Shaykh Abdur Rahmaan al-Barrak denounces Shi'ites as infidels

[Brother_Mujahid]

Revered Saudi cleric denounces Shi'ites as infidels

DUBAI, Dec 29 (Reuters) - An influential cleric of Saudi Arabia's hardline Sunni school of Islam has denounced Shi'ite Muslims as "infidels" in a new religious edict that comes amid rising sectarian tension in the region.

"The rejectionists (Shi'ites) in their entirety are the worst of the Islamic nation's sects. They bear all the characteristics of infidels," Sheikh Abdel-Rahman al-Barrak said in the fatwa, or ruling, distributed on Islamist Web sites.

"They are in truth polytheist infidels, though they hide this," it said, citing theological differences 14 centuries after the death of the Prophet Mohammad, such as reverence of shrines which followers of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi school consider abhorrent.

Concern is growing in Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Islam, over Shi'ite-Sunni violence in Iraq which has taken the northern neighbour to the brink of civil war. Sunni-Shi'ite tensions are also high in Lebanon, where Shi'ites are leading efforts to bring down a Sunni-led cabinet.

"The Sunni and Shi'ites schools of Islam are opposites that can never agree, there can be no coming together unless Sunnis give up their principles," the fatwa said.

Barrak, an independent scholar, has come to be regarded by many as the highest authority for Wahhabi Muslims.

Clerics of the austere Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam have long dismissed Shi'ites as virtual heretics and Saudi Arabia's Shi'ite minority complains of second class treatment. But Barrak's fatwa was the strongest in recent years.

The fatwa, which was published on Barrak's Web site in response to a follower's question, also appeared to criticise efforts by some government-backed Saudi preachers at reconciliation between Sunnis and Shi'ites.

Saudi Arabia fears that violence between Sunnis and Shi'ites could lead to the break-up of Iraq and spill over its borders.

Barrak was among 38 clerics who issued a statement this month calling on world Sunnis to support their brethren in Iraq.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29791215.htm

[defenderofbusharraf]

alhamdullilah. i am so happy to read of this. someone speaking real truth. something that needs to be stated.
especially after the execution of the Muslim, The believer in the aqeedah of Tawheed, The President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, may ALLAH Swt forgive him and shower mercy upon him.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Here is the fatwa from Shaykh Abdur Rahmaan al-Barrak:
http://albarrak.islamlight.net/index.php?option=com_ftawa&task=view&id=18080&Itemid=7

[Abu Nihla]

Well though most of you will really rejoice on that Fatwa but well, it's very pathetic that Islam does not belong to him and that just remains his opinion and subject to tabliss of ibliss in the continuation from the days of the greater fitnah that sahabas killed between themselves.

He should not be revered accept with the Wahabi movement that protects the clear-cut kufur governments of Saudi, Kuweit etc

He should have instead adviced his king to establish the Islamic Khalifate under the manhaj of nubuwah instead of just assisting in escalating the pathetic American ploy for muslims to sloughter each other in the pretexct of secretarian conflicts.

Such Fatwas should be thrown in to the trash since they are very vegue and general that will only confuse this Ummah.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Well though most of you will really rejoice on that Fatwa but well, it's very pathetic that Islam does not belong to him and that just remains his opinion and subject to tabliss of ibliss in the continuation from the days of the greater fitnah that sahabas killed between themselves.

He should not be revered accept with the Wahabi movement that protects the clear-cut kufur governments of Saudi, Kuweit etc

He should have instead adviced his king to establish the Islamic Khalifate under the manhaj of nubuwah instead of just assisting in escalating the pathetic American ploy for muslims to sloughter each other in the pretexct of secretarian conflicts.

Such Fatwas should be thrown in to the trash since they are very vegue and general that will only confuse this Ummah.

go and sit in your shi'ah loving mu'awiyah(ra) hating group's (ht) halaqah on playboy smoking sheesha

[Abu Nihla]

Abu Imaan,

As long as you play the game of Ibliss and the American, British ploys to devide this Ummah into secreterian conflicts based on whims and desires of the Saudi Wahabi political movement then i will keep on camin.

It's your scholars who tell us not to talk about the Fitnah of the time of the Sahaba yet they promote it by giving vegue Fatwas. How many a scholars deffer with him???

By the way, we should re-visit what happened between the sahaba then we will understand wether this scholars should be given air-time even remotely. Them with the mistakes of Zarqawi (May Allah accept his istishhaad) have made this Ummah to bleed. We have clear enemies, why not fight them and stop being paper tigers???

[Brother_Mujahid]

Abu Nihla, if anyone is a sectarian bigot it is you. You make ad hominem attacks against Shaykh al-Barrak by implying that he is a crony of the Saudi government (though you fail to produce a shred of evidence). As for his fatwa, refute it based upon the Qur'an and Sunnah and not just making a bunch of bellicose rhetoric about bogus "Wahhabi" conspiracies. If you think that the neo-Safawid Persian Rawaafid Shee'ah and their Arab Shee'ah slaves aren't as big an enemy to the Muslims as the crusader-Zionist alliance, well than you are gravely mistaken.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

thank you bro_mujahid.....and look at this silly hizbi's pot shot at the salafis with his signature: The Neo-Salafis thinks the statements of the Salaf is the gospel truth.......maybe he should change it to: I love i'tizal!

[defenderofbusharraf]

this joke called HT has been rinsed long time ago, its a joke gone on too long and too far. what the hell r these people still doing creeping around in the UK?

abu nihla and ur like,, dont u realise the absolute joke that HT is? the absolutely embarrasing fools that u r seen to be? forget about this forum for a second yea, forget about the kuffar tryina ban u.....what u need to understand is that HT has been exposed by the scholars of islam time ago, u r not even an issue, u r a fly in the sky, hell, most of the people in the UK know about HT through members who LEFT and exposed ur bogus organisation and its false aqeedah.......i will even allow HT members to discuss their favourite subjects like the latest goatee beard style and how to line it up just right or the latest market in east london where one can get brand new nikes cheap..........ill allow u that....but when u start to belittle the differences between the aqeedah of islam and the aqeedah of scum like shiites and say its a conspiracy........then im gonna bust ur head, symbolically and physically if need be.

imam abu hanifa (rh) said : anyone who doubts the kufr of the shiites have themselves committed kufr.

sounds like the imams above statement is just right as a pot shot at HT losers........ if u dont understand the above statement, it is basically saying that the kufr of the shiite aqeedah is SO clear, that anyone who fails to see see it, they have themselves shown that they think the kufr of shiites is what islam is...............comprende.

get out my face HT scum. u think the criteria for determining who is upon truth is calling for the establishment of an islamic state? moron, there r jews who r against israel who call for an islamic state to be established in palestine and the region as jews will be granted full rights of worship and its a peaceful result.......now u think those jews have the correct aqeedah and will go to jannah? u clown. HT clown........u dont know left from right.

no wonder HT have failed for decades......u try and unite tawheed and shirk.......keep trying.....Allah SWT made clear 1400 years ago in the holy Quran that tawheed and shirk r 2 absolute opposites.......when HT stop trying to belittle the differences between the 2 and brush over this fact....u might then gain some credibility..........theres a market in south london where u can get some new year deals on the latest reeboks yea......message me if any of ur HT mates want some...i know its a hot topic for HT shisha-lovers.

[AbuAhmad]

DefenderoftheHaq, are you a sister?

[defenderofbusharraf]

im all brother, my brother

[abu abdil-kareem]

Well though most of you will really rejoice on that Fatwa but well, it's very pathetic that Islam does not belong to him and that just remains his opinion and subject to tabliss of ibliss in the continuation from the days of the greater fitnah that sahabas killed between themselves.

He should not be revered accept with the Wahabi movement that protects the clear-cut kufur governments of Saudi, Kuweit etc

He should have instead adviced his king to establish the Islamic Khalifate under the manhaj of nubuwah instead of just assisting in escalating the pathetic American ploy for muslims to sloughter each other in the pretexct of secretarian conflicts.

Such Fatwas should be thrown in to the trash since they are very vegue and general that will only confuse this Ummah.


Your harshness exposes your Pacifistic mentality toward those who do not even percieve you to be Muslim, and their complete and utter hatred toward Ahlil-Sunnah has never been hidden, plus should we also through into the trash verdicts of a similar nature by the a'immah of our 'Ummah that include Abu Haneefah, Imam Maalik, Imam ash-Shaafa'i and Ahmed bin Hambal (May Allah ta 'ala send His blessings on all of them)?

However, in one aspect you are correct, which is that the west could not ask for a greater gift than the violence between the Ahlil-Sunnah and the Rawaafidthah should increase to take the heat off their Crusader plans, and Insha'Allah ta 'ala the Muslims take heed of this point and remain focused.

[gag order]

contrary to what many believe is washingtons tacit approval of secterian war, the reality is far from that. washington does NOT want a civil or secterian war that would undermine their crowning achievement in iraq which is the establishment of democracy.

it has worked hard to undermine the jihad by encouraging greater involvement from the sunnis to abandon the insurgency and participate in the democratic system under its supervision.

the rafidite factions, even those who are under contract to serve as police and military have undermined washingtons strategy by persuing the general sunni population in revenge rather than fighting sunni mujahideen which they have on numerous occasions, fled when faced with mujahideen resistance, much to the dismay of their US counterparts.

those who are not convinced of the kufr and shirk of the rafidah through textual evidences need only to observe their actions in iraq to know that they are well outside of the fold islam.

[Abu Nihla]

Pathetic rhetoric’s needs not to be responded to and more-pathetic is that whenever you are responded to, you think nothing short of me and HT being the issue. Also the Shaikhs Fatwa is vague and if any OF YOU thinks otherwise of my comments then Allah help you coz this deen not belong to you but to Allah and we as Muslims have clearly established Usuul to follow and not by being partisan pundits who will go back and swallow their vomits after they find themselves in error.

The issue is that we have scholars who do not view all the Shia to be Kuffar although I personally view them as sinners with errors on various issues. The thing is that the issue should be tackled with mature minded individuals and not by paper tiger. It's like embracing the idea of who's better Muslim between Hamas and Fatah while it is more than established that both are fighting nationalistic interests.

