To the Muslims that support unIslamic acts

[defender of tawheed]

As-salaamu 'alaikum

I see some of you brothers talking and posting things about the real "shooyukh," meaning ones that that say it is totally halaal and Islamically correct to kill and bomb noncombatant (civilian) kuffar, that "their blood and wealth" are halaal, etc. I have seen how some of you brothers totally defend and condone the 7-7 London subway bombings, the Madrid bombings, and pretty much any operation where Muslims have allegedly killed noncombatant (civilian) kuffar, including the Edited would be "shaheed" brother Richard Reid and his "ingenious" plan to blow up more kaafir noncombatants on his so-called shoe bomb plot. SubhanAllah.

Do you all (myself included, and any Muslim with a mustard seed of imaan) not feel that when the kuffar kill noncombatant (civilian) Muslims, that they are doing despicable, heinous, filthy, and disgusting things?

HOWEVER, you turn around and say that we Muslims can kill and massacre noncombatant (civilian) kuffar (that have NOTHING to do with the zionist-Crusader "combatants" killing our brothers and sisters), and say how great, terrific, fantastic, and great this is? SubhanAllah.

How can you say this? How can you NOT see that you guys (I'm only talking about the brothers that support this) are being hypocritical? (note - I'm NOT talking about in a religious sense) You say how EVIL the kuffar are when they kill our noncombatant brothers and sisters (I totally agree), YET you brothers say that it is great, it is wonderful, and totally halaal when we kill their noncombatant (civilian) kuffar! SubhanAllah.

Sorry to sound harsh, but do you brothers not agree with any points that I've raised here?

[Suhaib Jobst]

Wa Alaykum as-Salaam,

I understand the message you're trying to get across, although you are relying too much on conjecture and emotion, rather than bringing clear evidences from Qur'an and Sunnah.

It is essential we consider the matter from an Islamic viewpoint, not one influenced by Kaffir modes of thinking. I'm not saying that we should kill all non-combatants with impunity, but only that it's not black-and-white. For example, Islam permits retribution and the combatant includes those who aid the enemy in whatever capacity. I will not dwell into this issue except to include the following fatwa....

Fatwa on Recent Events by Shaykh Humûd al-'Uqlâ

Q: To proceed, Shaykh Hamûd ibn 'Abdullâh ash-Shu'aybî, there have been a lot of talks on what happened in America some supporting and blessing others opposing and condemning it. What is the correct stand in these two opinions according to your view? We similarly hope you will go into details in the issue because of the ambiguities in it.

A: Praise is due to Allâh, Lord of the Worlds, may the salât and salâm be with the unlettered Prophet, his family, his companions and all who live according to his path till the Day of Judgment.

Before answering the question we should know that whatever decision the non-Muslim state, America, takes - especially critical decisions which involve war - it is taken based on opinion poll and / or voting within the house of representatives and senate, which represent directly, the exact opinion of the people they represent - the people of America - through their representatives in the Parliament. Based on this, any American who voted for war is a like a fighter, or at least a supporter, as we will explain later.

Let it also be understood that the guide and final decision on the interactions of Muslims with the Unbelievers are the Book of Allâh and the Sunnah of His Prophet may the salât and salâm be with him; And not politics or personal benefits. And the Qur'ân has explicitly explained this issue and clarified it because of its importance and danger. When we refer to the Qur'ân we realize that it has left no one in doubt nor did it leave any grey areas on this issue.

And all the various verses which discuss this issue emphasize two things, namely al-Walâ' (love and alliance) and al-Barâ'ah (hate and opposition), which confirms the fact that al-Walâ' and al-Barâ'ah are strong pillars in the Islâmic Sharî'ah, an issue on which the scholars - both the past and contemporary - have consensus. Allâh says warning against loving the unbelievers, taking sides with them and leaning towards them:

"O believers! Take not Jews and Christians as your (protecting) friends, they are allies of one another. Whosoever allies with them, amongst you, then he is one of them ... "

"O Believers! Do not take My enemy and your enemy, as friends, giving them your affection ... "

And Allâh said: "O Believers! Take not private friends from among your enemies expressing open love to them ... "

And He said on the necessity of rejecting the unbelievers,

" ... certainly you had an excellent example in Ibrâhîm and those with him, when they said to their people we are free from you and from whatever ye worship other than Allâh, we have rejected you hostility has stated between us and you till the Day of Judgment..."

And the Exalted said:

"Never will you find a people who believe in Allâh and the Last Day making friendships with those oppose Allâh and His messenger even though they were their parents or their sons ... "

And the Exalted and praised said:

"Say: if your parents, your children, your brothers, your wives, your kindred, the wealth you have acquired, the commerce in which you fear decline, or the dwellings you are pleased with, are dearer to you than Allâh and His Messenger and striving hard and fighting in His cause, then wait until Allâh brings His Decision. And Allâh guides not the Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient)."

These verses and tens of others are clear statements on the obligation and necessity of opposing unbelievers and hating them, as well as rejecting them. And I don't think any person with the slightest level of knowledge is ignorant of this.

Having said this, you should know that America is a Kufr State that is totally against Islâm and Muslims. In fact it has reached the peak of that arrogance in the form of open attacks on several Muslim Nations as it did in Sudân, Irâq, Afghanistân, Philistine, Libya and others, where it - America - allied with the forces of Kufr such as Britain, Russia and others in attacking and trying to exterminate them. Similarly, America expelled the Palestinians from their homes and housed the 'brothers of Pigs and Apes' in them; and stood firmly in support of the criminal Zionist State of the Jews, giving them all they need in the form of wealth, weapons and training.

How then can America after all these things not be considered an enemy of the Muslim Nations and at war with them?

But, because they have reached the peak of tyranny and arrogance; because they have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union in the hands of the Muslims in Afghanistân, they thought that they are the Ultimate Power above which there is no power. Unfortunately, they forgot that Allâh, the Exalted and Mighty, is stronger than them and can humble and destroy them.

On the other hand, it is unfortunate and disturbing to see that a lot of fellow scholars have preferred the side of mercy and emotion and forgotten or ignored what that Kufr Nation (America) is doing such as killing, destroying and spoiling most of the Muslim Lands, and showing no mercy or kindness in that.

Consequently, I find it incumbent upon me to refute some false claims and misconceptions that some fellow scholars are relying upon in trying to support their positions.

MISCONCEPTION No. 1

One of them is what I heard from some of them, " ... that we have agreements and pacts between us and America and hence it is binding on us to fulfil them."

My response to this is from two points of view:

1. The person saying this has already concluded that it is Muslims who committed the act, and up to now, no proof of law has been established to the effect that Muslims are behind the attack, or that they participated in it, in which case it may be said that they have broken the covenant.

So, since, it is yet to be established that we committed the act, nor that we did partake in its execution, how then can it be said that we have broken the 'Pact'?

Of course expressing our hatred for those unbelievers and rejecting them has nothing to do with breaking covenants or pacts. It is just something Allâh has compelled upon us in clear texts of His Glorious Book.

2. Even if we accept that there are covenants and pacts between Muslims and America, why then did America not fulfil its side of the agreement?

Why has it not stopped its aggression and harming a lot of Muslims? Is it not an established fact that: all pacts are binding on both parties; and that whenever they do not fulfil their roles, the pact becomes invalid and the covenant broken? Allâh the Exalted said:

"But if they break their covenants after its solemnizing it, and attack your religion, then, fight ye the leaders of Kufr, for they (deserve) no covenant ... "

MISCONCEPTION No. 2

They say that: " ... among the victims were some, innocent and sinless."

Response to this is from several points of view:

1. Sa'ab bin Jathamah (may Allâh be pleased with him) reported from that the Prophet was asked about the people in the homes of Mushrikûn (Polytheists) when they are attacked at night and their women and children are affected, he said: "they are part of them".

So, this hadîth shows that women, children and all those the killing of whom is forbidden, when they are separate, it is permissible to kill them when they are mixed up with the fighters and it is not possible to separate. This is because they had asked the Prophet about the case which is "attacking at night", in which case it is not possible to differentiate, and he permitted them because "things may be allowed when they occur along the way but be forbidden when separate."

2. Also, Muslim commanders have always used Catapult when fighting the Kuffar (a kind of weapon that was used in the past when trying to break into an enemy camp which is fully fortressed - it destroys whatever it meets by its weight, i.e. something like a catapult - translator), and it is obvious that a Catapult when applied in a war does not differentiate between a fighter and others, hence it may afflict some those so-called 'innocent souls', but that not withstanding this is an established practice among Muslims in their wars.

Ibn Qudâmah, may Allâh have mercy on him, said: "And it is permissible to use the Catapult because the Prophet may the salât and salâm be with him used Catapult on the people of Tâ'if; and Amr bin al-Âs did the same to the people of Alexandria." (Al-Mughnî, vol. 10, p503)

And Ibn al-Qâsim said, " ... it is permissible to use the Catapult against Kuffar even if children, women and old men and monks are killed inadvertently, because Nikayah (doing what will weaken the enemy) is allowed according to the consensus of the Ulamâh. Ibn Rushd said: 'Nikayah is permissible according to Ijmâ' and on any type of polytheists.' " (Al-Hashiyah ala' Ar-Raudh, vol. 4, p 271)

Here, there is a question we will like to ask those who use the word "Terrorism" on what happened in America, and I want their reply.

The question is: When America attacked a Pharmaceutical firm in Sudan, using its planes and bombs, destroying it and killing everybody in it, staff and labourers, what was this called? Shouldn't the action of America in the Sudanese firm be considered as an act of terrorism? Else how can what those people did in America be treated as an act of terrorism? Why is everybody condemning and rejecting what was done to those buildings in America and yet we did not hear any such condemnations on the destruction caused by America in the Sudanese firm?

I certainly don't see any difference between the two acts, except that the money that was used in building the firm is Muslims' and the workers and staff killed by destroying the firm were Muslims; Whereas, the buildings destroyed by those hijackers was built with the money of non-Muslims and the victims of the explosion were non-Muslims.

So, is this the difference that made some fellow brothers to call what happened in America 'Terrorism'!! While at the same time they neither condemned what happened in Sudan, nor called it TERRORISM?

Similarly, what happened to the Libyans of deliberate and imposed 'starvation'; 'starvation' of the Irâqis plus almost daily attacks; the sanctions and attacks launched against Afghanistân, a Muslim Nation: all these, why are they not termed "terrorism"? What else can we term them if not terrorism?

In addition, we should ask those people, what do you mean by "innocent and sinless"?

Those are one of three categories/groups:

The first category:

They may be among those who neither fought, nor supported their country by their persons, wealth or opinion and suggestions or anything else. It is not permissible to kill this category, on condition that they can be differentiated from the rest, but if they are mixed up such that they can't be separated, then it is allowed to kill them along with the others and by extension, like old men, women, children, the sick and the disabled or devoted monks.

Ibn Qudâmah said: "It is allowed to kill women and children in night attacks and in demolished buildings or ditches, so far as the intention is not to kill them in particular; And it is allowed to kill their (the enemies') animals as a means for killing and subduing them; there is no difference of opinion on this." (Al-Mughnî, with the Sharh - commentary, 10/503)

Similarly he said: "It is permissible to attack enemies at night. Ahmad bin Hanbal said: 'there is no problem with night attacks, were the Romans not attacked at night?' And he said: 'we don't know anybody who disliked night attacks' " (Al-Mughnî 10/503)

The second category: Or, they (the victims) may be part of those who did not participate directly in the war but helped with their wealth or opinions, these cannot be called "innocent", nay they are among the fighters and part of the strength of the enemy.

