in cheif and could cost the muslims their victory.


OK, so we should make the Fahdies, best among muslim leaders according to you in terms of Ilm, the commander in chief, so that they can supply blood (oil) for the kuffar economy, so that they can bring all their hardware from the other side of the globe unto muslim land. No thanks, better give these guys a chance.


This is why Ilm is most important so that those who fight jihaad can know what the heck they're fighting about.


This one sentence shows everything. Believe me, muslims have enough reasons to fight. Just in case u didn't know, defence of oneself, is considered a good enough Jihad intention.

Assalamu aleykum

[Perestroika]

If we take the statements of the Ulema closest to us we find that they say this issue is clear. Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy on him, said that if the Kuffar kill out women and children then we kill theres, this was his opinion from his Itjihad BUT this still has conditions and is not a issue we can get into because we are not from the Ulema.

Yes the issue is clear, just as Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen explained it. Also take the example of the prohibition of cutting off trees, and their cuuting by the Sahaba, when the Kuffar would start trying to make use of our rules. Also, this is actually much more clear than that. For example, if the kuffar carpet bomb all muslim population, does the muslim army stand by and wait untill all muslims are wiped out, or do they respond with the like, if they have a chance? If the kuffar use nukes, do we stand by and wait, or use them too, if we have any?

[gag order]

ironic how people use islamic fiqh to undo islamic jihad?

they argue ilm as the alternative to jihad then consider this bit of ilm: ibn taymiyyah said:

"the first obligation after iman is to repel the enemy aggressor when he attacks the religion and our worldly affairs there is no condition for this jihad"

does this not apply in all the lands that are occupied?

by the way, quoting our scholars of the past is not the same as judging by other than what allah revealed. i felt a case existed for my argument and that is all! i did not invent a new law :shock:

i have been "excommunicated" becos of what i wrote, what about the mujahideen? they are actually doing the things i wrote about: killing women and children are they also kafirs and mushriks for thinking it is permissable to use a catapult bombardment or to simply chuck a grenade into a crowd.

instead of trying to slate me (turning the tables on me) personally with charges of kufr and shirk which will rebound on to the accuser why not discuss the textual evidence i qouted so refer to the top of this page and help me make sense of it (if you feel i have misunderstood it)

lets talk about the "bombardment by catapult" lets talk about "seizing mushrik combatants" lets talk about the "killing of duraid"

these are the things you should be questioning. so far everyone has avoided it prefering only to dwell on my SUPPOSED error.

THE TEXT I QOUTED I AM NOT THE AUTHOR OF IT, I JUST REPORODUCED IT HERE. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS PASSING A VERDICT. the statement begins "it is halal to use a catapult..........." THIS IS NOT A VERDICT FROM ME I HOPE THAT IS CLEAR!

but the real reason is that the text i qouted cannot be explained away so easily hence attack the person who brought it :cry:

i am also saddened that muslims do not have sympathy for their brothers the mujahideen and are eager to rubbish them and contradict them and doubt their deeds and intentions.

[ali]

as to Gag then my replies still keep "passing you by"

for my brother or sister Perestroika (forgive me as I never heard the name before)

I see or I beleive that by way of my words that I was overlooked and you may have took from my reply that Im trying to debase, debunk, twist, change, invalidate the concepts and nature of jihaad feesibilillah.

Im not surprised at all in the benefits and stories that jiahad brings. I dont doubt that jihaad can bring about all that you said and better than it and things which you havent covered nor have imagined.

The particular reasoning for which Im discussing is that much of how the successful jihaad expeditions and wars took place in the past was because of the low lack of ilm. It is cool and great to just make shahada and fight off in jihaad. if you can imagine for a second that you or me or gag or anyone else who was fighting jihaad against the kuffar. and in the battel you know of half the camp or some of them or even a couple made some type of open and blatent shirk with Allah (deviance in aqeedah), was a shia (open kufr), reviled the sahaba (deviance in aqqedah like Sayyid Qutb), made t'aweel fel-Asmaa wal-Siffatullah, or the likes of this. I dont know about your reasoning but I would be afraid to the very marrow of my bones that Allah would extract His Anger or Punishment and strike me down for being alongside him or striking him down or causing the muslims to experience loss after loss after loss because of their baatil. What Im saying is that these heretical beleifs that is eminent in many of those who fight is no doubt a hinderence in the path of success. AND along with this is deviated concepts as well in matters of jihaad, takfeer, emaan, and kuffar.