Well about HT being refuted i ask you simply, which movement has not been refuted? Even to some, OBL is a Kaffir wa riyadhubillah. Salafiyyah is a Hizb though they will pathetically go to levels denying it. The Suroor, Ikhwan, Tablighis, Salafi Wahabi and Salafi Jihadi and the neo-Salafis have been refuted so refutation is not subject to HT only.

On HT achievements you ask? Well for starters the Salafis, Jihadis, Tablighis, Suffis etc have existed ages before HT I ask you, what have they achieved? Remotely they have archived only what Allah has allowed them in success, the same applies to HT. It has been growing day and day and is currently enjoying expansion worldwide. In terms of measuring achievements maybe you can help me by creating a formula then we judge all the groups including you as a person???

Brother Mujahid has misplaced intelligence thinking even remotely that Americans are not behind the violence in Iraq, if you think otherwise you have to read more and stop taking your news from your enemies. It’s their for you from RAND publication for starters you can start with the ‘Book Civil Democratic Islam’

Lastly That Fatwa is flawed. Period

[abu abdil-kareem]

I wonder if anyone else has realised the involvement of Muqtadr al-Sadr in the Kufr government of Iraq? This Kaafir as we know has been the organiser of the Shi'a militia who have been systemically targeting Sunni Muslims in an attempt to wipe them out seeing as though they deem Ahlil-Sunnah to be worse than dogs, but more sinister is while Saddam was being executed Muqtadr's name was being shouted in praise, and the fact that the Crusaders had allowed this group to handle the execution clearly shows Muqtadr and his followers close connection with this new government, and we know that this government one could say is the stooge of the Crusaders, therefore this proves that the Crusaders and Muqtadr and the Mahdi army are hand in hand, and Allah ta 'ala knows best.

[Abu Nihla]

Pathetic rhetoric’s needs not to be responded to and more-pathetic is that whenever you are responded to, you think nothing short of me and HT being the issue. Also the Shaikhs Fatwa is vague and if any OF YOU thinks otherwise of my comments then Allah help you coz this deen not belong to you but to Allah and we as Muslims have clearly established Usuul to follow and not by being partisan pundits who will go back and swallow their vomits after they find themselves in error.

The issue is that we have scholars who do not view all the Shia to be Kuffar although I personally view them as sinners with errors on various issues. The thing is that the issue should be tackled with mature minded individuals and not by paper tiger. It's like embracing the idea of who's better Muslim between Hamas and Fatah while it is more than established that both are fighting nationalistic interests.

Well about HT being refuted i ask you simply, which movement has not been refuted? Even to some, OBL is a Kaffir wa riyadhubillah. Salafiyyah is a Hizb though they will pathetically go to levels denying it. The Suroor, Ikhwan, Tablighis, Salafi Wahabi and Salafi Jihadi and the neo-Salafis have been refuted so refutation is not subject to HT only.

On HT achievements you ask? Well for starters the Salafis, Jihadis, Tablighis, Suffis etc have existed ages before HT I ask you, what have they achieved? Remotely they have archived only what Allah has allowed them in success, the same applies to HT. It has been growing day and day and is currently enjoying expansion worldwide. In terms of measuring achievements maybe you can help me by creating a formula then we judge all the groups including you as a person???

Brother Mujahid has misplaced intelligence thinking even remotely that Americans are not behind the violence in Iraq, if you think otherwise you have to read more and stop taking your news from your enemies. It’s their for you from RAND publication for starters you can start with the ‘Book Civil Democratic Islam’

Muqtadar al Sadr started targetting the ahl-sunnah after the Bomb-Blast in Najjaf that was suspected to be from the Sunni before that even members of Ansar-u-Sunnah used to exchange intelligence and supplies with the Mehdi Army. It was a mistake by Brother Zarqawi rahimahullah that this enmity spread, we have sad and embarassing stories from either side and remember it serves the occupying forces better that we sloughter ourselves. Remember that even al-maqdisi differed on the methods of Zarqawi.

Lastly That Fatwa is flawed. Period

[abu abdil-kareem]

The issue is that we have scholars who do not view all the Shia to be Kuffar although I personally view them as sinners with errors on various issues.

akhee, who are your scholars? A part from sh Taqiuddin (r.h) who else do you and the Hizb refer to? I my self was not aware the Hizb actually has any scholars, I assumed that the Hizb is run by Univerisity students with a lot of zeal? And mention 'Usoul, what 'Usoul are you refering to and who is given the job to apply this 'Usoul that you talk about to the Waaqi'?

I agree that not all Shi'a are Kuffaar, especially the Zaidiyyah Shi'a whom Ahlil-Sunnah are permited to pray behind, but any half learnerd Shi'a from the twelver Shi'a (which is the majority of Shi'a) will most definitely have beliefs set in Kufr.

[Abu Nihla]

abu abdil-kareem

I said earlier that the issue is not HT so stop being evasive. I regard probably all scholars you deem as scholars to be also my scholars so i read from their books. And just to hit thenail on the head...Islam does not request from which scholars you take from but what evidences do you provide to argue your case. So ask for evidences and not for names.

On interest how do you determine the level to which one should be considered as a scholar then i will give you names.

2- It's not apperent that all scholars are known by you, in my country we have many that were given even ijaza by Bin Baaz rahimahullah yet they seek khumul and are not always seen even in public and in towns and even their works are rarely attributed to them so teach me how to determine the level of knowledge one has to get to be considered as a scholar.

Lastly since you also don't consider all the Shia to be Kuffar, then we are settled since even amongst the ahl-sunnah we have some who have reached the level of apostacy don't you agree?

[abu abdil-kareem]

since even amongst the ahl-sunnah we have some who have reached the level of apostacy don't you agree?

This is interesting, someone from HT has claimed there are some from Ahlil-Sunnah who have reached the level of apostacy!

O.K., could you tell me why some have reached the level of apostacy, now bare in mind that your party suffers from 'Irjaa so I would really like to know what you would consider apostacy, so, could you tell me why you consider some (as you put it) from Ahlil-Sunnah to have reached the level of apostacy? Could you provide me with actions that you consider takes the doer outside the fold of Islam, and to make my question a little clearer, a part from statements like making the Haraam Halaal by 'Istihlaal can you provide other examples.

Barakallahu Feek.

[defenderofbusharraf]

abu nihla, it is u who is being evasive . this issue is 100% about HT. this thread is now talking about HT and its bogus, misguided and fake message.

rather than this fatwa being one that is confusing, and misguiding, it is ur message and HTs message that is confusing the people and misguiding them.

this fatwa, along with many many others throughout history, is a praiseworthy one, as it clarifies the truth from the falsehood, it makes an open distinction between tawheed of islam, and the shirk of raafida shias. that is praiseworthy, cuz a muslims duty is to identify truth from falsehood, enjoin good and forbid evil etc etc etc etc..........and what greater thing can a muslim do in terms of forbidding evil than warning against groups that hold an aqeedah based and formulated upon shirk.

now compare this to HTs mentality and message. u belittle the absolute huge differences between islam and shiaism, u brush over the contradictions and try and say they r nothing and we should ignore them. u give mesages to the people that we muslims and shias r brothers, u say we should unite, u say we should not focus on these differences as they r of no use. u say the shiites, who reject tawheed al uloohiyah and tawheed al asma was sifaat, who call abu bakr, umar, thman as kaffirs, u say we should unite with them, sit with them, co operate with them....the very people who we talk knowledge from in ahadeeth chains, the shiites call kaffir and hypocrites....and u talk of unity......what is HT about? will u sell the aqeedah of islam for some cheap fake unity? which shiites do not want in the first place anyway......u think its us muslims who regard shiites as having an aqeedah of kufr? try reading shiite books,,,,they say anyone who denies what they say as imamiyyah is a kaffir, plain and simple.

history is full of proof that the shiites never ever ceased in their effort to upset the muslims, to antagonise them and go against them, to side with the kuffar against the muslims, always.......and HT wants to unite with these people? these shiites who have become even more stubborn upon kufr?

u make distinctions between the invading americans and the shiites? they r one and the same...who do u think brought these kuffar shiites to power? the americans-zionists, who allowed them to have total control of the goverment? they r both drinking from the same cup....2 camps of kuffar attacking islam from all fronts.......do u think these shiite kuffar militia openly go about advertising who they r while killing the muslims of iraq? do u think they fight openly like the brave mujahideen of iraq? they come in the guide of interior ministry police, state police, iraqi army troops etc etc.....the shiites have total control of iraqi goverment and all its apparatus......u think the people harming the muslims in iraq r just the americans? wake up, more muslims r being killed by shiite kuffar than americans.

what unity u talk of? u talk of brushing aside these differences?.....gag_order is right when he states that the shiites have not just an absolute difference to the muslims in terms of theological differences, which is alone enough....but in their practical actions that they have shown throughout history and today as u can see in iraq. the shiites have always opposed the muslims and will continue to do so.

the 1998 nuclear tests carried out by pakistan were greeted by what in iran? ever read the editorials and quarterly journals pubslished in tehran after these tests? well most of them r published in farsi of course...but i have many friends of ahlus sunnah from iran ,living in pakistan.....and u know what they were saying? they were writing that now pakistan has nuclear weapons ( obviously meaning a sunni muslim country has nuclear weapons), it is imperative that iran obtains nuclear weapons even more so than israels possession of nuclear devices.
point in telling u all of this is that the unity that u call, with people who hate islam and muslims and its aqeedah, is doomed to failure.

our beloved prophet, Muhammad SAWS said " my nation will not unite upon misguidance"

better u hold tight to the texts of islam, and start realising that the shiites r nothing but an extension of the kuffar,,,,,they r kuffar themselves and they aid other kuffar against the muslims....fighting shiites, by default means fighting the kuffar and zionists. they r one and the same.

no unity between islam and shiaism. never.
Islam = Tawheed
Shiaism = Shirk

groups like HT should serve as an example to the muslims as to why its so important to always always always talk about the essential aqeedah of islam. Some muslims say that why do people always bang on about aqeedah, tawheed, shirk etc etc etc....why not ever talk about real issues.........this should all serve as an example.....that aqeedah issues r real issues,,, this is what makes us muslims, this is what differentiates us as pure monotheists from the dwellers of hellfire....it is precisely by talking about aqeedah issues that we can clarify truth from falsehood.....
for if we dont do this, then we will end up, God forbid, like the confused people of HT, those who call for friendships and co operation between people of tawheed and people of shirk.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Look at this hizbie fool!

when i posted here:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=2237

about his nabhani former amir holding mutawatir ma'nawee to be invalid and non-existent and then quoted how ht's past 2 amirs classify it kufr to reject masa'il from mutawatir ma'nawee I asked then do they affirm nabhani got it wrong and held this stupid kufr opinion? he ignores the point thinkng it is just about "changing opinions" not looking at the implications!