Ibn Abdil-Barr may Allâh has mercy on him, said in Al-Istizkar: "There is no dispute among the scholars that whoever fights among women or old men, killing him is allowed, similarly, any child capable of fighting , if he does may be killed." (Al-Istizkar vol. 14, p 74).

Similarly, Ibn Qudâmah reported the Ijmâ' on killing women, children and old men if they help their people; Ibn Abdil-Barr said: "They have a consensus on the fact that the Prophet killed Duraid on the Day of the Battle of Hunayn because he was an experienced in war and contributed his opinions. Thus whoever is like that among old men deserves to be killed according to all (scholars)." (At-Tamhîd, vol. 16 p 142)

And an-Nawawî, may Allâh have mercy on him related the Ijmâ' (in Sharh Sahîh Muslim in "the Book of Jihâd") that elderly men among the non-Muslims should be killed if they have knowledge of war strategies.

Ibn Qâsim also quoted in Al-Hashiyat that: " ... they had Ijmâ' that the ruling concerning any strategist is that of any fighter in Jihâd. This Ijmâ' was reported from Ibn Taymiyyah. Similarly, he related from Ibn Taymiyyah that "those who assist a group and their helpers are (to be considered) part of them, in whatever is for or against them."

The third Category:

Or they may be Muslims, and it is not permissible for these to be killed separately; But when they are mixed up with others in such a way that they have to be killed with them, then it is allowed, and these is the case known as 'Mas'alatut Tatarrus' (when non-Muslims hold Muslims as shield against attack), which was discussed earlier.

Thus, what many are babbling and repeating on the case of the "innocent victims", is nothing but the effect of the West and its media, to the extent that many an unwary person repeats the words and expressions of our enemies, which are in direct contradiction with the expressions of Sharî'ah.

Let us not, also, forget that it is permissible for us to treat non-Muslims similar to the way they treated us; and in this there is a reply and clear proof to all those who repeat the words "innocent victims", because Allâh the Exalted has made that. Among the texts on that:

"Thus, if you retaliate, retaliate with what equals the aggression afflicted upon you" and He said:

"...and those whom, when an aggression afflicts them, they revenge, but the reward of an evil is an evil equal to it."

Also among the sayings of scholars on the permissibility of taking revenge:

Ibn Taymiyyah said: " ... it is their right to mutilate. So it is their right to do it in revenge and payback in the same coins, OR they may waive it, but patience is better. This is in a case where the mutilation does not lead to a gain in the Jihâd, and it is not for an equal treatment from them (the enemies); But when mutilating them will lead to their accepting the faith or warn them against another aggression, then, it is - in this case - part of recommended Jihâd and retribution." (This was quoted
by Ibn Muflih in Al-Furu' vol.6 p.218)

Else, whoever says that there are "innocent victims" without any differentiation between their categories, must accept that he is accusing the Prophet and the Companions and those after them that they killed "innocent victims", according to them! Because the Prophet used Catapult in his war against Tâ'if, and it is the nature of Catapult that it does not differentiate.

Similarly, the Prophet sallallâhu 'alayhi wa sallam killed all whom those who had attained puberty among the Jews of Banî Quraydah without differentiating between them.

Ibn Hazm, commenting on the hadîth that "Banû Quraidah were paraded before the Prophet, and he ordered the killing of all those who had attained puberty," said: " ... this is a general ruling from the Prophet, since he did not leave out an old man, a merchant, a farmer or any other person; this was related from him with genuine Ijmaa' " (Al-Muhallâ vol. 6 p. 299)

Ibn al-Qayyim said in 'Zâdul Ma'âd': "it is part of his guidance (i.e. the Prophet's) that whenever he made a pact with some people and they broke the covenant, or some of them broke the agreement, and the rest supported them on that, and accepted it; he fights all of them and considers all as having broken the covenant. As he did to Banû Qurayzah and Banû an-Nadhîr and Banû Qaynuqa', and as he treated the people of Makkah. So this is Sunnah (method or approach to those who betray their covenants."

Similarly, he said: "Ibn Taymiyyah has certainly ruled that the Christians of Mashriq should be fought when they assisted the enemies of the Muslims against them, and helped them with their wealth and weapons, despite the fact that they did not did not fight us. He considered them to have broken the covenant as Quraysh did during the time of the Prophet by helping Banû Bakr bin Wa'il in fighting those in alliance with the prophet."

In conclusion, we all know that the non Muslim west, especially America will definitely seize this opportunity and utilize that in its favour and through fresh injustice to the Muslims in Afghanistân and Palestine, Chechnya and other areas, whoever the perpetrators may be. And they will try to eradicate Jihâd and those who engage in it and it will never succeed; and they will do that in the name of fighting Terrorism; and they will go ahead and fight our brothers in faith, in the Talibân ruled, Muslim Nation of Afghanistân, the only nation that has given a cover for genuine Mujâhidîn and assists them at a time when everybody has forsaken them, and who never bowed down to the Non-Muslim Western nations.

Thus, it is compulsory to assist this Islâmic Nation in Jihâd, with whatever we can Allâh the Exalted says:

"The Believers, men and women, are helpers of one another,"

And He said, "Help each other in righteousness and obedience"

Thus, it is compulsory to assist them with wealth and persons and opinions and advices and through the Media by defending them and their honour and their public image; and through prayers for them that they vanquish the enemy and have steadfastness.

And like we said, it is compulsory upon all Muslims to help the Talibân Government it is also equally compulsory upon the Muslim Governments especially the neighbouring countries to assist them against the Kufr of the West.

And let those know that that failing to assist Talibân that is being fought for its religion and because of the help it gives to Mujâhidîn and, assisting the kuffar against them is the kind of friendship and support of the kuffar that Allâh warned against when He said:

"Believers, take not my enemy and your enemy as friends in whom you put love."

And He said "Believers take not my enemy and yours as protecting friends."

Certainly it will go down in history that these countries betrayed their brothers and it will remain as a kind of bad record on them and their people that will remain forever!!

Similarly let those neighbouring and nearby countries beware that if they refuse to help the brothers and allowed the enemy to attack them, that Allâh may face them with His Natural Disasters and terrible situations as a punishment and chastisement on them. The Prophet said a Muslim is a brother of a Muslim, he does not forsake or betray him ... and he also said in a hadîth Qudsî: "Allâh said "Whoever fights my Friend should get ready for war with Me And He said "Whoever allowed a Muslim to be humiliated while he could assist him, Allâh will humiliate him in front of the entire creation on the Day of Judgment." (reported by Ahmad).

And we wish to remind the Pakistan Government that allowing the Americans, the enemies of Muslims, to use their land is not informed by wisdom nor borne out of experience politics at all because it will lead to giving the opportunity for America to discover their secrets of their country and know the location of its nuclear power with all precision and something that has terrified the West, and that may lead to the Americans giving the Jews the chance to attack the Nuclear Plants in Pakistan as they did those of Irâq earlier. And why does Pakistan trust America is enemy that has been warning and warning them!

I really think that the reasonable personalities in Pakistan will not allow it, not to mention their Good Muslims will ever accept this nor will they just fold their arms and watch surrender to their enemies of yesterday.

We pray to Allâh that He helps His Religion and raises His Word and exalts Islâm and the Muslims and the Mujâhidîn and to destroy America and its followers and those who assist them. Verily He has that Power and is Able to do so.

Wa-sallâhu wa-sallam 'alâ Muhammad wa aalihi wa sahbihi was-sallam

[Umm]

Well said akh Suhaib. It is pathetic how much outrage is given to 7/7 etc, yet when OUR sisters are raped and OUR lands are violated, how much anger does it arouse?

You say how EVIL the kuffar are when they kill our noncombatant brothers and sisters (I totally agree), YET you brothers say that it is great, it is wonderful, and totally halaal when we kill their noncombatant (civilian) kuffar! SubhanAllah.

That's like saying, why do we allow sabayah, yet would not want our own women taken as captives. Islaam doesn't advocate that we have the same rules for ourselves and them. Would the US be bombing Israel the way it would Iraq or Afghanistan?

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

Ya brothers and sisters! The covenants! Please fear Allaah regarding your covenants! its that simple. Learn from qualified scholarship inshaallaah ta ala.

[Suhaib Jobst]

Ya brothers and sisters! The covenants! Please fear Allaah regarding your covenants! its that simple. Learn from qualified scholarship inshaallaah ta ala.

There are many other rules governing such operations in the lands of the Kuffar, that make this subject very complex, but it would be wrong to bring into the equation alleged covenants, which the Muslim scholars agreed are nullified when the Kaffir governments in question attack the Muslims. What do you call Iraq and Afghanistan, and their continued support to the zionist cancer? In any case, here are correct guidelines concerning any alleged "covenants" (sorry for another long article, but I believe it pertinent to the current discussion)....

THE NATURE OF COVENANTS IN ISLAM

All contracts in Islam have three pillars

(i) Al-Aqidain – the two parties
(ii) Seighat ul-Aqd – the deal or Al-Ijab Wal Qaboul - the offer and acceptance
(iii) Al-Ma’qoud Alayh – the subject matter

“‘Uqud is covenants (‘Uhood)” [as explained by Ibn Kathir in his tafsir of this ayah v.2 p4 and also Mujahid, Qatada and Ibn Jarir] as mentioned in [EMQ 5:1] awfu bil uqoud

In addition Ali Bin Abi Talib (ra) said, as quoted by Ibn Abbas (ra) that Awfu bil Uqoud is a covenant.

Qurtubi said, in Vol p169 that ‘it means honour the covenant as a general text – whether that be by the tongue or through trade, relationship or security’

A’hd is derived from the verb ‘Ahada, which means:

‘Aqada contracting
Waada’a Reconciling
Ittafaqa Agreed

From [EMQ 5:1] we believe Hifzul Ahdi Minal Imaan that to adhere to a covenant is a part of Imaan.

The forms of Covenant

1- Amaan Ul Zimmah Covenant of security related to non-Muslim living in Dar ul Islam
2- Amaan Ul Jiwaar Covenant of security related to the neighbouring countries to Dar ul Islam
3- Amaan Ul Sulh Covenant of security related to cease fire agreements of Dar ul Islam with non-Muslim countries, could be e.g. 3 or 5 months
4- Amaan Ul Rusul Covenant of security for ambassadors and representatives of other countries who have a treaty with Dar ul Islam.

However, in today’s reality it is essential to study the covenant where non-Muslims have power:

5- Amaan Ul Muslim Covenant of security for a Muslim from non-Muslims

The original rule between Muslims and non-Muslims

“al aslu fee dami wa maal al- kaafiri al hillu wal ibaaha”

“The original (Islamic) rules for the life and wealth of a kafir is that it is lawful and permissible.”