Nevertheless I still afetr all these injustices against Allah that He still shows His rahma and grants it to the muslimeen and overlook their GRAVE zandiqaah. As for thsoe who are staright then al-Hamdulillah I have nothing to say or dispute about with them.
So i hope I was more clear here in my expressing the understanding of jihaad in this reply inshallah
asalamu laaikum

[Perestroika]

for my brother or sister Perestroika (forgive me as I never heard the name before)


I forgot my password for another user. I am Abdullah. "Perestroika" means Reforms.


and in the battel you know of half the camp or some of them or even a couple made some type of open and blatent shirk with Allah (deviance in aqeedah), was a shia (open kufr), reviled the sahaba (deviance in aqqedah like Sayyid Qutb), made t'aweel fel-Asmaa wal-Siffatullah, or the likes of this. I dont know about your reasoning but I would be afraid to the very marrow of my bones that Allah would extract His Anger or Punishment and strike me down for being alongside him or striking him down or causing the muslims to experience loss after loss after loss because of their baatil.


This is a reasonable concern, but what does the Sunna teach us? Remember, when some new Sahaba (ra) asked the Prophet (saw) to find for them a tree, like that of the mushrikeen? Did he (saw) not explain to them, that this would be Shirk, and proceeded to fight along with them?

What about Khalid ibn Waleed (ra) who would start reciting in one sura and end in another sura, when being Imam in salah, because he was too preoccupied with Jihad, and did not have enough time to memorise well?

Yes, it would be great if we had all mujahedeen as knowlegable as the four Imams, but as one Sheeshani mujaheed Shahid, said, when leaving the university of Medina, when he had only one year to graduate, and when his friends were asking him to finish, "If I am not with people in times of hardship, what use of my talk afterwards."

Finally, when some Mujahedeen in the first war in Sheeshan saw one Mujahed smoking, they went to Sheikh Fatkhi (an old Jordanian Chechen who fought in Afghan and came to Chechnya with Hattab, and who is one of the most responsible for the spread of salafi daawa there) and told him about this brother, so Fatkhi said: "Leave him, he is still better than the one who sits at home reciting the Quran".

[ali]

Yeah your right but I was speaking soley that of deviance in creed.

as for this
Finally, when some Mujahedeen in the first war in Sheeshan saw one Mujahed smoking, they went to Sheikh Fatkhi (an old Jordanian Chechen who fought in Afghan and came to Chechnya with Hattab, and who is one of the most responsible for the spread of salafi daawa there) and told him about this brother, so Fatkhi said: "Leave him, he is still better than the one who sits at home reciting the Quran".

I agree 100 percent and could not have been said better.
Now I wonder what the sahykh would say when instead of telling him aboyut that person's smoking that they would say to him that He was supplicating to the graves or beleives that his Imaams are better than the anbiyya wal mala'ika or that his Imaam IS ALLAH. I doubt this honorable shaykh would have replied in that same fashion if he was salafee.

asalamu alaikum

[gag order]

in answer to the supposed lack of ilm on the part of the mujahideen of ahl us sunnah, and to "disown" them for it.

"it is from the principles of ahl us sunnah wal jamaat to participate in an expidition with every good and BAD muslim" majmoo fatawa 28/506.

furthermore the rasool (saw) said: "allah may support this religion with a BAD man or an IMMORAL people" (?)

and as for losses and apparent defeat: "obligations are not linked to losses" (hashiyat ibn abideen 1/50).

the obligation of repelling an aggressor is not linked to the number of battles lost.

[ali]

you quote this

[/quote]"it is from the principles of ahl us sunnah wal jamaat to participate in an expidition with every good and BAD muslim" majmoo fatawa 28/506.

furthermore the rasool (saw) said: "allah may support this religion with a BAD man or an IMMORAL people" (?)

and as for losses and apparent defeat: "obligations are not linked to losses" (hashiyat ibn abideen 1/50).


As if I disagree with that. I hold nothing in my heart that contradicted what was said by shaykhul-islam.

wajibaat is not linked with losses but "leaving the manhaj" of implementing this deen is. Incorrect aqeedah is. "Allah does not change a condition of a people until" and you know the rest. So get back to the fundamentals.

[terrorthreat]

<u><font color="#800080">http://www.tibyan.com/publication.php?id=66</font></u></p>