Yet we see how he runs away from what his scholars say to go arund cussing salafi scholars and supporting i'tihaad with kafir shi'i sunni killing scum and seeking the successors of khomeni as their brothers.....how they (ht) called the shi'i trouble making hizb-ul-shaytan, of lebanon "mujahideen" but sunnis are "agents of the kuffar"

leave this fool to his own demise, he is running around like a headless chicken not even knowing what he is clucking about!

[Logic lover]

Come on Abu Nihla - this is your chance to respond to Abu Iman's post.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Come on Abu Nihla - this is your chance to respond to Abu Iman's post.


why? what you gonna do to him? ;)

[Logic lover]

My friend - you have called him a 'hizbie fool'. This is rather unpleasant for the one being directed at.

So, I would like him to defend himself. I hope, I am not being a neutral fool in doing so.

[gag order]

in terms of current affairs, abu nihla is extremely naive to suggest unity with the rafidah despite hailing from a group which prides itself on its political insight!

in iraq the rafida have thrown in their lot with the invaders once again as they had done in 1258 when they were spared by the mongols in return for co-operation.

they have demonstrated their collective willingness to oppose the sunnis at every turn and this is consistent with their beliefs that the sunnis are kuffar.

interestingly, those who call for unity with the rafidah do so at the exclusion of the wahhabis in general.

HT has in the past according to their literature denounced collaboration with the kuffar yet they remain silent on rafidite collaboration with washington. the rafidah unanimously agree on serving under contract to the US military. and serving washingtons interests by maintaining the democracy imposed on iraq.

washington saw that the only way to end the jihad is to pull the rug from under the mujahideen that is to include the sunnis in the new democracy. this would require the factions to tolerate and co-operate with each other in ending the insurgency (jihad) and working out their differences within democratic guidelines.

however the rafidite persuit of vengeance against sunnis in general as is consistent with their beliefs is undermining that strategy.

alqaida was able to exploit this and embarked in a series of reprisals aimed at further undermining the democracy.

[Brother_Mujahid]

I have noticed a similar trend: Shee'ah that curse the sahabah, commit shirk, and work with every and any enemy of Islaam are good, while the "Wahhabi" Muslims that maintain Tawheed and aqeedah and fight the crusaders and Zionists are evil and tools of the CIA-Mossad-MI6.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

I remember having a discussion with a HT sister on trustislam forum which is ht influenced,and the sister told me that a person called dr.Sadiq ameen wrote a book about the groups and lied about HT in there and he wrote it as an agent of the Jordanian Goverment!

I told the sister, that I have the original book in arabic and the author was ash-shaykh, ash-shaheed 'abdullah azzam(rh) and he was no agent of not batil goverment!.....but the general view is that the shaykh was an agent......but of course a rafidi like khomeni was sufficient to be the khalifah 'ala minhaj an-Nabuwwah(saw)......and what make it worse is that they distanced themselves from this act trying to make excuses like "khomeni would have had to accept the correct 'aqeedah" yet they didn't discuss this, what they discussed was about the shi'i accepting the constitution of ht!

wa ALLAHU Musta'an!

[Abu Nihla]

There’s nothing to respond to suffice is to say that no challenge is left un-responded to. Abu Imaan is pathetic and Gag-Order, I never suggested anything. What I did and still do is to say that such Fatwahs’ that are general are vague and plays to the partisan ploys of the infidels. If the Shi’a united with the occupying forces in Iraq and that acts as the basis of your reasoning, I ask you, how many a Sunni has done the same worldwide? I don’t want to be a defender of no one but can we revisit all the Fatwas’ that have been given about the Shia?

Defenderofhaq…You can start by reading the book by bin Baaz rahimahullah (The nullifiers of Islam) and read on the ruling he gives on the people who assist the Kuffar against the Muslims and tell me, how many Ahl-Sunnah fall there including himself with his Fatwa? I believe you regard him as ahl-sunnah don’t you?

Abu Imaan… please furnish us with the details regarding HTs letter to Khomenei and also highlight why Khomenei refused HTs offer while in Tehran while on the other-hand when HT approached him in France he was becoming? Please also provide the letter if you can. In this regard also we should reflect that during the age of the Khulafah and Rasul, letters were written to certain Kuffar leaders telling them to accept and rule by Islam and they will be left alone so what is the big deal about HT writing to Khomenei?

About http://forums.islamicawakening.com/s...ead.php?t=2237 I leave it to him to judge or give the ruling since I don’t engage in stupid and silly reasoning.

[gag order]

Unity with the rafidah?

The Badr Organization originally the Badr Brigade is the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
Headed by Hadi Al-Amiri it participated in the 2005 Iraqi election as part of the United Iraqi Alliance coalition.

Based in and around Karbala it effectively rules that city and other parts of southern Iraq. It has played a leading role in fighting insurgents (sunni jihadis) there.

The brigade was based in Iran for two decades during the rule of Saddam Hussein It consisted of several thousand Iraqi exiles, refugees, and defectors who fought alongside shite Iran in the Iran-Iraq War.Returning to Iraq following the 2003 coalition invasion the group changed its name from brigade to organization.

It has pledged to give up its arms when the security situation is resolved. (ie when the jihad is defeated)

While the organization has lessened the burden on coalition troops there have also been minor tensions between the two. There have been reports of gun battles between the organization and British troops that are occupying the area. (racialist violence between allies?)
The militia has been involved in several incidents of kidnapping, beating and torturing of Sunni Iraqis, and is accused by many of being a sectarian militia.

[gag order]

Unity with the rafidah?

with secterian violence on the rise in iraq, the shite badr brigades and the mahdi army have shown their strenght in numbers and the organised violence they are capable of. not only are the badr brigades and the mahdi army the largest sectarian militia their surplus members form the bulk of the iraqi police and military.

while in the commision of the police and military they not only represent US interests but also the interests of their ayatollahs to whom they remain loyal to. this is no dilemma for them since the US and the shite clerics have common cause against the sunni led jihad.

to date the badr brigades have not offered any resistance whatsoever to the US led coalition this is a slap in the face to their supposed 'islamic' status, instead they have been busy perpatrating a genocide against the sunni minority as if the US hadnt done a good enough job.

their collaboration with the US and their ideological links to iran and their crimes against sunnis by government sanctioned shite death squads (interior ministry police) sparked a spate of reprisals by alqaeda, who would otherwise be busy harrassing US forces.

[gag order]

Unity with the rafidah?


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41342000/jpg/_41342395_scorpions_203_afp.jpg

iraq's interior ministry police are at the centre of the death squad controversy. they are or were members of the shite badr brigades and the mahdi army. they are trained and equipped by the US to fight the sunni led insurgency.

[gag order]

Unity with the rafidah?


http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2006/02/22/sadr10b.jpg

the shia mahdi army are easily recognizable in their black uniforms. some of those who were out in force protesting the bombing of their grave worshipping shrine said:


"The Takfiris (sunni-jihadis) have destroyed our holy shrine in Samarra"


"I am going to go and burn the Abu Hanifa mosque"


"they (sunni-jihadis) are outside the fold of islam"


these are sentiments shared by all shias wether in iraq or outside. the 'protesters' run amok in sunni neighbourhoods vandalising 100's of masjids and killing belivers.


it is ironic that shias can claim to be islamic whilst supporting the US and fighting on its behalf

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

There’s nothing to respond to suffice is to say that no challenge is left un-responded to. Abu Imaan is pathetic and Gag-Order, I never suggested anything. What I did and still do is to say that such Fatwahs’ that are general are vague and plays to the partisan ploys of the infidels. If the Shi’a united with the occupying forces in Iraq and that acts as the basis of your reasoning, I ask you, how many a Sunni has done the same worldwide? I don’t want to be a defender of no one but can we revisit all the Fatwas’ that have been given about the Shia?

Defenderofhaq…You can start by reading the book by bin Baaz rahimahullah (The nullifiers of Islam) and read on the ruling he gives on the people who assist the Kuffar against the Muslims and tell me, how many Ahl-Sunnah fall there including himself with his Fatwa? I believe you regard him as ahl-sunnah don’t you?

Abu Imaan… please furnish us with the details regarding HTs letter to Khomenei and also highlight why Khomenei refused HTs offer while in Tehran while on the other-hand when HT approached him in France he was becoming? Please also provide the letter if you can. In this regard also we should reflect that during the age of the Khulafah and Rasul, letters were written to certain Kuffar leaders telling them to accept and rule by Islam and they will be left alone so what is the big deal about HT writing to Khomenei?

About http://forums.islamicawakening.com/s...ead.php?t=2237 I leave it to him to judge or give the ruling since I don’t engage in stupid and silly reasoning.

ignorance is bliss as they say! run along child

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

MA: Okay, let us discuss broader issues. You mentioned the late Ayatollah Khomeini earlier, what were the nature and intensity of contacts between Khomeini and HT?

JP: We met Khomeini in France before he took power and impressed upon him the need to rule by Islam, establishing a state for all Muslims and not subscribing to a narrow school of thought which creates division. The initial discussions were positive. Consequently we sent a delegation to Tehran led by the late Ahmed Daur, the famous Jordanian member of HT and former member of the Jordanian Parliament. On that occasion, we were unhappy with the response we received from Khomeini, and understood after discussions, that Iran was on its way to becoming another colorless Muslim state, of which we have too many. In particular we saw his vision for a state falling short of what Islam required. MA: I had heard that an HT delegation from Pakistan had met with Ayatollah Khomeini immediately after the victory of the Islamic revolution and had offered to make him the Caliph.

JP: No this is incorrect. The delegation initially met him in France, consisting of our members in Europe and then met him in Tehran, headed by Ahmed Daur.

MA: What does HT make of the Islamic regime in Iran? After all, some commentators in the Muslim world contend that it has presented a successful model of political Islam for the past 25 years.