This is a well known principle in Islam. However his/her sanctity can be obtained by one of two:

(i) Imaan – Faith,

Allah (swt) says: “And if they embrace Islam, and perform salah and pay the Zakat, they are your brothers in the deen.” [EMQ 9: 11]

The Prophet (saw) said: “I have been ordered to fight people until they say “There is no god except Allah and Muhammad (saw) is the Messenger of Allah” and if they do that and they slaughter in the same way as us, then their life and wealth has sanctity except for the right of Islam…”

That is, except for the Shari’ah, for example if he steals his hand will be cut etc…

Maimun bin Siyaa said “I asked Anas bin Maalik one day; [he said:] “O Abu Hamza, what makes the life of a servant and his money have sanctity” he said: “the one who says laa ilaha illallah and prays towards our qiblah, and prays our prayer and eats our slaughtered meat; has sanctity for his life and wealth…” [Bukhari]

- The hadith shows that the kalima is the issue
- The fact that he does not worship any taghout is what makes him have sanctity

(ii) Amaan - Covenant of Security
A kafir can also obtain sanctity by entering into a covenant of security with Muslim(s).

These are the rules when Islam is dominant, however when the kuffar are in authority, and we (the Muslims) are weak, they look to us as people that have no sanctity, and the only way they will allow you to live with them, is via a covenant – i.e. to have an agreement not to violate the sanctity of each other.

Covenant of a Muslim from a kaafir

This is something that usually would not happen except in unusual circumstances, or in emergencies, it is not normal to live between the kuffar. For us today where there is no dar ul Islam, and there is only taghout rulers oppressing the Muslims everywhere, we are in a position where we are persecuted and oppressed, and it may be necessary to live under a covenant in non-Muslim countries.

The Prophet (saw) said: “I am free from the one who lives between the Mushrikeen.” So it is not allowed to live amongst the kuffar, except with a Shari’ah permit.

Ibn Hazm said: “As for a Muslim who runs away to Dar ul-Harb because of oppression that happened to him among Muslims and he found no one to protect him, and he never supported those at war with the Muslims, nor allied with the kuffar, … he has a permit to live amongst the kuffar under compulsion.” [Vol.2 p.125]

This statement is regarding a situation about Hisham bin Abdul Malik – who was a Khalifah who promised to protect Muhammad bin Muslim bin Shiyad. Muhammad Ibn Shiyad had said that if Hisham died he would run away, and indeed when Hisham died, Muhammad Ibn Shiyad ran away and lived amongst the kuffar because he was facing persecution. Ibn Hazm said that whoever is in his situation is allowed to go to Dar ul kufr to live there.

NB. If the Muslims living in the time of a khaleefah could no longer get protection and could go to Dar ul-Harb, we can definitely have a permit to come here from the likes of Musharraf, Mubarak and Fahd.

Breaking the covenant is an attribute of the Munafiqeen

Concerning the ayah: ‘Those who betray the covenant of Allah…’ [EMQ 13:25] walaatheena yanqudhoona ahdallahi Imam Qurtubi said that this covers those who violate the covenant to non-Muslims. There is no evidence to restrict this only to Muslims. In addition Ibn Kathir said that ‘this is an attribute of those Allah is going to punish in the hereafter and destroy’

According to a hadeeth the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said that ‘There are four characteristics, whoever has them is a pure munaafiq and whoever has one of them has 1 branch of hypocrisy until he leaves it:

(i) If you entrust him he betrays
(ii) If he speaks he lies
(iii) If he has a covenant he betrays
(iv) If he is angry he swears’

Hence the Prophet informed us that the Ghadaar is not a good character. One of the doubts that people raise is to say ‘They occupied our homeland in 1924, they are taking our wealth, they are raping our women in Kashmir etc… and therefore we have no covenant’ this is wrong because Allah (swt) says ‘stand firm to the Deen of Allah with justice and do not let a hatred for a people prevent you from following the Shari’ah’

Ibn Jawzi said ‘Stand firm on the Haq and do not betray the people you are living with’

Concerning the ayah: ‘The birr is not to face the East or the West: but birr is…who fulfil their covenant when they make it…’ [EMQ 2:177] Imam Qurtubi said that ‘one of the characteristics of the people of Taqwa is to fulfil the covenant’

Ibn Kathir said that Muslims never betray the A’hed unlike the Munafiqeen.

The purpose of the Covenant

The main purpose of being under a covenant of security is to carry daw’ah.

Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an: ‘If anyone of the Mushrikeen seeks a covenant grant it to him so that he may hear the word of Allah…’ [EMQ 9:6]

In Islam if the covenant is not for the sake of carrying daw’ah its useless because that is the purpose of it.

Ibn Dughana saw Abu Bakr As-Siddique (ra) leaving Mecca and said: ‘O Abu Bakr where are you going?’ he said ‘They keep torturing us’ Abu Dughana said ‘don’t worry I will give you protection’. Abu Bakr (ra) said ‘on the condition that I can call for what I believe’ and the Messenger Muhammad (saw) consented to it. This is related in Kitab Sirah Nabawiyyah of Ibn Ishaq and also from Marwardi. Later Abu Dughana said ‘the people have started to complain’ so Abu Bakr (ra) said ‘keep your covenant’ and he said publicly: ‘I gave up my covenant with Abu Dughana – Allah is my only covenant now’ and they beat him up until they nearly killed him.

The forms of the covenant of Security

There are two basic forms of the covenant of security:

(i) Contractual - When you enter into a country, you do not enter declaring jihad on them saying ‘I am coming from Afghanistan to kill you!’ rather you ask for security and protection. People that are entering into a country speak politely and carefully asking to be permitted by them to enter into the country. They apply for ‘Asylum’ or a visa etc… to be permitted by them to enter into their country without being arrested etc. This is a covenant where they (the kuffar) give you clear verbal or written permission to enter and stay in their country. This is the clearest form of covenant. Even a good-morning at the airport will signify this or a nod of the head i.e. it could be written or by sign language or verbal.

(ii) Customary – Where it becomes known by custom, that if you enter into the country, they will give you security etc. When you enter you state to them clearly on demand what the purpose of your entrance into the country is; whether you say “to study”, “to work”, “for security” or other reasons, however nobody says, “to fight” etc. Another reality is that, if you have entered to study/work (you don’t go to the war zone to study) etc… and you have stayed and lived there and have had children, you can have a covenant even by simply getting a driving licence, etc. because by obtaining a driving licence you are getting their assurance that you can live and drive freely with the security that you will not be arrested. This is a form of customary covenant. When a Muslim enters a non-Muslim country with a covenant of security, he/she has agreed not to violate the sanctity of the other party (i.e. the government or ruler), and that they will not violate yours. The government represents all the other people however, and so the covenant is applicable to all the people, and so you cannot kill or steal from anybody in that country, while under covenant. Applications for protection from the kuffar like seeking Income support or housing benefit or even a driving or TV licence, are all seeking protection in some form or another, like from hunger, from being without shelter, from being arrested etc…

For example when Hisham bin Mughirah wanted to offer his daughter to Imam Ali, the Messenger Muhammad (saw) told the people about this and said ‘I will never give permission’ (three times) except if Ali wants to divorce my daughter and marry their daughter because my daughter is part of me, there is no way for my daughter to be in the same place as the daughter of the enemy of Allah.’ Here Hisham sought permission to enter to marry the daughter of Rasoul Allah (saw).

Ibn Qayyim said that ‘the customary covenant is binding if any Muslim grants it even if it is in the form of getting married or letting them get married from you and that becomes binding and whatever is put as a condition by custom will be considered an expressed condition’ [this is applicable to studying and doing business as well]

Imam Ahmed – Fiqh As-Sunnah Vol 2 p105, said ‘the customary condition is to fulfil a customary contract, whether Ahed or Amaan or entry or asking for marriage from them or seeking knowledge – they are equivalent to the expressed verbal conditions’

In addition your wife and children will participate in the covenant with you when they grow up. The Prophet said ‘treat them the way you treat their parents’

Even if someone had no covenant before, by entering into such agreements or seeking such protection a contractual form of covenant of security is entered into thereby making inviolable the life and sanctity of the kuffar with whom you live and from whom you have sought the protection.

Hence IF we have no covenant we do not trade and marry etc… there, we do not say hello to them at all!

Evidences for the Covenant from the Qur’an and Sunnah

Allah (swt) said: “Fulfil the covenant of Allah, when you have affirmed it, and do not break the affirmation of the oath. And you make Allah the witness over you, and Allah knows all that you do.” [EMQ 16: 91]
Hence you give and observe the covenant to please Allah (SWT).

Allah (swt) said: “… and do not let your hatred for a people who prevented you from going to the Masjid al Haram lead you to transgress…” [EMQ 5: 2]

Allah (swt) said: “And purchase not a small gain at the expense of Allah’s covenant, verily what Allah has is better for you, if you but knew. And what you have will vanish, and what is with Allah will endure, and We will certainly bestow upon those who patiently persevere their reward according to the best of their deeds.” [EMQ 16: 95-96] this is evidence against those who just want to steal and make money from the kuffar believing (falsely) that because they are kuffar you can just take their money or even getting a small gain from them through violating the covenant. Imam Qurtubi said, in vol 10 p173 referring to [16:95] that ‘The Messenger Muhammad (saw) forbade rishwat (bribery) and taking the wealth while violating the covenant and he said do not violate it even for a little gain’ He quoted Mujahid, the great Mufasireen from the Tabieen. He continues ‘…the meaning of do not betray the covenant is for cheap money’

Allah (swt) says: ‘And do not come near to the Orphan’s wealth except to improve it, until he attains the age of strength. And honour every covenant. Verily, the covenant will be questioned about’ [EMQ 17:34] Ibn Katheer said that ‘And honour the covenant’ here means honour what you have covenanted with the people.

Allah (swt) said: “and those who betray the covenant which Allah obliged them to have and they cut what Allah ordered them to maintain, they are the failure (Al-Khusraan).” [EMQ 2: 27]

Mus’ab ibn Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqas (grandson of the one of the 10 promised Jannah) “I asked my father, ‘who are the people who betrayed?’ he said “they are the khawaarij who keep breaking the covenant” This is an attribute of the munafiqeen and kuffar. Ibn Katheer said concerning this ayah [EMQ 2:27] that ‘its an attribute of the kuffar opposite to that of the Muslims’

Allah (swt) said: “Is it not so, that whenever they make a covenant they violate it? Truly, most of them do not believe.” [EMQ 2: 100]

Imam Qurtubi said ‘Ata said that in the covenant of security between the Prophet and the Jews, they violated it and the Prophet (saw) said ‘That is the attribute of the Jews’

Allah (swt) said: “the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe; those of them with whom you made a covenant, and, then at every opportunity they break their covenant, and they do not fear (Allah)” [EMQ 8: 55-56]

These ayat speak about the kuffar, and warn us not to be like them

Allah (swt) said: “And those who break the covenant of Allah after ratifying it, and sever that which Allah hath commanded should be joined, and make mischief in the earth: theirs is the curse for them is the terrible Home.” [EMQ Ra’d: 25]

Imam Qurtubi said concerning this: ‘This includes those who violate the covenant to non-Muslims’ i.e. that there is no evidence to restrict this only to Muslim countries or Dar ul-Islam. Ibn Katheer said ‘This is an attribute of those Allah is going to punish in the hereafter and the disctinction of those who betray the covenant of security and the sign of the Munafiqeen are three: they lie, break the promise and breach the treaty..’

So who are the good believers who will enter Jannah?

Allah (swt) said: “It is not righteousness that you should turn your face to the east and west; but it is righteousness to believe in Allah and the last day and … to fulfil the covenants that you have made…” [2: 177]

Hence the people who fulfil the covenant are people of Imaan and Taqwa. Imam Qurtubi said: ‘One of the characteristics of the people of Taqwa is that fulfil the covenants’

Allah (swt) said: ‘[the believers are those …] And those who respect their trusts and covenants.” [EMQ 23: 8]

Allah (swt) said: “[the believers are those …] And those who respect their trusts and covenants.” [EMQ 70: 32]

Ibn Kathir said about this: “whenever they (Muslims) have a covenant they abide by it, because the one who betrays it, is the munafiq”

In Bukhari the treaty of Hudaibiyyah has been reported that when Suhail Bin Amru was not Muslim he said to Rasoul Allah (saw) that ‘O Muhammad we have a covenant with you that if anyone comes to you from us and he was on your Deen you must send him back and we will do likewise’

Ibn Ishaq reported regarding Abu Baseer, in Ibn Hajar’s Kitab ul-Fateh, in Vol 5 p411 that when Abu Baseer came to him from Mecca the Prophet (saw) he said ‘I want to come to your side and not stay with them, I ran away and came to you’ to which The Prophet (saw) said that he was obliged by the treaty of Hudaibiyah to return him to the Quraish, “O Abu baseer, these people have a covenant with me on what you know, go back and we do not become Ghadaar.” Abu Baseer said ‘To the mushriks, but they beat me?’ and asked about the case if they torture him or take his money, the Prophet (saw) said: “go back be patient, take it as a test from Allah, and Allah will find you a solution, a way out.” However Abu Baseer killed the two people sent from the Quraish to accompany him back and brought the money back to the Messenger Muhammad (saw), however he did not accept it.

NB. When Abi Baseer killed and raided he was no longer under the covenant because he was outside Mecca.

Ibn Hajar, in his Kitab ul-Fateh said, Vol 5 p407, from Ibn Ishaq that ‘The Messenger Muhammad (saw) ordered Abu Jandal to go back to the Mushriks even though they treated him badly’

Imam Nawaai, in the Sharh of Muslim, Vol 12, p144 said: ‘to fulfil the covenant is binding, even with people of war and the ulema differ on a Muslim who is in the kaafir’s captivity whether it is allowed for him to leave and run away or if he can stay’ Imam Malik said ‘he must stay’ Imam Shaafi, Hanbali and Hanafi say that he can run away without telling them but ALL agree that he cannot violate their life or wealth whilst under a covenant of security.

In Bukhari and Muslim, it is narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: “On the day of judgement the ghaddar will have a banner over him saying that this is the ghaddar, he betrayed so and so.”

The Prophet (saw) said: “Whoever gives a covenant of security for someone’s life, and he kills them, I have nothing to do with the murderer, even if the one who has been killed is a kafir.” [Nasaa’i, Ibn majah no.440, Albaani (declared saheeh), Musnad Imam Ahmad]

Bukhari and Muslim, narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: ‘Whoever gives a covenant to someone ands kills him on the day of judgement he will carry the banner of the Ghadaar’ i.e. he will be known by it.

The Prophet (saw) said: “Whosoever kills any soul under a covenant, Allah will forbid upon him Jannah, and even to smell its perfume.” [Nisaa’I no. 4423, Albaani (declared Saheeh)]

The Prophet (saw) said: “Give the Amanah to the one you put in your trust, do not betray the one who betrays you, Allah does not like the betrayer.” [Albaani 423]

The Prophet (saw) said: “There is no Imaan for the one who has no trust, and there is no Deen for the one who does not observe the covenant.” [Musnad Imam Ahmad]

The Prophet (saw) said: “I do not betray any covenant” [Abu Dawood 2396]

The Prophet (saw) said: “Whosoever has a covenant between him and any people, he should not tie or loose any knot, until the covenant time ends or he says ‘I do not want to have a covenant’ and leaves.” [Sunan Abu Daoud 4423]

From the Ulema of the Salaf

Al Mughirah ibn Shu’ba had friends in that were kuffar before he embraced Islam, he killed them and took their money and then went to the Prophet (saw) to embrace Islam (also expecting to have his sins forgiven) and said: “I have killed my close friends, and I want to embrace Islam.” The Prophet (saw) said: “Islam, we accept from you, as far as the wealth, if it is the wealth of the ghaddar (betrayal) we do not need it from you.” Here he killed kuffar, even when he himself was kaafir, even without covenant but the Prophet (saw) rejected it and called it Ghaddar

Imam Sirkhasi said: “It is not allowed for a someone who has a covenant of security with non-Muslims to betray them, the hadeeth says that for every betrayal on the day of judgement is a banner showing his betrayal ‘I am the one who betrayed the one I had a covenant with’ if he betrays and takes money from kuffar and then comes to embrace Islam, his wealth will never be accepted because it was earned in a khabith way.” And he quoted the Mughirah incident (above).

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani – fath Al-Bari, Vol 5 p402, It is not allowed to take the money of the kuffar during covenant with them except…. through Fighting or by Jizya.

Imam Malik ‘the covenant is binding whether given or taken’

This refutes those who say ‘must be two ways’!

Imam Shafi’i Kitab Al-Umm p284. said: “If a Muslim enters Dar ul Harb with covenant of security, and he was able to take some of their money, it is unlawful to take anything from it, whether little or all of it, because if he has covenant from their side he has protection for his life and wealth and vice versa. Nothing is lawful for him just as what is unlawful from Mushriks or Zhimmis in Dar ul-Islam.”

Imam Shafi’i said: “If a harbi, comes to the Islamic state, and he has a covenant, and he dies, the covenant is for his life and death, it is not allowed to take his money, and the ruler must return all of his money to his inheritors if they exist.” [Kitab ul Umm v.4 p.296]

Imam Shafi’i said: “If the enemy captures a Muslim and imprisons him, and after that they release him and give him security, and they allow him to live among them, the covenant they give to him is a covenant from him to them and is binding on him, it is not allowed for him to assassinate them or betray them (here he quotes [9:6]), and we do not know ANY SCHOLAR that has mentioned otherwise.” [Kitab ul Umm vol.4 p292]

Imam Shafi’i learned the ‘ilm of the seven seas of knowledge, he studied the fiqh of Imam Ja’far as Sadiq, of Imam Maalik, of Imam Abu Hanifah, of Imam Laith ibn Sa’d, … he took the ilm from the four madha’ib and then stated that there was no statement saying otherwise (regarding the covenant) from Ahl Al Ilm.

Allah (swt) said: “And if anyone of the mushrikeen seeks your protection (O Muhammad), then protect him (I.e. give him covenant) so that he may hear the word of Allah; and afterwards convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are people who do not know.” [EMQ 9: 6]

Imam Nawawi (Shafi'i) said: “If a Muslim enters Dar ul Harb, by a covenant, and he borrows money from them or he steals and then goes back to Dar ul Islam, he must return it, because he has no right to take their wealth because of the covenant.” [Ar Rawadha Nadia v.10 p.291]

Qadi Abu Ya’la (Hanbali) said: “If a Muslim enters Dar ul Harb with a covenant, or he was in captivity with them, and they released him, and they let him live with them, it is not lawful; for him to betray them in any nafs or wealth.” [Ahkaam ul Sultaaniyah p152]

Ibn Qudama Al Maqdisi: In the topic entitled “any Muslim that enters into the land of the enemy, and he signs a covenant, it is not allowed to betray them or to deal in riba’ with them.” He said: “The Prophet (saw) said: “a Muslim fulfils the conditions of the ‘Ahd” and ghaddar is the one who cheats and betrays and it is a sign of the munafiq, and the money he earns from it is Haram. If he steals or borrows money, he is obliged to pay them back.” [Al Mughni vol 9 p 237]

Imam Al Maqdisi said: “Whenever there is a covenant given to a Muslim, in Dar ul Harb, it is forbidden to harm them or to kill them or take their wealth or betray them.” [v.10 p.555]

Ibn Muflih (Hanbali in Al-Mubdi’ Vol 3 p396): “If a Muslim has been in captivity and they give him covenant, and then they release him, it is allowed for him to run away but not to betray them, and he should return any money owed to them because he has a covenant of security – they have complete security from his side. If he does not he will be ghaddar and on the day of judgement he will appear with a banner showing his betrayal.”

Ibn Hammam (hanafi 4th CH, made Sharh of Fath Al-Qadir): “If a Muslim enters Dar ul Harb, as a businessmen, or student, it is not allowed for him to touch their life or wealth, because by the covenant he is guarantor that he will never touch them, if he does that, it becomes ghadr, and ghaddar is haram by Ijma without a difference of opinion’.” [Kitab Al Tahrir vol 6 p 17]

The Prophet (saw) said: “On the day of Judgement, the Ghaddar will have a banner over him, to say that he is the Ghaddar,” [Sunan Abu Dawood]

Ibn Abideen said: “If a Muslim enters Dar ul harb with a covenant of security, it becomes forbidden on him to harm their life or wealth or honour, because a Muslim adheres to the covenant, … if the money, he earns it in haram, it is not allowed to benefit from it, he should donate it, but if he stole it, he must return it.” [Kitab Al-Haashiyyah vol.4 p.166]

Imam Muhammad ibn Hasan ibn Shaybani: “If a group of Muslims, go to the frontier of the people of Harb, and they say “we are the Messenger of the Khalifah,” (i.e. ask for covenant) and they show them letters that look like letters of the Khalifah, or do not show them letters, and they betray the kuffar, and they say “enter”, it becomes forbidden for them to kill anyone of the people of war. And if they go there and kill anybody, and bring back any money, any money they bring is maal ul ghaddar and no one disagrees because it is amaan which makes the life and wealth of the non-Muslims protected. And if you go saying that you are trading, and they allow you to enter, that is a form of customary covenant.” [Kitab ul siya vol.2 p.66]

Imam Sirkhasee: “If a Muslim enters Dar ul Harb, and he says to them “I am going to look for a wife” or “to study” or “for trading” or just to pass through the land to go somewhere else, it is agreed that it is a form of customary covenant.” [Al Maqsud]

Individual and Collective Covenants

In the absence of the Khaleefah there is no such thing as a collective covenant of security rather everyone has an individual covenant. When he enters the country he may have an explicit one or an implied one i.e. contractual or customary.

Zainab Bint Rasoul Allah used to have a husband who was travelling and the Muslims ambushed them and killed many. He ran away but was still in the vicinity of Madina. He went to his ex-wife Zainab. At Fajr she said ‘I am Zainab daughter of Rasoul Allah, I declare that so and so is under my protection’ The Messenger Muhammad (saw) was praying, when he finished he said ‘did you hear – I heard it the first time now, if one of you gives covenant (even the lesser of us) if we accept it we must honour it’

The Contemporary Covenant

There are four main realities:

1- Covenant by obtaining a legitimate passport, where it is (i) in your own real name and (ii) says that you are a Muslim. If you do so, you are obliged to abide by the covenant
2- Covenant by owning an illegitimate passport, (i) with a false (even a kafir) name, (ii) which says that he is a Muslim, in which case, the covenant is still binding on him
3- Covenant with no documents, (i) Where he smuggles himself in without any documents but (ii) he says that he is Muslim, in which case the covenant is binding on him.
4- No Covenant: This is ONLY for the one who enters with a kafir name
ii. And says that he is kaafir
iii. And does not inform them or show them at all with saying or action that he is a Muslim
iv. But rather says that he is one of them
v. It is allowed only on the condition:
vi. That he is sent by Amir ul Mu’mineen as a Mujahid for the benefit of the Muslims,
vii. And in this case there is NO sanctity for the life or wealth of the kuffar at all, but one still cant ACT JAHIL!