JP: We don't regard it as an Islamic state. Its model for political Islam does not go beyond empty rhetoric and sloganeering against America when it is politically expedient. It is a nation-state based on sectarian principles. The ruling system that is implemented, contradicts the concept of the Khalifah running all the political affairs of the Ummah. Instead it establishes on one hand a theocracy and on the other a republican system – both concepts are alien to Islam. Unfortunately the past 25 years have distanced some people in Iran from Islam, not endeared them to it.



http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?issue_id=3045

we ask, were you unaware that you were going to a sahaaba(raa) hating mushrik rafidi in the first place?

Are you people so deluded in not having a set matn of 'aqeedah in order to differentiate between ahl sunnah and ahl hawa that you turn to a rafidite in order for him to accept your constitution and become the khalif of the Ummah?

and then we have the hizbie fool, the one who in order to protect nabhani says:

About http://forums.islamicawakening.com/s...ead.php?t=2237 I leave it to him to judge or give the ruling since I don’t engage in stupid and silly reasoning.

yes you leave it because you need to protect nabhani, just say so...while his tongue is sharpe towards those scholars which contradict his Hizb!


so this hizbie fool attempts to make qiyas with the risalat and du'at of Rasul(saw) to the umarah in His(saw) time and with HT sending their delegation to khomeni the rafidite, like as if the hukm on the original kafir is the same as the one who is a murtad!

Run along now child! You are making a mockery of your rafidite loving Hizb!

Ahl sunnah will never unite with the rafidites you seek love with!

[gag order]

Unity with the rafidah?

Faik Bakir, the director of the Baghdad morgue, has fled Iraq in fear of his life after reporting that more than 7,000 people have been killed by death squads in recent months, the outgoing head of the UN human rights office in Iraq has disclosed.


"The vast majority of bodies showed signs of summary execution - many with their hands tied behind their back. Some showed evidence of torture, with arms and leg joints broken by electric drills," said John Pace, the Maltese UN official.




The killings had been happening long before the bloodshed after last week's bombing of the Shia shrine in Samarra.


Mr Pace, whose contract in Iraq ended last month, said many killings were carried out by Shia militias linked to the industry ministry run by Bayan Jabr, a leading figure in the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri).


Mr Pace said records, supported by photographs, came from Baghdad's forensic institute, which passed them to the UN. The Baghdad morgue has been receiving 700 or more bodies a month. The figures peaked at 1,100 last July - many showing signs of torture.


Reports of government-sponsored death squads have sparked fear among many prominent Iraqis, prompting a rise in the number leaving the country. Mr Pace said the morgue's director had received death threats after he reported the murders. "He's out of the country now," said Mr Pace, adding that the attribution of the killings to government-linked militias did not come from Dr Bakir.


"There are other sources for that. Some militias are integrated with the police and wear police uniforms," he said. "The Badr brigade [Sciri's armed wing] are in the police and are mainly the ones doing the killing. They're the most notorious."


Some Iraqis accuse the Mahdi army militia, linked to the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, of seizing and killing people.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

jazakALLAHU Khairan brother G.Order.

Many brothers from al-Hizb claim these attacks are not really carried out by the rafadites, but by the Occupiers in order for sectarian violence to flare up. What do you say to this shubha!

[gag order]

"If the Shi’a united with the occupying forces in Iraq and that acts as the basis of your reasoning, I ask you, how many a Sunni has done the same worldwide?"

first of all: the rafidah are unanimously agreed in their participation in democracy and collaboration with invaders as is consistent with their methodology and creed however in ahl us sunnah, participation is debatable and collaboration with kuffar against muslims is neither a part of our creed or methodology despite the actions of some deviants that claim to be sunnis.

secondly: if one criticises misguided sunnis for collaboration and participation then why hold back on levelling the same criticism on the shia who are also doing the same?

thirdly: those sunnis that traverse the path of collaboration against jihadis are expelled from islam. however the rafidah do not expell their own if they collaborated against jihadis.

and finally: the founder of sunni islam (the only islam) is the prophet mohammed (saw). whilst the founder of shia 'islam' was a heretical jew who wanted the best of both religions.

[abu abdil-kareem]

What I think ironic here is the fact that many of the brothers at HT percieve the Salafi Jihadi to be Khawaarij, Takfeeri and even Hizbi, while their insistents on saying that we should unite with the Rawaafidthah against a common enemy! But like brother gag_order has pointed out the Shi'a have been systematic in their onslaught against Ahlil-Sunnah, and are therefore as much an enemy as the Crusaders.

Even if we were to agree with HT's call for unification who is there to unite with?

Well there are to options,

a) Those who are practicing their religion, but the Shi'a who practice their faith will be those who hate Ahlil-Sunnah as part of their 'Aqeedah.

b) Those who are merely Shi'a by name, and these are the socialist type Shi'a who fully supported the western coalition invasion of Iraq.

So whom of these categories do we unite with?

[Abu Nihla]

You cease to amaze me. Abu Imaan petty and idiotic arguments are left for the burial grounds. Your post on Khomeni above proves HTs stand on the Issue. 4 the record who hates Islam more than the Kuffar to whom Rasul sent letters inviting them to Islam and requesting them to establish the rule of Allah???

Your arguments are so cheap that no evidence should be used to discuss with you.

Gag-Order…Thanks for the many a posts proving what we already know, but what you are obviously missing is that we the Sunni are also fighting the Shia to whom we also see as Kafirs if that was your argument.

We see them as Kuffar, they see us as Kuffar, we slaughter between ourselves just like during the time of the big Fitnah of the Sahaba and the tabi’in so who are the losers?

The Mehdi Army, Ansar-u-Sunnah, Al-Qaida in Iraq are busy slaughtering each other and that’s not a praiseworthy thing blowing the masajid and market places, killing children and women who confess to the Shahadah.

If HT look at the Salafi as the Mu’tazillah I would mention the same, Salafis say HT are the Mu’tazillah so what?

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

You cease to amaze me. Abu Imaan petty and idiotic arguments are left for the burial grounds. Your post on Khomeni above proves HTs stand on the Issue. 4 the record who hates Islam more than the Kuffar to whom Rasul sent letters inviting them to Islam and requesting them to establish the rule of Allah???

Your arguments are so cheap that no evidence should be used to discuss with you.

Gag-Order…Thanks for the many a posts proving what we already know, but what you are obviously missing is that we the Sunni are also fighting the Shia to whom we also see as Kafirs if that was your argument.

We see them as Kuffar, they see us as Kuffar, we slaughter between ourselves just like during the time of the big Fitnah of the Sahaba and the tabi’in so who are the losers?

The Mehdi Army, Ansar-u-Sunnah, Al-Qaida in Iraq are busy slaughtering each other and that’s not a praiseworthy thing blowing the masajid and market places, killing children and women who confess to the Shahadah.

If HT look at the Salafi as the Mu’tazillah I would mention the same, Salafis say HT are the Mu’tazillah so what?

yawn! still at it?

just to remind you, regardless of how much one hates Islam, there is still a difference between a murtad and kafir who has always been a kafir and hates Islam.

The hukm on each is different (as long as the kafir doesn't insult Islam)

the fact that you ht will always see the rafidites as a valid madhab and from the issues of ikhtilaf is why you idiots still seek to unify with them in Iraaq and why you call sunnis agents of the kuffar and shi'i hizb ush-shaytan as "mujahideen" in your leaflets and probably why you went to khomeni asking him for a tahqeeq on your constitution, when you should have gone and spat in his filthy face, you guys probably salaamed and kissed him no?

so the quote proves how you guys don't even know a filthy rafidi if it hit you in the face, and if you loved the father of the modern rafidites to the extent you considered him to be the one for bay'ah then no wonder you dismiss what his stool does in Iraaq massacering Sunnis by the thousands.......btw have you guys sent a delegation to sadr's party to see if you can give him bay'ah?

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

What I think ironic here is the fact that many of the brothers at HT percieve the Salafi Jihadi to be Khawaarij, Takfeeri and even Hizbi, while their insistents on saying that we should unite with the Rawaafidthah against a common enemy! But like brother gag_order has pointed out the Shi'a have been systematic in their onslaught against Ahlil-Sunnah, and are therefore as much an enemy as the Crusaders.

Even if we were to agree with HT's call for unification who is there to unite with?

Well there are to options,

a) Those who are practicing their religion, but the Shi'a who practice their faith will be those who hate Ahlil-Sunnah as part of their 'Aqeedah.

b) Those who are merely Shi'a by name, and these are the socialist type Shi'a who fully supported the western coalition invasion of Iraq.

So whom of these categories do we unite with?

this is a good point brother, who exactly should we unite with and upon what basis?

The basis should be Islam, and we need to analyse do these rafidites who see our blood as halaal, is there a basis to unite with them?

The answer is really and truly no.......unless your a HT who loves rafidites, hates salafis

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

The Muslims, whether Sunni or Shiites refuse the civil war

uploaded 13 Aug 2006


Date:
15 Jumada Al-Thani 1427 AH
12 July 2006 CE


The Muslims, whether Sunni or Shiites refuse the civil war


What some satellite channels, news papers and some entities and agent political personalities are drumming for -that the structure of Iraq necessitates civil war, and that the Iraqi people are dashing towards this war being fanatic for its sect- is a big lie, which the Kafer occupier wants to make a reality, but he was disappointed. When the American occupier founded the treacherous ruling council on the basis of sharing among the sects and nationalism, it originated a new novelty which the Iraqi nation is not used to, and refused it decisively, America and Britain tried to push people towards this direction for three years, each of them having his own benefit and interest, and Negro Bonti founded what was called death troops, as well as the agents of Britain and Zionist Jews and their intelligence pushed their groups to plant these explosives and spread the booby, trapped cars and assassinations to reap the souls of innocent people, when they found that what they did was not enough, they aggravated these actions to kill people due to their identity, thinking that that will make the Iraqi people rush out to this dirty war, but the Iraqi people are Muslims and cling to the concepts of Islam and its values, it is made of one structure in spite of the variety of its nationalities and sects.