Evidences for entering without any covenant

Ka’b ibn Ashraf: He was a Jew that would insult and accuse the honour of the Prophet (saw) until he (saw) said: “who can deal with Ka’b? he harms me badly.” Muhammad ibn Maslamah, asked, “Give me permission to deceive him” The Prophet (saw) said: “you have got it.” Ibn Maslamah went to him amongst his people and praised him and said ‘I am with you’ (Mushrik) and said that all the women like him and that he wanted to be like him, that he wanted to betray the Muslims, and fight against them, he told him that he had something to say to him in private, he took him away telling him that all the women he knows like him, he told him that there was one woman who was interested in him, and he said that there was a perfume that she likes, and asked him to allow him to smell his head, the man obliged, and ibn Maslamah took his knife and cut off his head. Muhammad ibn Maslamah took the head of Ka’b to the Messenger (saw), and the Messenger (saw) praised him and his action. He (saw) said: “good doing, good doing.”

There is no doubt here, that ibn Maslamah acted like a kaafir. He did so with permission from the Messenger (saw) and with the purpose of assassinating Ka’b ibn Ashraf. And the Prophet (saw) consented and even praised his action.

Imam Shaybani: Vol 1 p185 ‘If a Muslim enters Dar ul-Harb without a covenant and says ‘I am with you, I want to fight the Muslims’ and they accept him, he can kill them at any time and take their money’

Imam Shafi’i said: “If a group of Muslims, imitate the Romans, and wear their clothes, and enter saying that they are going to be one of them and fight with them against Muslims and ‘we know where the Muslims are hiding’ and they accept, it is allowed for them to kill them.”

Abdullah ibn Unais – the Prophet (saw) used to call him Mutakhassir fil Jannah (the one who is reclining in Jannah). He went to the enemy Khalid Bin Sufyan when he gathered people to fight the Prophet, saying that he is one of them, and he was going to them to increase their numbers, and then when he was inside with them, he killed them. And for this action, the Messenger (saw) said that he saw him in paradise, and called him Mutakhassir fil Jannah. The Messenger Muhammad (saw) said to Abdullah Ibn Unais ‘May Allah make your face full of success’ Abdullah Ibn Unais said ‘I told him what I did and the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said ‘those who lay in Jannah are very few’

This is the only time and way that you can do so, you cannot act like a kafir except in war and ONLY in war, as long as you do not say or do ANY SHIRK. If you are an ambassador of the Khalifah or part of the global Jihad. Here you must abide by the rules which apply to one living in Dar ul-Harb as well.

How the covenant will end

There are three mechanisms

1- The covenant is no longer valid when the time limit is finished
At this time, you are obliged to leave the country immediately or if you wish you can renew the covenant. Allah (swt) said: “And if you fear treachery from any people, throw back their covenant to them, verily Allah does not like the betrayers.” [EMQ Anfal: 58]
2- Declare that you do not want to stay and then leave
Imam Shaybani [Siyaar Vol 1 p184] said: “Negation of the covenant, will occur by telling them publicly and going back to where you were before the covenant.” But you are not allowed to steal and take their money.
3- If you are attacked and betrayed by the one who you have covenant with
In this case you can run and hide, until you can reconcile the covenant, or you can leave. [Mentioned by Imam Shaybani]

Imam Shafi’i said: “If a group of Muslims enter Dar ul Harb with a covenant of security, the enemy is secure from them until they leave or their time limit expires and they cannot take their life or money..’ and ‘..if the enemy take into captivity any children or women, although I do not like the betrayal of the enemy, it is not allowed to betray the enemy, rather the Muslims should try to find a way to release the women and children and leave the covenant of security and come back and fight.’

What about Kuffar in Muslim countries

Any kaafir in Muslim countries will today go back to the original rules i.e. kaafir asli. As for the kuffar who had a covenant with the previous Khalifah before, they and their children still have Zhimma and a covenant of security but its better for them to leave because of the insecurity and instability in Muslim countries. Any covenants or agreements between the Muslim countries and non-Muslim countries today is not binding at all because the rulers are all murtadeen and these countries are today Dar ul-Riddah. But if a Muslim individual gives a covenant to an individual kaafir it will be binding.

How can I break the covenant

The concept of breaking the covenant does not exist in Islam, because Allah (swt) says thatr we must fulfil our contracts Yaa ayuhalatheena aamanu Awfu bil uqoud [EMQ 5:1]

Whenever Allah (SWT) mentioned O you who believe Abdullah Ibn Abbas (ra) would say ‘Sameena Wa Ata naa’ We listen and obey.

I have been arrested and now that I am out I have no Covenant of Security and can do whatever I like

If you go to prison and come out either you take the rules of Dar ul-Harb and live apart from the kuffar as did Abu Baseer or if you continue to live amongst them you will not only have to command good and forbid evil but if you trade and deal with them you will re-enter a customary covenant of security with them. You cannot just carry on business as usual and act like a Jihadi. You cannot take the rules for the Mujahid and also that of the one under a covenant together.

Remember Imam Shafi’i said: “If the enemy captures a Muslim and imprisons him, and after that they release him and give him security, and they allow him to live among them, the covenant they give to him is a covenant from him to them (i.e. it is binding on him), it is not allowed for him to assassinate them or betray them, and we do not know ANY SCHOLAR that has mentioned otherwise.” [Kitab ul Umm vol.4 p292]

Ibn Muflih: “If a Muslim has been in captivity and they give him covenant, it is allowed for him to run away but not to betray them, and he should return any money owed to them, … and if he does not he will be ghaddar and on the day of judgement he will appear with a banner showing his betrayal.”

[Um Abdullah M.]

So you are positive that the civilians who were killed in the bombings have voted for the war???
How about the ones in London?
and were the ones who bombed actually targeting the people who were supporting the war ?

I remember one brother telling me that ALL Americans are ok to kill because they pay taxes so their money is used to fight Islam !!
I told him, that we Muslims who live in the US pay taxes too, so is it halal to kill us?
it is not our choice to pay taxes or not, we have too, whether we like it or not.

and this kind of mentality is not strange, since many of the same people support the killing of Muslims in Muslim land (I am sure you know which country I am talking about) because they consider some of them to be "kafir, thus making takfir on Muslims, then making their blood halal, and at same time they cause the death of other Muslims in the area of the bombing whom they didn't really declare kafir, but they were at the spot where they believe some are kafir.

May Allah rid the Muslims from such extremism.

[Abuz Zubair]

Suhaib... thank's for copying and pasting a mojo article, but do you even understand it? (or do you need to?)

[Intoodeep]

So you are positive that the civilians who were killed in the bombings have voted for the war???
How about the ones in London?
and were the ones who bombed actually targeting the people who were supporting the war ?

I remember one brother telling me that ALL Americans are ok to kill because they pay taxes so their money is used to fight Islam !!
I told him, that we Muslims who live in the US pay taxes too, so is it halal to kill us?
it is not our choice to pay taxes or not, we have too, whether we like it or not.

well you do have a choice. You could always leave.

[Abuz Zubair]

Well, be kind enough to leave first and protect your own blood before worrying too much about our lives.

[Intoodeep]

Well, be kind enough to leave first and protect your own blood before worrying too much about our lives.

Why? its you guys who state that false dichotomy. not me.

[Abuz Zubair]

Why? its you guys who state that false dichotomy. not me.
Hello? You're telling us to leave the West in order to protect our lives.

Where are you surfing from? The belly of the Ka'ba?

[Um Abdullah M.]

well you do have a choice. You could always leave.

as for me, I got married and left the US alhamdulillah. (that incident happened when I was in US)
but there are Muslims in US and other western countries who don't have a choice.

Also, the Muslim country I am in currently is where these people bomb Muslims who they consider "kafir".
And many Muslims here are feeling insecure because of these bombings, I know one sister who was terrified when one of the bombs hit an area very close to where she lives, I don't blame her, if I was in her place I would be terrified.

May Allah rid the Muslims of such extremism.

[Suhaib Jobst]

I remember one brother telling me that ALL Americans are ok to kill because they pay taxes so their money is used to fight Islam !!
I told him, that we Muslims who live in the US pay taxes too, so is it halal to kill us? it is not our choice to pay taxes or not, we have too, whether we like it or not.

The situation is very complicated, but given the tax structure of the USA, I don't think people are automatically combatants against the Muslims solely for paying taxes. Rather, I would restrict it to those who are actively aiding the war effort against the Muslims, and the military and economic expressions of their imperialism, i.e. military, executives of corporations plundering the Muslim lands or getting rich off arms-dealing, engineers who design tanks and planes, etc..

Suhaib... thank's for copying and pasting a mojo article, but do you even understand it? (or do you need to?)

Indeed it was an article I got from their forum, and I had to delete some of the conclusions it made. But I kept the parts which brought evidence from the scholars. I am not concerned with who wrote it, but if it brings forward daleel.

The main point I believe it is saying, is there is no collective covenant of security binding upon all the Muslims to follow, but rather it is individual and governments which govern according to Shari'ah - where?! - can make these covenants, but it is not binding on all the Muslims and are nullified if the Kuffar in question attack the Muslims. And Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) knows best.

[Abuz Zubair]

Did you understand the following of what you quoted?

How can I break the covenant

The concept of breaking the covenant does not exist in Islam, because Allah (swt) says thatr we must fulfil our contracts Yaa ayuhalatheena aamanu Awfu bil uqoud [EMQ 5:1]

Whenever Allah (SWT) mentioned O you who believe Abdullah Ibn Abbas (ra) would say ‘Sameena Wa Ata naa’ We listen and obey.

I have been arrested and now that I am out I have no Covenant of Security and can do whatever I like

If you go to prison and come out either you take the rules of Dar ul-Harb and live apart from the kuffar as did Abu Baseer or if you continue to live amongst them you will not only have to command good and forbid evil but if you trade and deal with them you will re-enter a customary covenant of security with them. You cannot just carry on business as usual and act like a Jihadi. You cannot take the rules for the Mujahid and also that of the one under a covenant together.

Remember Imam Shafi’i said: “If the enemy captures a Muslim and imprisons him, and after that they release him and give him security, and they allow him to live among them, the covenant they give to him is a covenant from him to them (i.e. it is binding on him), it is not allowed for him to assassinate them or betray them, and we do not know ANY SCHOLAR that has mentioned otherwise.” [Kitab ul Umm vol.4 p292]

Ibn Muflih: “If a Muslim has been in captivity and they give him covenant, it is allowed for him to run away but not to betray them, and he should return any money owed to them, … and if he does not he will be ghaddar and on the day of judgement he will appear with a banner showing his betrayal.”

[Hakeem]

whats the meaning of mojo.

[gag order]

I remember one brother telling me that ALL Americans are ok to kill because they pay taxes so their money is used to fight Islam !!



i agree, this view is very wrong..


and this kind of mentality is not strange, since many of the same people support the killing of Muslims in Muslim land (I am sure you know which country I am talking about)


muslim rulers who instigate repressive measures against other muslims on behalf of the infidels, then those innocent bystanders who are killed inadvertantly then the rulers are to blame for that.

just as american foreign policy creates opposition to it, likewise, muslim rulers create opposition through repressive measures....

[Um Abdullah M.]

muslim rulers who instigate repressive measures against other muslims on behalf of the infidels, then those innocent bystanders who are killed inadvertantly then the rulers are to blame for that.

just as american foreign policy creates opposition to it, likewise, muslim rulers create opposition through repressive measures....

Excuse me?
This is a Muslim country, majority are Muslims, you don't care if you cause insecurity in a Muslim country, causing fear amongest Muslims !!
It is so easy for you people to speak who don't live here, my life, my families life and other Muslims lives are in danger (ones who live here), with these killers bombing here and there, my husband has to go to governmental offices for paper work sometimes, and many other Muslims.

and what are these killers achieving by doing this??!!

sorry bro, but many people are doing duaa to Allah against these people, many children are orphened because of these bombings, and women widowed, and others lost their sons ...etc.

I don't care if they consider the government an apostate or not, that does not give them the right to bomb in a Muslim country causing the deaths of Muslims.
This is NOT jihad.
They want to do jihad they should go to Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechenya ..etc.
not bomb inside a Muslim country, causing more deaths of Muslims and insecurity, isn't it enough that in many Muslim countries Muslims are dying and living in fear?
why cause more?


May Allah rid the Muslims from these kinds of people, and this kind of ideology.

[gag order]

This is NOT jihad.
They want to do jihad they should go to Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechenya....

May Allah rid the Muslims from these kinds of people, and this kind of ideology.

as i said before to you elsewhere on this forum, it matters not wether you accept them as mujahideen or their fight as jihad, its beside the point! the muslim rulers you 'defend' are obligated by washington to kill or apprehend anyone seeking to travel to the theatres of war, so its contradictory for you to suggest they take their fight elsewhere.

dont ignore the fact that it is the incompetent police and military who also cause innocent bystanders to be killed with their shoot to kill policy of wanted "jihadists" the authorities you defend wether they are muslim or not is arguable, but not my contention at this point, however what is clear is that they are an added layer of protection to the small community of military contractors and 'advisors' who remain there to direct the campaign against the alleged takfiris and kharijees..

[JayshAllah]

Can the mods please ban all these Neo-Khawaarij who sanction the taking of innocent lives???? These people are heretics!

[Shaghuri]

I agree with you sister Asmaa 100%, however there is one inconsistency with what you said.

I don't care if they consider the government an apostate or not, that does not give them the right to bomb in a Muslim country causing the deaths of Muslims.
This is NOT jihad.
They want to do jihad they should go to Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechenya ..etc.
not bomb inside a Muslim country, causing more deaths of Muslims and insecurity, isn't it enough that in many Muslim countries Muslims are dying and living in fear?
why cause more?

Those countries where there is fighting are also Muslim countries. I would think that the way it should be expressed is that there should be none of these activities in countries where there is no foreign occupation--such as where you live (and of course, recklessness with the lives of innocents is inexcusable wherever it may be). Of course, those who oppose this will say that its government is apostate. Whatever happened to their so called ''change of strategy'' where they would attack the far away enemy and leave the close one? It seems now that they wish to switch things around.

[Umm Ahmed]

Can the mods please ban all these Neo-Khawaarij who sanction the taking of innocent lives???? These people are heretics!


It's always better to discuss the issues, rather than push anyone away, no matter what the topic is brother.

[Abuz Zubair]

The guys who just got done... Do we honestly think that Allah is raising their rank by their life imprisonment? Or was He protecting His Sharia from these people?

[Umm]

Prison will improve their deen insha'Allah and give them time to reflect.

[Abuz Zubair]

That wasn't my question.

[Umm]

I know.

Abu Zubair, if their plan had worked, would you have seen it, shariah wise, in a different category to 9-11, or not?

[Um Abdullah M.]

bro Shaghuri

actually that is what I meant
non occupied Muslim country.

sorry for not making it clear.

bro JayshAllah,
this type of ideology isn't really welcome here, but the admins and mods believe it is better to let them speak and be refuted than turning them away, in which they will only keep on going on this ideology spreading it around.

so some brothers here are trying to discuss these issues with them.

[Abuz Zubair]

they would be of the same category, 911, 77, etc etc... haram in the US is Haram in the UK, too.

[Suhaib Jobst]

Can the mods please ban all these Neo-Khawaarij who sanction the taking of innocent lives???? These people are heretics!

I don't see any "Neo-Khawarij" here. Tell me, who makes takfeer of Muslims due to major or minor sins, who makes takfeer of the Sahabah, who calls for separating from the Jamaa'ah of the Muslims? So either you demonstrate if this is indeed the case or you cease with your self-righteous pleabian rhetoric.

Who are you to consider whom is a "heretic"?! You obviously know nothing about who the Khawarij actually are, or you would know it has far more to do with their 'aqeedah than "sanctioning the taking of innocent lives". You want to silence brothers you disagree with, but why can't you discuss the issues with us instead of trying to have us silenced or using this smear word? What are you so fearful about?

[1mran]

The guys who just got done... Do we honestly think that Allah is raising their rank by their life imprisonment? Or was He protecting His Sharia from these people?

SubhanAllah. interetsing question

but what about when scholars get put in prison?

but then again, there could be a reason for that. maybe allah was protecting them from danger from the outside. Allah knows best

[y-mughal]

Excuse me?
This is a Muslim country, majority are Muslims, you don't care if you cause insecurity in a Muslim country, causing fear amongest Muslims !!
It is so easy for you people to speak who don't live here, my life, my families life and other Muslims lives are in danger (ones who live here), with these killers bombing here and there, my husband has to go to governmental offices for paper work sometimes, and many other Muslims.

I don't care if they consider the government an apostate or not, that does not give them the right to bomb in a Muslim country causing the deaths of Muslims.
This is NOT jihad.
They want to do jihad they should go to Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechenya ..etc.
not bomb inside a Muslim country, causing more deaths of Muslims and insecurity, isn't it enough that in many Muslim countries Muslims are dying and living in fear?



No ruling by other than what Allah revealed, no allying with the Kuffar in whatever way and allowing them into the peninsula and implementing Shari'ah = no internal strife and bombings and fear and so called killing of 'innocents'.

Quite simple really - nobody to blame except the regime.

[Um Abdullah M.]

No ruling by other than what Allah revealed, no allying with the Kuffar in whatever way and allowing them into the peninsula and implementing Shari'ah = no internal strife and bombings and fear and so called killing of 'innocents'.

Quite simple really - nobody to blame except the regime.

sorry but that is stupid

"lets go and bomb in Muslim country causing the deaths of Muslims, and then put the blame on the regime"

so I guess all Muslim countries that are not occupied and have corrupt rulers should be bombed? (i.e. Egypt, Tunisia ..etc.)
and then say to the people who die from it "blame the regime, they caused your death"

That is the dumbest and sickest excuse I have heard to justify bombing in a non occupied Muslim country and cause the deaths of Muslims.

Alhamdulillah, Allah caused these people to be captured and May Allah guide them or reward them with what they deserve.

[Umm]

so I guess all Muslim countries that are not occupied and have corrupt rulers should be bombed? (i.e. Egypt, Tunisia ..etc.)

They are occupied ideologically and economically ;)

[Umm]

whats the meaning of mojo.

A nickname for al-Muhajiroon.

[JayshAllah]

It's always better to discuss the issues, rather than push anyone away, no matter what the topic is brother.

bro JayshAllah,
this type of ideology isn't really welcome here, but the admins and mods believe it is better to let them speak and be refuted than turning them away, in which they will only keep on going on this ideology spreading it around.

so some brothers here are trying to discuss these issues with them.

I think that normally this would make sense, that we should refute them as opposed to simply ban them. However, I think they should be banned for security reasons. I was part of SoundVision, another Islamic forum, which got closed down due to some wild comments by various members even though the admin/mods did not support these statements.

I think the admin/mods are just inviting trouble if they allow such people to post. Such people should be banned, no questions asked, in order to protect the admin/mods as well as the individual members. We live in a scary time in which many governments will arbitrarily arrest people without proof. Let's not give them any reason to do that, Insha-Allah. Just my advice.

I don't see any "Neo-Khawarij" here.

I said "Neo-Khawaarij" and *not* "Khawaarij". The term "Neo-Khawaarij" is used for the heretics of today who are murderers just like the Khawaarij were.

You obviously know nothing about who the Khawarij actually are, or you would know it has far more to do with their 'aqeedah than "sanctioning the taking of innocent lives".

I know exactly who the Khawaarij were and what their beliefs were. This is the reason that I did not call you to be one, but rather used the term "neo" before that.

You want to silence brothers you disagree with, but why can't you discuss the issues with us instead of trying to have us silenced or using this smear word?

You people deserve worse than mere smear words. You guys are jokers who have no scholars. You call Usamah bin Ladin to be your "Shaykh", which is strange since he was never educated to be an Aalim!

What are you so fearful about?

Jail?

[Shaghuri]

Wannabe Jihadis say:
No ruling by other than what Allah revealed, no allying with the Kuffar in whatever way and allowing them into the peninsula and implementing Shari'ah = no internal strife and bombings and fear and so called killing of 'innocents'.

Quite simple really - nobody to blame except the regime.

Neo-cons say:

No ruling by Shari'ah, no allying with the insurgents and terrorists in whatever way and allowing them into your lands and implementing Shari'ah=no internal strife and bombings and fear and so called killing of 'innocents'.

Quite simple really - nobody to blame except the regime.

[Abuz Zubair]

I think that normally this would make sense, that we should refute them as opposed to simply ban them. However, I think they should be banned for security reasons. I was part of SoundVision, another Islamic forum, which got closed down due to some wild comments by various members even though the admin/mods did not support these statements.

I think the admin/mods are just inviting trouble if they allow such people to post. Such people should be banned, no questions asked, in order to protect the admin/mods as well as the individual members. We live in a scary time in which many governments will arbitrarily arrest people without proof. Let's not give them any reason to do that, Insha-Allah. Just my advice.

In my opinion this is a very dangerous way of looking at things. This is precisely what the governments want of us... Just shut up and put up about real issues in fear that someone might get arrested. We don't live in socialist-like repressive middle-eastern regimes where discussing economy is forbidden, lest the spy sitting next to you might think you're discussing politics and subsequently get you disappeared!

We're living in the West where the citizens are afforded with certain rights, and from that, the freedom to say what we want. And if it ever came to a stage where they start imprisoning us for merely discussing theological issues, then we should in fact look forward for imprisonment. Otherwise, if we let go of our right to freely discuss these sensitive issues, within the limits of the law of the land, tomorrow we will say goodbye to our faith.