The struggle between America and Europe on Iraq the land of Prophets -peace be upon them- and the companions and imams from the relatives of the prophet (saw), is the land of civilization which lights the earth, and from which the Islamic armies dashed out to transfer this light to the east and west, it is the land of wealth which does not end, and has political impact on the area, all these factors made the colonial countries -Europe and America- bounce to control this country, they employed all their military, financial and news media efforts as well as their agents -some of them from the sons of this nation either being ignorant or seduced by money and posts- but they will not succeed in subjecting this Muslim nation which is strong with its faith and which refuses injustice, tyranny and slavery.

Oh Muslims in Iraq: You know well that the occupying Americans and British and Zionist Jews are planning for the civil war, you also know well that Allah (swt) chose Islam for us as a religion which unites us and gives us patience and strength to confront these devilish plans, we call you not to be led after what the Kafer occupier wants from tearing the unity of the Muslims which Rasulallah (saw) has established for us by saying:


كل المسلم على المسلم حرام، دمه وماله وعرضه “All the Muslim is outlawed from the other Muslim his blood, his money and his honor”


all those who came after him followed this method until the Kafer colonist demolished the Islamic ottoman Khilafah, so we call you to get back to Islam and its system under the flag of one Khalifah who will rescue the country and the people Allah (swt) said:


وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِحَبْلِ اللهِ جَمِيعاً وَلاَ تَفَرَّقُوا “And hold fast, all together, by the Rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves.” [Al-Imran: 103]


The Media Office
Of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Iraq

[Abu Nihla]

So if a Shia is a Murtad, it means at some point he was a Muslim. What point is that? And how does that differ from a clear Kaffir?

We unite upon tawheed and the manhaj of rasul and that’s what HT gave to Khomeni.

Abu Imaan is a clear Munafiq and a slanderous individual to whom his narrations should not be accepted. Which leaflet of HT regarded the Shia of Iraq as mujahedeen and the Sunni of Iraq as agents of the shayateen?

We love and hate for the sake of Allah and we invite all to establish Islam regardless of whether he is a Murtad or not. Enjoining good and forbidding the evil is compulsory t everyone and even a murtad can only be killed after evidence is furnished to him.

So what, if he betrayed his commitment to Allah? He will face the wrath of his lord as long as the obligation of advising him was done by HT…or let’s say, how many Sunni Scholars were told the same but decided otherwise? All it took was Mullah Umar to announce he was the Khalifah of the Muslim Ummah for us all to give him bai’ah but what? He preferred an Emirate to the Islamic Caliphate.

[Abul-Baraah Al-Qasami]

My dear brothers there is no uthr bil jahl, so if you see a rafidhi and you know that he does what his religion tells him to do, then know for certinty that he is not a muslim, but a mushrik. Wether you like that or not. This is why every single berewlvi or sufi that you know does major shirk and you know that he is not doing it out of coercion then know he is a mushrik.

So if the question is who should we work with?, then the answer is muslims.

and a word of advice to all my brothers: dont call other people munafiqs without unrefutable proof.

hafidhakumallah.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

So if a Shia is a Murtad, it means at some point he was a Muslim. What point is that? And how does that differ from a clear Kaffir?

i said khomeni was a murtad. If you don't know the difference between the murtad and the original kafir then go learn 'aqeedah again!

We unite upon tawheed and the manhaj of rasul and that’s what HT gave to Khomeni.

the point is how do you go to a murtad who hates the sahaaba(raa) and commits shirk by stating the Imaam have the same powers as ALLAH Ta'ala and you say you unite upon tawheed? This shows you guys don't know your own 'aqeedah let alone shi'i rafidites! Do you people at least not go and investigate a man before sending a "delegation"?

Abu Imaan is a clear Munafiq and a slanderous individual to whom his narrations should not be accepted. Which leaflet of HT regarded the Shia of Iraq as mujahedeen and the Sunni of Iraq as agents of the shayateen?

do you not read properly?

Are you denying the hizb's shabab consider the sunnis in variuous parts of the worlds who strive fee sabeel-lillah as agents of the west?

As for the shi'i, here read this leaflet of your party regarding the shayateen of Lebanon:


THE LEBANESE BLOOD IS WASTED BY A FATAL RESOLUTION IN THE AMERICAN-–FRENCH STRUGGLE MARKET, WITH THE BLESSING AND CONNIVANCE OF THE RULERS IN THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES!

uploaded 30 Aug 2006



بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم



THE LEBANESE BLOOD IS WASTED BY A FATAL RESOLUTION IN THE AMERICAN-–FRENCH STRUGGLE MARKET, WITH THE BLESSING AND CONNIVANCE OF THE RULERS IN THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES!



Today the Security Council resolution No. 1701 concerning the brutal aggression of state of Zionist Jews on Lebanon -which hurt people, trees and stones- was issued, the resolution invented the expression (to stop the aggressive military deeds) instead of Cease fire, then the withdrawal of the Israeli army which coincides with the spreading of International forces together with the Lebanese army, the number of each of them will be 15 thousand. The resolution also included the withdrawal of the soldiers of Hizbullah to north of Litany, also the implementation of resolution No. 1559 which enjoins the disarmament of Hizbullah. The resolution did not forget to state the -unconditioned- setting free of the two Israeli soldiers who were captured by Hizbullah in a fight operation, while the issue of the Lebanese prisoners was left unsolved!

Before shedding light on the gravity and hideousness of this resolution, we go to the background of this issue:

Matters in Iraq and Afghanistan went contrary to what America desired, it realized that to get out of this swamp was costly and takes long, and that (specially) Iraq became the center of a hot fight against it, and that nothing will rescue it other than utilizing the neighboring countries in the subject, most prominent of which is Syria and Iran, in which there is strong influence for America, but to share them in this matter will not be achieved without a comprehensive solution for what was left of issues in the region, which is to end the Middle East crisis. America discovered that -according to its estimations- this matter (the comprehensive solution) will achieve the following for it:

1. To draw the attention (even temporarily) away from its crimes and scandals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its failure to realize the goals of its aggression, also to find an entry to grant Iraq or a big part of it to Iran, similar to what took place in 1975 in Lebanon, when Lebanon was granted to Syria under American sponsorship, then the Iranian nuclear crisis will end, because America was the one which hindered its solving ad made Europe get busy with it.

2. To facilitate the solving of the Syrian Golan issue and that of Palestine, then the open declaration of Syria’s acknowledging of state of Zionist Jews, followed by the Palestinian organizations, and to put an end for the struggle, and then guarantee the American hegemony in the region.

3. As a result the image of America will be improved in the region! And what is more important than that is the raising of Bush’s popularity as well as the Republican party in America, which will make it easy for it to win the coming elections.

Yet there were three things which hindered America from realizing its goals of comprehensive compromise:

1. Europe stood in its face, because Europe (France and Britain) found in the assassination of Al-Hariri a golden opportunity to compete America in its influence in Lebanon after being partially alienated from it since thirty years, and completely since the agreement of Al-Ta’ef. It was not easy for it to accept for America to hold the reigns in the region.

2. The issue of Hizbullah, which was -since the beginning of the eighties- supported military and training by Iran and Syria…. Both supported it waiting for the time of compromise to be due, then they will finish it in a friendly manner or let it down if needed and leave it alone to fight Zionist Jews, the party did not really realize that.

What is important is that the power of Hizbullah got stronger, and it has young men who are faithful in their fight against Zionist Jews, it was in a situation which made it difficult for Syria to order it to be merely a political party, and stop fighting Zionist Jews. It is known that when the time of the compromise is due, those who are the basis of the compromise will not accept Hizbullah to have a role, that is why Hizbullah was one of the obstacles confronting the compromise.

3. The issue of Zionist Jews state, America knows well that Zionist Jews will not accept a compromise which will guarantee a strong state for them within limited borders, and leave the surrounding countries alone, besides that they will not accept a state in Palestine even if it was weak, because Zionist Jews move and their forged Torah is in their hearts and minds, their far goal is still the whole region from Nile to Euphrates, when the opportunity is available for them.

So as long as they don’t feel harm or danger, they won’t accept a compromise which will be face-saving for Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, that is why the issue of Zionist Jews was also an obstacle in front of the compromise.

America found that to eliminate these obstacles will be achieved by hindering cease of fire, then it will not give Europe an opportunity to interfere, and thus lengthen the duration of the aggression, so that great harm will inflict Hizbullah, as well as an effective harm for state of Zionist Jews.

Zionist Jews in this case will resort to America in order to find the suitable project.

As for the Shabab of Hizbullah, they fight faithfully to get one of the two goodness; -victory or Martyrdom- but America through Iran and Syria will control the suitable project, by making Iran and Syria direct the party towards the required direction. Thus America did not accept an immediate cease of fire, until “circumstances are available”! as was stated in the declaration of Rice the American foreign minister on 19.07.2006, after her meeting with the Egyptian foreign minister in Washington.

But Zionist Jews, and because of the hurting blows which they got from Hizbullah, got mad this is besides their being unable of achieving military triumph which they got used to in their previous wars, so they started to bomb the civilians -left and right- without separating between the elderly, babies or women, or between a residential house, or a hospital or a school or a Masjid, even the trees, mountains, bridges and roads… which made Europe utilize that in the public opinion to reach a cease of fire, before letting America reach its goal, so that Europe will hold part of the strings of the issue and not leave it all in the hands of America.

This is how America put its project which is based on cease of fire, Europe supported it effectively in that, especially Britain from behind the screen, according to its policy of not contradicting America openly. America was obliged to discuss issuing a resolution by the Security Council, but it invented the subject of (stopping the aggressive military actions) instead of cease of fire, in order to lengthen the duration of the aggression, and return to the origin of its plan: complete compromise, if it could, so it will dash out from solving the problem in Lebanon to the complete compromise under its leadership, to re-phrase the region according to what it named (the New Middle East). Then this resolution which includes the lengthening of the time of its implementation came, because each paragraph in it needs discussion and negotiations:

So, the withdrawal of Zionist Jews coincides with the spreading of International forces, and originating and forming this force needs a long time, to stop the arsenal actions, is an elastic invention meant to find an entry to continue fighting any moment, this is besides the text of stopping the aggressive attacks, it is known that state of Zionist Jews explains its killing of babies to be defensive! The setting free of the two Israeli prisoners without setting the Lebanese prisoners free, is a humiliating matter, after all the blood that was shed, the withdrawal of Hizbullah to north of Litany before the withdrawal of the Israeli army is also a disgrace, the implementation of resolution No. 1559 is evacuation of any resistance for Zionist Jews aggression…. All these points bring things back to the beginning or a little before.

The phrasing of this resolution had listed several points, if not all the points for the benefit of America, even Sherak -who declared more than once the necessity of stating cease of fire in any resolution, otherwise it will be an immoral behavior- disregarded what he had declared and agreed upon the resolution project!

Oh Muslims; This resolution is fatal for the whole nation, and not merely for Lebanon, it was prepared to fix a compromise between Zionist Jews and Lebanon from which America will dash out into a more comprehensive compromise in the region under its leadership, and phrase it according to what it named (the New Middle East) as was declared by Rice during the aggression on 22/07, that the Israeli aggression will result in a (New Middle East).

The resolution realized a triumph for Zionist Jews, which it could not achieve in the battlefield, and had it not been confident that the systems in the Muslim countries will not interfere, whether those who used to shout asking for supporting Hizbullah such as Iran and Syria, or the other countries which were against it in open and in secret, had it not been for that, state of Zionist Jews would have asked by itself to stop fighting since its first days.

The issues of the Muslims are not solved by an international resolution endorsed by the Security Council, which is dominated by America, the (great) guardian of state of Zionist Jews. These issues are solved by war, by opening battlefields and dashing of soldiers out for fighting for the sake of Allah, all those capable will be soldiers in these armies, because it is a duty imposed by Allah on Muslims, if the enemy usurped a span of their land, so how will it be if many spans were lost and assaulted in its own country!? If any nation was assaulted on its own lands, and did not defend it courageously, it will be humiliated and torture will overwhelm it. Allah (swt) said:



إِلَّا تَنْفِرُوا يُعَذِّبْكُمْ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا وَيَسْتَبْدِلْ قَوْمًا غَيْرَكُمْ وَلَا تَضُرُّوهُ شَيْئًا وَاللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ
“Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things.” [Al-Tawbah: 39]


The failing of the systems in the Muslim countries from triumphing Palestine and Lebanon against Zionist Jews is a great crime, and the letting down of Syria and Iran to Hizbullah and leaving it alone is a connivance in order to facilitate the entry of the American projects into the region. The attitude of the other Arab countries, especially Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and the other states in the Muslim countries, which stood helpless and supportive for America and Zionist Jews aggression, not only in secret but openly as well, is a crime which circles their necks with disgrace and shame in life and the afterlife.

Oh Muslims; To accept this resolution and implement it is a treason for Allah, His prophet and the believers, the opportunity is still available for the soldiers in the armies to throw over these rulers, and return the glory of Islam, by establishing the state of Khilafah on the steps of the prophecy, to take revenge for the babies who were killed and disfigured by Zionist Jews, and the women who were terrified widowed and disgraced, and the old men whose beards were stained with blood, to take revenge from Zionist Jews and those who are behind Zionist Jews, only then, Zionist Jews will destroy their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers, and Allah will heal the chests of the pious people.


وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ المُؤْمِنُونَ، بِنَصْرِ اللهِ
“On that Day shall the Believers rejoice with the victory of Allah” [Al-Rum: 4,5]




Hizb ut-Tahrir
18 Rajab 1427 AH
12 August 2006 CE

Source: http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=13835&TagID=3


We love and hate for the sake of Allah and we invite all to establish Islam regardless of whether he is a Murtad or not. Enjoining good and forbidding the evil is compulsory t everyone and even a murtad can only be killed after evidence is furnished to him.

that is the most idiotic thing you have ever said!

How can you call a murtad to enjoin good and forbid evil as if he is a believer? This contradicts ijmaa' as-sahaaba(raa)!

So what, if he betrayed his commitment to Allah? He will face the wrath of his lord as long as the obligation of advising him was done by HT…or let’s say, how many Sunni Scholars were told the same but decided otherwise? All it took was Mullah Umar to announce he was the Khalifah of the Muslim Ummah for us all to give him bai’ah but what? He preferred an Emirate to the Islamic Caliphate.


Did you guys (ht) advise khomeni the mushrik by returning to Islam or did you advise him to implement your constitution?

Subhanullah! Are you an embarassment to HT or what! I have shurut laa illaha ill-ALLAH and al'udur b'il jahl by shaykh abu baseer if you want it....because you need it!

btw as for accepting mullah umar(ha) you people forget the articles now removed from khilafah.com discussing just how "un-islamic"the rule of m.Umar was?

wa ALLAHU Musta'an!

[Suhaib Jobst]

All it took was Mullah Umar to announce he was the Khalifah of the Muslim Ummah for us all to give him bai’ah but what? He preferred an Emirate to the Islamic Caliphate.

1 - The Islamic da'wah is one of Tawheed and Jihad, not establishing the Khilafah. This call to imamate has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, yet it is used as an excuse to abandon Islamic practices and reject ahadeeth and to cooperate with this and that person, irrespective of what their beliefs are.

2 - The Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), in authentic prophecies, said the Khilafah was going to end after thirty years, i.e. after the death of Ali ibn Abi Talib (radiallahu anhu). There is another narration in which the Prophet outlined the system of governments which would follow this khilafah, but this khilafah would not return UNTIL the appearance of Imam Mahdi. Was the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) a "liar"?!

3 - Mullah Muhammad Umar (hafidahullah) knows far more about the Islamic evidences than you and the other HT activists. First of all, he did not have the bay'ah of the Muslims outside of Afghanistan and his authority was confined to the borders of Afghanistan. Second, as far as I know, he was not of Qurayshi lineage. So he obviously couldn't call himself a Khaleefah. Even if he did, the HT would be foremost in criticizing him!

[Brother_Mujahid]

What I did and still do is to say that such Fatwahs’ that are general are vague and plays to the partisan ploys of the infidels. If the Shi’a united with the occupying forces in Iraq and that acts as the basis of your reasoning, I ask you, how many a Sunni has done the same worldwide? I don’t want to be a defender of no one but can we revisit all the Fatwas’ that have been given about the Shia?

Defenderofhaq…You can start by reading the book by bin Baaz rahimahullah (The nullifiers of Islam) and read on the ruling he gives on the people who assist the Kuffar against the Muslims and tell me, how many Ahl-Sunnah fall there including himself with his Fatwa? I believe you regard him as ahl-sunnah don’t you?

Our hatred for the Rawaafid Shee'ah has to do first and foremost with their aqeedah, irregardless of events in Iraq. It is because of the aqeedah that they do what they do in Iraq.

That being said, it was the Shee'ah that intiatated the "sectarian" conflict in the first days of the invasion. They would shot non-Iraqi fighters from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, etc that came to defend Iraq in the back. After that they began hunting down "Ba'athists" (i.e. Sunnis) and executing them. It was the Shee'ah, furthermore, that assisted the Americans in invading Fallujah and other such cities (they would than violate the maasajid and hang posters of Khumayni and as-Sistaani). It was as-Sistaani that would tell the Shee'ah to cooperate with the Americans and it was groups like the Council for "Islamic" Revolution in Iraq and ad-Da'wah party that would join the government, nay lead the government (both Ibrahim al-Ja'afari and Nouri al-Maliki are from ad-Da'wah and Abdul-Uzza al-Hakim is from SCIRI).

The Shee'ah have been at our backs for centuries. Hizb ut-Tahrir loves to harken back to their "golden age" of the Uthmaani state, so they should know the history of that era. Who was it that would attack the Uthmaani state from the rear everytime they made gains on the crusaders inside the heart of Europe itself? Why did the Uthmaani army have withdraw from Vienna, Austria? Furthermore, what was the policy of the Uthmaani government toward the Shee'ah?

As for the attacks on the ulemaa like Shaykh Abdur-Rahmaan al-Barrak, inside of making incinuation and ad hominem attacks, give evidence that al-Barrak is saying is wrong from the Qur'an and Sunnah.

For all Hizb ut-Tahrir's lofty rhetoric about unity, it seems they are less interested in unity and more interested in everybody submitting to their banner and leadership.

[abu_ibrahim]

So if a Shia is a Murtad, it means at some point he was a Muslim. What point is that? And how does that differ from a clear Kaffir?

I don't know who said the Rafidi were from the Murtaddeen.

The Rafidi are from the original Kufaar, meaning they were never in Islaam to start off with. To be a Muslim, one starts to fulfill the conditions of the declaration of faith, have the Rafidi ever fulfilled them? Considering that before believing in Allaah, you have to disbelieve in all other deities. They have failed to do, as saying, "Ya Ali Madad" is an integral part of the Rafidi belief.

The sects that are disbelievers like the Jews and Christians are the Barelwis
and the Rafidi.

[defenderofbusharraf]

LOL abu ibrahim.....Masha'allah, in a nutshell, that is the truth which u have posted.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

not every person who ends up a rafidite is a kafir, that was my point.

[abu abdil-kareem]

We see them as Kuffar, they see us as Kuffar, we slaughter between ourselves just like during the time of the big Fitnah of the Sahaba and the tabi’in so who are the losers?


This is a very strange analogy:confused:? Which Fitnah are speaking about? If you are attempting to use the incident of the battle between Ali and Mu'aawiyah then I would suggest you Taqillaah (fear Allah), because this was a dispute between Muwaahideen (Muslims) and not a battle between Muslims and Kuffaar which is the situation in Iraq at this current moment! Or if you are referring to a separate incident then please specify.



The Mehdi Army, Ansar-u-Sunnah, Al-Qaida in Iraq are busy slaughtering each other and that’s not a praiseworthy thing


What is not praiseworthy about fighting Kuffaar who have been targeting Muslims from Ahlil-Sunnah in an attempt to completely irradicate them? I understand that HT has many issues with the obligation of Jihaad at-Talab never mind Jihaad ad-Dafah, but the reality is that there is a war between Eemaan and Kufr whether you wish to recognise it or not, and fighting in Jihaad is more praiseworthy than one praying Salaat in thier house for seventy years, and I don't believe that there is room for any dialogue at the moment out in Bilaad al-Raafidayn, what there is however is a unification of both the Crusaders and Rawaafidhtah to establish other than the Hukm of Allah ta 'ala, which mind you is reason enough to remove anyone who stands in the way of those who oppose this Shirk and are trying to raise Allah ta 'ala's name most high by implenting the rule of Allah ta 'ala.