We need to leave our parents fear-mentality back in India or Pak, and begin to become more of brave Muslims and assertive of who we are and what we believe. We cannot afford to succumb to fear especially in these times. After all, it is also a huge part of being British, to stick two fingers to the gov, when they take away the rights they afford to other citizens. Yes, as Muslims we can stick two fingers up, but if the gov treats us second class citizens... We say 'Bless you!' to the gov, as an alternative to the swear word.

But we ain't gonna shut up.

[abu_ibrahim]

This dudes been here for a few days and is already calling the shots.

[Abuz Zubair]

This dudes been here for a few days and is already calling the shots.
Maybe he's from the US, where almost all the Muslims have sold out. But it does worry some people who come to a forum and find it infested with kiddies who only talk about:

a) Jihad

b) Takfir

c) Saudi;

Oh sorry, a) Saudi, and therefore b) Takfeer, and subsequently, c) jihad.

True, don't you think?

I mean, apart from the nonsense we're told by some Jihadi-mongol that our blood is Halal, etc... surely, there are other things in Islam to talk about? There are other things in life to get heated over, right?

[Abuz Zubair]

Having said that, though... I would much rather that everyone comes here and is allowed to speak his mind. If we were to ban anyone for views, we would start with our white-European racist friend, morbius (no offence to you morbius!)

Of course, we already have rules in place where you must not post anything that can get you incriminated, like: 'Let's kill the Americans,' etc, etc

[abu_ibrahim]

There are other things in life to get heated over, right?

Other things to get heated over? Like you were expecting Chicken Biryani for dinner, but ended up with cous cous.

[Abuz Zubair]

Don't cuzz cous cous... I like it!

[Um Abdullah M.]

I don't blame JayshAllah for his fear especially if he is in the US, where there is no such thing as freedom of speech anymore.
THey even spy on people's emails and phones now in US.
and they try to find any excuse to arrest Muslims.

Even my mother has been telling my father to be more careful and not discuss politics on the phone.
My family is still in the US, may Allah protect them and other Muslims who live in the west.

I don't think any of you would like to go to western prisons especially the US where they torture and humiliate you, giving you a "special" treatment becuase you are a terrorist suspect.

[gag order]

the main course looks like the desert (dessert) and is BeBsi the preferred brand amongst the arabs?

[gag order]

as i said before to you elsewhere on this forum, it matters not wether you accept them as mujahideen or their fight as jihad, its beside the point! the muslim rulers you 'defend' are obligated by washington to kill or apprehend anyone seeking to travel to the theatres of war, so its contradictory for you to suggest they take their fight elsewhere.

dont ignore the fact that it is the incompetent police and military who also cause innocent bystanders to be killed with their shoot to kill policy of wanted "jihadists" the authorities you defend wether they are muslim or not is arguable, but not my contention at this point, however what is clear is that they are an added layer of protection to the small community of military contractors and 'advisors' who remain there to direct the campaign against the alleged takfiris and kharijees..

i need some feedback, if this argument is flawed then please explain how? i would like sister asmaa to comment.

[JayshAllah]

Maybe he's from the US, where almost all the Muslims have sold out.

Yes, I am from the US, but I do not think it is fair to accuse me of being a "sell-out".

I don't blame JayshAllah for his fear especially if he is in the US, where there is no such thing as freedom of speech anymore.
THey even spy on people's emails and phones now in US.
and they try to find any excuse to arrest Muslims.

Even my mother has been telling my father to be more careful and not discuss politics on the phone.
My family is still in the US, may Allah protect them and other Muslims who live in the west.

I don't think any of you would like to go to western prisons especially the US where they torture and humiliate you, giving you a "special" treatment becuase you are a terrorist suspect.

Yes, the situation is real bad in the US. This is why I believe that Hijrah is necessary for us Muslims.

[JayshAllah]

This dudes been here for a few days and is already calling the shots.

What is more amazing is the fact that within no less than ten posts on this forum, people have already jumped to judge me.

Just because someone criticizes terrorists does *not* make him a "sell-out".

Far from a sell-out, I espouse the ideology of Amir al-Mu'mineen Salah Ad-Deen Ayyoubi [r]. When Shaykh Salah ad-Deen [r] liberated Al-Quds, he granted amnesty to the large bulk of the Crusaders, allowing them to leave Jerusalem to find refuge in Tyre. When Shaykh Salah ad-Deen's treasurers saw how he was just allowing Crusaders to leave so non-chalantly with a bunch of gold (which they had squandered from the Muslims), the treasurers were astonished and begged Shaykh Salah ad-Deen [r] to stop them. But Shaykh Salah ad-Deen [r] denied their request and said that this would be a day that the Christians would never forget the kindness/nobility of the Muslims. And so it was that Shaykh Salah ad-Deen [r] converted the victory of the battlefield for that day into a victory of the hearts for all time.

Today, we are faced with the same situation as faced Shaykh Nur ad-Deen [r] and Shaykh Salah ad-Deen [r]. Back then too there were Muslim sell-outs. There were sell-out Arab governments, like the Fatimid leaders, and there were terrorists like the Hassasins. There were some Turk leaders who would unjustly spill Christian blood, justifying this by saying that the Christians started it (which they no doubt did).

But Shaykh Salah ad-Deen [r] did not take the path of the sell-outs nor the extremists. How could he take the path of the sell-outs who were conspiring with the Crusader states??? How could he take the path of the extremists who were butchering innocent lives???

Instead, Shaykh Salah ad-Deen [r] took the middle path, calling for Jihad whilst at the same time maintaining the Purity of Arms as commanded explicitly in the Quran and Sunnah. And today he is remembered by friend and foe alike, as one of the noblest and greatest warriors in history.

Today, the Crusaders are at it again, and they have installed puppet regimes in our lands.

Ya Allah, topple the puppet regimes, liberate our lands from the grips of the Crusaders, and give us back dignity and honor.

Ya Allah, save us from extremism which involves negation of the Quran and Sunnah.

Let us accept the model of Amir al-Mu'mineen Salah ad-Deen Ayyoubi [r] who was the first to call to Jihad but he was also the first to call to Purity of Arms.

[Suhaib Jobst]

I said "Neo-Khawaarij" and *not* "Khawaarij". The term "Neo-Khawaarij" is used for the heretics of today who are murderers just like the Khawaarij were.

Like I challenged you before, show us examples of real Kharijee sentiment here, not based on your own criteria but rather if anyone has made takfeer of Muslims due to sins or called for splitting from the Jamaa'ah.

I know exactly who the Khawaarij were and what their beliefs were. This is the reason that I did not call you to be one, but rather used the term "neo" before that.

This is a serious allegation which should not be taken in stride. One should guard their tongue before they speak (or, in this case, their hands before they write). This is a serious matter, if Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) wills He could take the good deeds of the detractor and bestow them upon the person being wrongly accused. May Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) expose who has the agenda and who is sincere. Ameen.

You people deserve worse than mere smear words. You guys are jokers who have no scholars. You call Usamah bin Ladin to be your "Shaykh", which is strange since he was never educated to be an Aalim!

Name someone here who called Usamah bin Laden their shaykh. This is a dangerous statement of yours, and is very suspicious, because you are obviously trying to incriminate some brothers or sisters. You already called for turning in Muslims to the Kaffir authorities, so you are either laying a trap for us or attempting to cause dissension in the ranks of the Muslims.

We already saw this when you brought us a scenario of how we "turn in Muslims plotting attacks". This sort of talk plays into the hands of the enemies of Islam, places the Muslim communities under the microscope, and simply parrots the assertions of the likes of Schwartz, Emerson, and Pipes.

In reality, Muslims who are plotting attacks would, by definition, separate themselves from the larger community, as the rules of lone wolf and cellular guerilla activism dictate. We don't know about anyone plotting attacks and the government is always anxious for some alleged plot so as to crack down on Muslims and other dissidents, and push forward more draconian legislation.

So I urge you brother, if indeed you are sincere, leave such vain talk for the Sake of Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) and do not utter such words as will only bring harm to our Muslim communities. Until then, I will be on my guard as it relates to you and I urge the outspoken brothers and sisters to do the same.

[Suhaib Jobst]

I don't blame JayshAllah for his fear especially if he is in the US, where there is no such thing as freedom of speech anymore. THey even spy on people's emails and phones now in US. and they try to find any excuse to arrest Muslims.

Yes, but many Muslims have taken it as a license to submit to the Kuffar in a humiliating manner, not befitting to the honor of one who worships Allah. Many Muslims have abandoned any sense of Al-Walaa wal-Baraa, have compromised the outward expressions of Islam, have Americanized their names, i.e. anything to distance themselves from the Deen.

It is truly a pathetic thing - and I hope that if I am able to accomplish anything, Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) will use me, a convert to Islam who loves this Deen and seeks His Pleasure, and other converts or Muslim youth who have returned to the Deen, to set an example for other Muslims in this society to live, that we should be proud of our Islam and not seek to compromise our principles. This is the purpose I intend for many of my posts here, insha'Allah.

Maybe he's from the US, where almost all the Muslims have sold out.

Unfortunately, the situation of Islam in this country is more precarious than what you brothers and sisters have across the Pond. Basically, it is because you all have an environment where there are closer ties to scholarship, while in our communities here, many Muslim doctors, professors, lawyers, etc. think since they excell in their dunya positions, they appoint themselves "scholars".

So it is not so much the brothers and sisters, as there are many good ones here and several can be seen on this forum (may Allah make me one of them). The real issue are the institutions these self-appointed Muslim "scholars" and leaders have appointed for themselves, which have taken a dominant position in the Muslim landscape here, with the connivance of both the U.S. authorities and the rulers back in the Muslim countries.

surely, there are other things in Islam to talk about? There are other things in life to get heated over, right?

You are right and I regret if I may have dwelled on such issues to the exclusion of others. I was wrong when it came to Omar Bakri Mohammad and takfeer of Shaykh Ibn Baz (rahimahullah), and I should further research the matter of the covenants of security. With that being said, the reason is that there are people who come and post here, things which we youth who love the Deen with every fiber of our being and pray for its triumph, just cannot ignore.

Please don't take this message as sarcasm, for I realize my past errors and some of us should speak with less emotion than we do now. May Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) guide us all to Sirat al-Mustaqeem, and protect us from all things which will only bring His Anger or which violate His Deen. Ameen.

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Like I challenged you before, show us examples of real Kharijee sentiment here, not based on your own criteria but rather if anyone has made takfeer of Muslims due to sins or called for splitting from the Jamaa'ah.



This is a serious allegation which should not be taken in stride. One should guard their tongue before they speak (or, in this case, their hands before they write). This is a serious matter, if Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) wills He could take the good deeds of the detractor and bestow them upon the person being wrongly accused. May Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) expose who has the agenda and who is sincere. Ameen.



Name someone here who called Usamah bin Laden their shaykh. This is a dangerous statement of yours, and is very suspicious, because you are obviously trying to incriminate some brothers or sisters. You already called for turning in Muslims to the Kaffir authorities, so you are either laying a trap for us or attempting to cause dissension in the ranks of the Muslims.

We already saw this when you brought us a scenario of how we "turn in Muslims plotting attacks". This sort of talk plays into the hands of the enemies of Islam, places the Muslim communities under the microscope, and simply parrots the assertions of the likes of Schwartz, Emerson, and Pipes.