...blowing the masajid


akhee al-kareem, I am sure you are aware of Masjid adth-Dthiraar as opposed to Masjid at-Taqwah? Do you know what the Ahkaam is concerning Masjid adth-Dthiraar? Well the answer you would need is answered by your previous quote!

[gag order]

The Shee'ah have been at our backs for centuries. Hizb ut-Tahrir loves to harken back to their "golden age" of the Uthmaani state, so they should know the history of that era.
the sad fact is that their 'history' is as lacking as their grasp of current affairs. for hundreds of years the sufi turned shiite safavid empire fought the uthmanis and caused them to divert men and resources earmarked for european campaigns.

a little known fact is that the uthmanis outlawed shiaism, a policy which they inherited from the previous rulers, the mamelukes. but all you hear from HT is how the wahhabis allegedly betrayed the uthmanis.


We see them as Kuffar, they see us as Kuffar, we slaughter between ourselves just like during the time of the big Fitnah of the Sahaba and the tabi’in so who are the losers?
to reiterate abdil kareems answer, this is not a slaughter between muslims this is a war between sunni mujahideen against the crusaders and their rafidite allies. the circumstances are not the same as the insurrection wars. the fact that you confused the two only betrays your grasp of islamic history.


The Mehdi Army, Ansar-u-Sunnah, Al-Qaida in Iraq are busy slaughtering each other and that’s not a praiseworthy thing blowing the masajid and market places, killing children and women who confess to the Shahadah.
on the contrary, alqaida was forced to divert men and resources intended to fight US forces, to repel the badrists and the sadrists becos they had sided with the crusaders.

you claim to be aware but little have you understood, so instead of thanking me for the information, go back and read and contemplate what i have related to you.

their collaboration invited a spate of reprisals from alqaida in which there were unavoidable civilian casualties, but the intended targets were large congregations of badrists and sadrists who would not normally gather in one place.


The Rafidi are from the original Kufaar, meaning they were never in Islaam to start off with.
absolutely, they are kuffar NOT murtad since a murtad is one who was once a muslim but the rafidi who began life as political partisans, developed their own theology, tariqa and law insomuch that they became murtad, so the descendents of murtad are kuffar until they return to real islam as defined by ahl us sunnah.

[Intoodeep]

I dont agree with the sometimes venomous hatred some have of HT here on this board.

However HT really dont do themselves any favours when it comes to understanding the reality of what is happening in Iraaq. If you cant even understand what is going on around you how the hell are you gonna be able to work towards any of your stated objectives?

[Abu Nihla]

Well the followers of whims and desires cease to amaze me, so they post articles which everyone has read trying to prove nothing. At least someone realized that the Shi’a are not Murtads but original Kafirs, teach that to Abu Imaan who thinks by reading some 12paged documents on aqeedah he knows all.

About Mullah Umar hafidhahullah, he tried his best but his priorities were wrong and he achieved to that which Allah allowed him to achieve despite that I disapprove of his methodology. On his understanding of Deen and Hts level of understanding, only a fool will argue otherwise since we don’t and can’t measure the level of education between the two. Why did the Arab Mujahedeen given and stayed on a different location from the rulers-hip of Taliban until after the U.S. Led war?

Well we, read and research and consult and it’s true what the Taliban had was not the Khalifate as is understood by Islam and it’s not only HT that viewed this as otherwise, we have scholars, starting by Muhadith Shaykh Muqbil bin Hadee and even Albani ridhwaan allahu anhumaa not forgetting that the list can widen so why hold it on HT only?

Infact Mullah Umar hafidhahullah wanted to maintain borders until such a time when he would be ready to libarate the all Muslim lands no difference with what the Ikhwaan and Abu Ala Maududi thought.

About the conflict of the sahaabah yes I ask, did they fight each other and abuse each other? What fiqh do we learn from those incidents? Can we revisit the period and discuss it so we understand and apply it’s understanding or should we keep silent as ahl-sunnah request from us and give vague Fatwas generalizing issues?

Whether you like it or not, some Shi’a have reached the level of apostasy as some Sunni and we can’t generalize in one simple Fatwa.

On Iraq and who started what then, I say the blame game will never bring any achievement and to say the truth I still hold that Abu Imaan is a [content removed] individual who misquotes to suite his partisan desires as evident from his posts.

So what about HT and Hizbollah? I ask, how does Hamas regard Hizbollah?

[Umm Ahmed]

Honoured Muslims, please read the guidelines on posting.

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=1846

[gag order]

Whether you like it or not, some Shi’a have reached the level of apostasy as some Sunni and we can’t generalize in one simple Fatwa.

your assuming rafidi shiaism is a valid mathab to apostise from? the possibility of apostacy exists for a sunni but not for a rafida since their shiaism is from the outset, blatant kufr with an islamic theme or sometimes persian theme. this is not sufficient for it to be called islam.


rafidah believe that this is islam. http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=225&highlight=rafidah

[gag order]

Unity with the rafidah?


SURAT AL WILAYAT (?)
Saintly (Patron) Chapter

"On the name of the all merciful God

1 You who are believers, believe in the prophet and the saint (patron, God-man) "which is Ali Bin Abi Taleb, Mohammed cousin" which we sent, they will guide you to the strait path.

2 A prophet and a saint "belong to" each other, and I am the all knowing, the experienced.

3 Those who do (obey) God's covenant they "deserve" comforting paradises.

4 And those who if it read to them our verses, they contradict it.

[Meaning: If somebody (unknown) were to read the verses (from the Qur'an)
to them, they reject would it.]

5 They have a great (big) place in Hell, if they called in the day of judgement: where is the unfair, the contradictory for the messengers ?!

6 The messengers don't leave them "without" the truth, and God "will not allow them to win (appear, show) till a short time.

7 Praise your lord "and" thank "him", and Ali "Ali Bin Abi Taleb, Mohammed cousin" "one" from the witnesses."


the rafidah claim this is from allah!

[gag order]

Unity with the rafidah?



SURAT AL NURAIN (?)

"O you who believe, believe in the two lights.

He has revealed them unto you, warning you against the torture of the Great Day -- two lights emanating from one another, for I am the All-Hearing and the All-Knowing.

Truly those who fulfill Allah's pledge and his Apostle's verses shall be rewarded with Paradise.
Those who disbelieve by breaking their covenant and what they have pledged to do before the Apostle shall be thrown into hell, for they did injustice to themselves and disobeyed the supporter of the Apostle.

Therefore, they shall be caused to drink from the Hamim River in hell.
Truly Allah is the light of heaven and the earth as he wills, and he has chosen his angels and apostles and made believers of those whom he created.

All do whatever he wills. There is no god but him -- the Merciful and the Compassionate.
Those who came before them cheated their apostles, and so I have stricken them with my cunningness vehemently and painfully.
O Apostle! Preach my admonition, for they shall know.

Those who fulfill their pledge to you are likened to me to be rewarded by Paradise.
Truly Ali is one of the pious. We have sent Moses and Aaron, being appointed his successor, yet they disobeyed Aaron.
Be of good patience! They will become old. We have given you judgment, just as we did to other apostles before you. We have appointed a guardian to you from them, that they might return.

Truly Ali is devout, lying prostrate at night, warning as regards the Last Day, and hoping for the mercy of his Lord.
Say: "Should those who act unjustly be treated equally, while they know my torture?"


the rafidah claim this is from allah!

[gag order]

Unity with the rafidah?



in kulainis kafi it states:

"ali said to his 12 sons allah wants me to revive the traditions of the prophet yaqub (israel)" (al hujjat 63)

this is was introduced by the jew sabah the shia-e-ali leader. the "12 sons" refer to the 12 tribes of the isrealites and is also the name of the largets shia secterian group the "twelvers"

and incase anyone has missed the link between judaism and shiaism here it is in plain english.

"at the reappearance of the 12th holy imam, he will rule the world by the wisdom of the descendants of the prophet david"
(al hujjat/98)

kulaini also makes self incriminating remarks such as "we resemble and are just like the fellow followers of moses"
(al-hujjat/52)

[gag order]

Unity with the rafidah?



hizbullah the modern day hashishin

during the crusades there was a rafida group, a sufi influenced subsect of the ismailis known as the assasins, they were opposed to the sunni led jihad to evict the crusaders but nonetheless when they werent skirmishing with the sunni rulers, the abbasid khalifah, they often got into fights with their own allies the crusaders and the mongols.

in the end the mongols had enough of their most unreliable and untrustworthy of allies and sacked the assasin strongholds, and for good measure the 'wahabi' mameluks finally brought an end to it soon after defeating the mongols (twice) effectively ending mongol reign of invicibility for good.

the infighting and rivalry between allies is nothing new. when iran outsourced the badr brigades to form the new iraqi military it was fulfilling a US requirement to help consolidate its occupation of iraq, in turn the iranians probably felt they were free to persue their nuclear project without hindrance.

threats of war between israel and iran can now be realized through the fighting between the zionists and hizbollah. the west is reluctant to call for a ceasefire until israel secures its objectives ie replace land that it believes has lost through negotiation with the palestinians in the south and what could be better than to take the land of a worthless ally!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Every one of those fighters is a true believer, he has been not only trained to use guns and weapons but indoctrinated in the Shia faith and the Husseini beliefs,"

"If Israel comes out victorious from this conflict, this will be a victory for the Sunnis and they will take the Shia community back in history dozens of years to the time when we were only allowed to work as garbage collectors in this country. The Shia will all die before letting this happen again."

hizbullah fighter interviewed by gaith abdul-ahad

[Abu Nihla]

You can post all you can but just to clarify i have read all that you have posted about the Shi'a so i have even debated with them in some of their forums but generally i say, there are Shia'ah who have reached the level of apostasy due to their beliefs and some are just ignorant sinners who are to be called to the way of Sunnah and Sheriah.

I also managed to read hadha aqeedatuna by Ali Sistani ( not interested in refutation discussing his personality) in that short article if that's what he truly takes into his aqeeda then obviously we will find problems labeling him a kaffir, the highest we can go is to label him a deviant. So i also have read his Fatwas and they are fresh in my mind as some with mistakes and some just o.k as all other even sunni Ullama has done mistakes.

So I asked a question earlier, what's our fiqh of understanding the wars of the Sahaba? And is it true that they abused and killed each other?

It should be understood that I believe the Shia’h should be called to rectify in their beliefs and affairs and that some have left the fold of Islam as a general principle that I adopt to all Muslims. Some are just another madhhab and the general Fatwas as above plays to the ploys of the infidels and the house of Saud, who sponsors such Fatwahs to safeguard his rule and protect his Kingdom from ignorant followers who view him (The house of Saud as legitimate Amir of the Muslims)

[gag order]

what's our fiqh of understanding the wars of the Sahaba? And is it true that they abused and killed each other?

start a new thread, to discuss it on this thread is tantamount to changing the subject or widening the debate

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Well the followers of whims and desires cease to amaze me, so they post articles which everyone has read trying to prove nothing. At least someone realized that the Shi’a are not Murtads but original Kafirs, teach that to Abu Imaan who thinks by reading some 12paged documents on aqeedah he knows all.

erm you say these rafidites are the people to unite with. I say that they are kafirs but not all were originally kafirs. Big difference........like big difference between murtad and original kafir.....

Also it seems idiotic statments are your forte, such as the point about articles...whe you asked me for the evidence regarding HT and thier fitna-monger Hizb-ul-shaytan counterparts of Lebanon

But alas it is a common trait of the one who disregards evidence when he asks for it (no the first time is it HT Man!)

About Mullah Umar hafidhahullah, he tried his best but his priorities were wrong and he achieved to that which Allah allowed him to achieve despite that I disapprove of his methodology. On his understanding of Deen and Hts level of understanding, only a fool will argue otherwise since we don’t and can’t measure the level of education between the two. Why did the Arab Mujahedeen given and stayed on a different location from the rulers-hip of Taliban until after the U.S. Led war?

Says the one well versed in the Imaam's(ha)'s life and understandings and reasonings of the deen.


Well we, read and research and consult and it’s true what the Taliban had was not the Khalifate as is understood by Islam and it’s not only HT that viewed this as otherwise, we have scholars, starting by Muhadith Shaykh Muqbil bin Hadee and even Albani ridhwaan allahu anhumaa not forgetting that the list can widen so why hold it on HT only?

the point is they never claimed to be khilafah....and when you boys sent a "delegation" alledging taliban only wanted to have a national state only for afganis and not khilafah you are contradictng what has been reported by your fellow ht's who claim to have met the Taliban in Pakistan! So the allegation is false o start with!

Infact Mullah Umar hafidhahullah wanted to maintain borders until such a time when he would be ready to libarate the all Muslim lands no difference with what the Ikhwaan and Abu Ala Maududi thought.

so why did your delegation claim differently?

About the conflict of the sahaabah yes I ask, did they fight each other and abuse each other? What fiqh do we learn from those incidents? Can we revisit the period and discuss it so we understand and apply it’s understanding or should we keep silent as ahl-sunnah request from us and give vague Fatwas generalizing issues?

the onw with no shame in using the sahaaba(raa) as an example for rafidites Vs. Ahl Sunnah is not one of sound mind nor reasoning which brings himto say shameful things.

Whether you like it or not, some Shi’a have reached the level of apostasy as some Sunni and we can’t generalize in one simple Fatwa.

Hold on I thought you agreed the rafidites were original kafirs that is why you asked one to teach me from a 12 paged document on 'aqeedah.....now you change your line? Ajeeb!

On Iraq and who started what then, I say the blame game will never bring any achievement and to say the truth I still hold that Abu Imaan is a [content removed] individual who misquotes to suite his partisan desires as evident from his posts.

if you say so.....it only goes to prove your reasoning of no need to bring evidence to answer anything show your inability to comprehend simple points so you resort to these kinds of judgements to protect your porn-lsd-kat-loving fellow and what not....

So what about HT and Hizbollah? I ask, how does Hamas regard Hizbollah?


who cares? what kind of proof is this? If Hamas seeks recognition with Isreal you will too? if you love those who curse sahaaba(raa) and support them your situation is pathetic! Full Stop!

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

what's our fiqh of understanding the wars of the Sahaba? And is it true that they abused and killed each other?

start a new thread, to discuss it on this thread is tantamount to changing the subject or widening the debate


lest we fear ALLAH Ta'ala enough to speak about these people as if they are nobody!


what do some of the modernists say?

Hum rijaal wa nahnu rijaal!


laa hawla wa laa quwatta ila billah!

[Suhaib Jobst]

he tried his best but his priorities were wrong....On his understanding of Deen and Hts level of understanding, only a fool will argue otherwise since we don’t and can’t measure the level of education between the two.

What was wrong with his priorities? To raise the banner of Tawheed in Afghanistan, ruling according to Shari'ah and fighting Jihad against the enemies of Islam?

As for the second part of your statement, he was able to accomplish in barely two years what HT has failed to do in over fifty years! Need I say more?

Why did the Arab Mujahedeen given and stayed on a different location from the rulers-hip of Taliban until after the U.S. Led war?

We don't know about the internal situation there, but it is clear the Mujahideen were given freedom of operation and were allowed to train in their own camps. You Tahreerees are never happy when it comes to the real Islamic sahwists and Jihadi activists; if the Taliban were more authoritative over the camps, you would complain about that!

starting by Muhadith Shaykh Muqbil bin Hadee and even Albani ridhwaan allahu anhumaa not forgetting that the list can widen so why hold it on HT only?

An Islamic state built upon Tawheed and the pure aqeedah - not the corrupted Mu'tazilite creed of HT.

Infact Mullah Umar hafidhahullah wanted to maintain borders until such a time when he would be ready to libarate the all Muslim lands no difference with what the Ikhwaan and Abu Ala Maududi thought.

Unlike the Ikhwaan (as it exists today) and Jamaat-e-Islami, the Taliban didn't try to take power through man-made "democratic" elections. Jihad is the manhaj they took, and this is correct from the Islamic standpoint. Ask yourself whether HT has the correct aqeedah and manhaj in this regard.

Can we revisit the period and discuss it so we understand and apply it’s understanding or should we keep silent as ahl-sunnah request from us and give vague Fatwas generalizing issues?

I can clearly see your reading of Ali Sistani and other Rafidah has affected your thinking for the worse. This is how it begins; anyone who removes the veil which covered the honor of the Sahabah is bound to curse them and ultimately question them in a manner which totally contradicts the pure Islamic belief and could lead to kufr.

I still hold that Abu Imaan is a [content removed] individual who misquotes to suite his partisan desires as evident from his posts.

I see nothing of the sort from the brother and it is clear that he is hated by you due to his personal knowledge of what HT actually teaches and his warning the people from their deviance.

So what about HT and Hizbollah? I ask, how does Hamas regard Hizbollah?

I care not in the least what Hamas thinks, an organization which does not legislate Shari'ah, which participates in man-made democratic processes, which allows Christians into its movement, cooperates with the secularists, and talks of abandoning Jihad. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[Brother_Mujahid]

At this point I see no point of debating with Abu Nihla has he has demonstrated that he is unable to think beyond his childish hizbi mentality. May Allaah guide him and give him the ability to think beyond the Tahriri sloganeering.

[Intoodeep]

HT - a political party which cant even get its political analysis right.

[Abu Nihla]

Brother Abu Mujahid, Ameen for the dua'h 4 surely i ask Allah to keep me guided. Thanks and May Allah give you the Fiqh of deen. As for petty rhetorics of yours, they just show your partisan mentality that is inclined to your following of whims and desires.

So this strange poster claims HT doesn't understand Political analysis... please establish your institution and i will gladly come learn from you.

About Taliban establishing Tawheed and Sheria'ah, i say they established only what Allah allowed from them to establish but what they establish was not total sheri'ah as understood in Islam so they have to learn from there mistakes as the ICU in Somalia who never prepared the masses the Importance of being ruled by the Sheriah so what followed was an embarrassment since the munafiq in Somalia don't want to rule by the Sheriah.

Abu Imaan, my stand is plain for anyone who reads and understands to what i have stated i.e. not all shia'h are Kuffar and we cannot generalize on a vague Fatwah and i rest my case since there's nothing productive but waste of time.

The case for the sahaba incident we can start from there and learn from that, may be Brother Mujahid can have the honor.

[gag order]

HT - a political party which cant even get its political analysis right.

an example:

the ICU in Somalia who never prepared the masses the Importance of being ruled by the Sheriah so what followed was an embarrassment since the munafiq in Somalia don't want to rule by the Sheriah.

sharia rule was readily accepted by somalis except for those who wage war against allah and the rasul (saw), ie the bandits or warlords and they were only a fraction of the population and even smaller than them was the transitional excuse of a government.
catch up on current affairs here: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=838 (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=838)

note that when the rasul (saw) established the state of medina not everybody amongst the masses was prepared to accept sharia rule, they even undermined the muslims at crucial moments yet continued to co-exist under sharia rule. from the biography of the rasul it can be seen that it is not necassary to convince everyone of the obligation of bieng ruled by the sharia since it is a matter of iman.

not all shia'h are Kuffar
true but thats not the issue here, we said ALL rafidi are kuffar. they constitute the overwhelming majority of shia.

[abu abdil-kareem]

I personally think this thread should be closed. Our brother Abu Nihla has been provided with a large amount of evidence about the Rawaafidthah, he has also been shown that working or even thinking of uniting with the Rawaafidthah in Iraq is impossible, but nevertheless our brother Abu Niha is entitled to his own opinion and I just believe that any more on this subject, since it is so clear, is only leading towards brothers losing their cool and creating an atmosphere that can lead to unecessary Fitan.

The lines have been drawn long ago between Eemaan and Kufr, so let those who Allah ta 'ala has opened their eyes to the reality not waste your time in endless, worthless, circular Jadal (disputation).

And as a side note, this has been one of those threads where the evidence presented has been completely one sided, as they say after a boxing match "We have a unanimous decision"

Wa Salam

[Brother_Mujahid]

Brother Abu Mujahid, Ameen for the dua'h 4 surely i ask Allah to keep me guided. Thanks and May Allah give you the Fiqh of deen. As for petty rhetorics of yours, they just show your partisan mentality that is inclined to your following of whims and desires.

Just "Brother Mujahid", not "Abu Mujahid". Anyways could you point out to me where I'm following my whims and desires, so I can avoid falling into that trap of the shaytan?