In reality, Muslims who are plotting attacks would, by definition, separate themselves from the larger community, as the rules of lone wolf and cellular guerilla activism dictate. We don't know about anyone plotting attacks and the government is always anxious for some alleged plot so as to crack down on Muslims and other dissidents, and push forward more draconian legislation.

So I urge you brother, if indeed you are sincere, leave such vain talk for the Sake of Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) and do not utter such words as will only bring harm to our Muslim communities. Until then, I will be on my guard as it relates to you and I urge the outspoken brothers and sisters to do the same.

Jaysh is in a learning period. He was, until recently, an overzealous Ashari, and I think he's become an overzealous Madhkhali now. He just needs more knowledge.

[Skillganon]

Assalamu alaikum wr wb.

I wan't to look at this from a different perspective. Let's put aside the halal and haraam for a minute (mind you, I am not saying it is unimprtant). This is concerning the attempted attack on saudi soil.

1. Where and what they are attacking.
2. If the succeeded what where they hoping to achieve?

More importantly:

3. What will the consequence be economically, socially, strategically e.t.c and for the ummah?

At the moment as far as my knowledge goes, I am a bit perplexed, as I see it doing more harm than good, short or long term.

EDIT: Actually at the moment, I cannot think of much good it would do if their was any.

So anyone feel free to answer.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Jaysh is in a learning period. He was, until recently, an overzealous Ashari,

an overzealous Ash'ari !!
you must be joking.
I have seen some of his posts in sunni forum, and he would defend Salafis there many times, and didn't support a lot of their views and beliefs so how can you say he was a overzealous Ash'ari??
He also has a blog refuting shia, and I don't see many Ash'aris putting effort in refuting shia, they are more obsessed with Salafis.


and I think he's become an overzealous Madhkhali now. He just needs more knowledge.

What a joke !
so everyone who doesn't agree with your corrupted views becomes a "Madhkhali" ??

I was accused of being a madhkhali here, not too long after I registered, and those members don't even know me !

get over it

[JayshAllah]

This dudes been here for a few days and is already calling the shots.

Jaysh is in a learning period. He was, until recently, an overzealous Ashari, and I think he's become an overzealous Madhkhali now. He just needs more knowledge.

Please don't patronize me.

Firstly, I was never an overzealous Ashari and never a Madkhali.

As for being Ashari, I was never an Ashari, but only I agreed with them on the issue of Taweel/Sifat. There is a difference between being something and agreeing with them on one singular point. Having said that, I realized the error in that and I have been guided, Al-Hamdulillah.

Yes, I am in a learning period, but I pray that most of you are as well. Unless you are Aalims?

So please save your false words for yourself, Insha-Allah.

In any case, my views against terrorism are not only my own, but they are shared by the scholars of Islam, and I can make a huge list for you if you like. Would you like that? Please let me know.

Unlike you, I stay away from saying things like "scholars for dollars", but this is indeed why you have been condemned as "Neo-Khawaarij", substituting Takfeer for terms like "scholars for dolars."

[JayshAllah]

an overzealous Ash'ari !!
you must be joking.
I have seen some of his posts in sunni forum, and he would defend Salafis there many times, and didn't support a lot of their views and beliefs so how can you say he was a overzealous Ash'ari??
He also has a blog refuting shia, and I don't see many Ash'aris putting effort in refuting shia, they are more obsessed with Salafis.




What a joke !
so everyone who doesn't agree with your corrupted views becomes a "Madhkhali" ??

I was accused of being a madhkhali here, not too long after I registered, and those members don't even know me !

get over it

Jazakh-Allah Khairan, Sister!

Very nice of you. May Allah reward you.

Yes, I am the first to admit that I am learning, but I hope that most of us are, Insha-Allah.

[Skillganon]

As Jonathan Ross would put it "Don't Wowwy youw self" bro Jaysallah.

Anyone can see the statement levelled at you was a bit shortsighted and far removed.

Remember this is a discussion.

[Umm]

I don't blame JayshAllah for his fear especially if he is in the US, where there is no such thing as freedom of speech anymore.
THey even spy on people's emails and phones now in US.
and they try to find any excuse to arrest Muslims.



They do not have the resources to surveillance every Muslim citizen in the US, let alone every single citizen (including the kaafirs). This is a myth propagated to cast fear into the hearts.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Yes, but many Muslims have taken it as a license to submit to the Kuffar in a humiliating manner, not befitting to the honor of one who worships Allah. Many Muslims have abandoned any sense of Al-Walaa wal-Baraa, have compromised the outward expressions of Islam, have Americanized their names, i.e. anything to distance themselves from the Deen.


those are not the majority.
and it is wrong to say that most Muslims in US are sell outs.

many still practice their Islam, didn't change their names or anything, they still do dawah, but the only change is that they stay away from discussing politics, especially in open.

especially related to the west.
It only causes them harm and no benefit.

[Um Abdullah M.]

They do not have the resources to surveillance every Muslim citizen in the US, let alone every single citizen (including the kaafirs). This is a myth propagated to cast fear into the hearts.

well I can't say that they can spy on everyone.
but I know they do spy on Muslims especially, because my father was visited twice by the FBI concerning people he knows, one of them they couldn't have found out about it except through spying on my father's email.
alhamdulillah they didn't do anything to my father , he is not guilty of anything anyways, alhamdulillah, they just asked him some questions regarding brothers he knew, my father took a chance to do some dawah to them, talk to them about Islam, they did listen, may Allah guide them.

I think it was a man and a woman.

I ask Allah to protect my family and other Muslims in the west and all over the world.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

This is a Muslim country, majority are Muslims, you don't care if you cause insecurity in a Muslim country, causing fear amongest Muslims !!



Firstly, lets make it very clear that no muslim here supports un Islamic acts. Secondly, I don’t think any mujahed fisabilillah would target knowingly any muslims, or aim at frightening them. Indeed we know that when Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) while walking with some sahaba, suddenly turned around, a pregnant woman that was walking behind him, had a miscarriage, and muslims paid her blood money from the treasury. Similarly, if in a jihad, a bystander muslim dies, unintended, his family is to be paid blood money, as far as I know from sharia. So we can see how sharia protects muslims’ lives. We also know that muslims shouldn’t kill enemy women and children etc., even if they kill ours, according to Abuz Zubair, and this is something unheard even by kuffar, who as we know did what they did in Dresden, Hiroshima etc., but we accept what Abuz Zubair says, that what Sh Uthymin (r) said was wrong and those who acted upon his words and intentionally targeted such, did so wrongfully. I don’t know what is the punishment for a mujahed who kills an enemy woman in jihad intentionally, perhaps Abuz Zubair can tell us this also, but in any case if this is what sharia says, then we accept it as sharia. Also, we would like clarification where is the line between collateral damage allowed as an exception, and intentional targeting (would one need to go to women’s only places, like maternity home, for it to be considered intentional targeting?) Again I reiterate that we are against any violation of human or animal rights, and violence against individuals or states, except for legitimate use of force against true terrorist around the world.


It is so easy for you people to speak who don't live here, my life, my families life and other Muslims lives are in danger (ones who live here), with these killers bombing here and there, my husband has to go to governmental offices for paper work sometimes, and many other Muslims.

and what are these killers achieving by doing this??!!

sorry bro, but many people are doing duaa to Allah against these people, many children are orphened because of these bombings, and women widowed, and others lost their sons ...etc.

I don't care if they consider the government an apostate or not, that does not give them the right to bomb in a Muslim country causing the deaths of Muslims.
This is NOT jihad.
They want to do jihad they should go to Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechenya ..etc.
not bomb inside a Muslim country, causing more deaths of Muslims and insecurity, isn't it enough that in many Muslim countries Muslims are dying and living in fear?
why cause more?


Firstly, let me state that I am also against such attacks. But can I ask you a question? For example if Iraqi mujahedeen would have missiles, and if they would start firing them into Prince Sultan air base, and would miss it, and the missiles would land near your home, who would you make dua against? Would you still make excuses for Saudi kings, and make dua against “killers”? By the way, many oppressed muslims are probably making lots of dua, across the border in iraq, against US and its allies.

[Yasir]

For example if Iraqi mujahedeen would have missiles, and if they would start firing them into Prince Sultan air base, and would miss it, and the missiles would land near your home, who would you make dua against?You would make du'aa against the aggressors that have fired their missile into your home, and killed your family and children.Would you still make excuses for Saudi kings, and make dua against “killers”?Are you suggesting the ones firing the missile not the killers? Would they not be the ones liable to pay the blood money?

[Abuz Zubair]

Yes, I am from the US, but I do not think it is fair to accuse me of being a "sell-out".

Sorry, bro... I wasn't suggesting you are a sell out. I don't even know you to be able to conclude such.

But I was making a general comment. Most of the Muslim immigrants to US were quite well-educated middle class academics/professionals, whereas most of the immigrants to the UK were working class Muslims, and hence the difference in the attitude. The US Muslims succumbed to fear even before 9/11, I guess. CAIR, which is supposed to be defending Muslim civil rights in the US has been turned into a huge apology trumpet which is blown each time the angel of death arrests someone's soul.

Yes, things are bad in the US, but there are other non-Muslim US citizens who are brave and courageous, and unfortunately, they are the ones doing anything for the Muslims. The Muslims on the other hand would rather commit suicide to save themselves from receiving a death sentence in a US court of injustice.

It is a shame what's happening to Ali al-Tamimi and others. All US Muslims are guilty of abandoning him, and they all have a duty towards him.

Isn't it Allah's favour on us that we're all working class, and have nothing to lose?

Oh, and Jaysh, don't worry about a few odd members barking at you every now and then. They're still part of the Umma, and yes, I know, it doesn't look good at all. But hey, this is the reality, which we must face and try to rectify. Welcome to the Ummah! We can't just ban them and hope that they disappear. We would rather they appear here to vent their anger than make horrible news on CNN or Fox, don't you think?

[Abuz Zubair]

and it is wrong to say that most Muslims in US are sell outs.

many still practice their Islam, didn't change their names or anything, they still do dawah, but the only change is that they stay away from discussing politics, especially in open.

This is called selling out. When your rights are taken away and you are treated as a third class citizen, and you remain silent, while the system gives you the air to speak, this is 100% selling out.

Why aren't the Kuffar scared to speak? Why must we have a British Muslim civil rights activist travelling to the US to speak about civil liberties? It's because the Muslims are too scared.

Now, let's compare the 'Muslims/post 2001' with 'Blacks and the 60s'... Do we see any contrast?

[gag order]

I was accused of being a madhkhali here, not too long after I registered, and those members don't even know me !

arent you forgetting something?

asmaa, just one more question if you dont mind. elsewhere on this forum i stated quite bluntly, that you had 'madkhali' traits ie sharing their perspective on some controversial inter salafi issues, do you think that was a fair assesment

and your answer:


yes, and your point is?

[MaRyAm]

whats madkhalee :o

[JayshAllah]

whats madkhalee :o

It's a term used to refer to one of the three main branches of Salafiyyah. This group is the one who loves Saudi, doesn't speak out against the Saudi government, are usually Saud-funded, etc. They run such sites as SPUBS and TROID.

[Suhaib Jobst]

so everyone who doesn't agree with your corrupted views becomes a "Madhkhali" ?? I was accused of being a madhkhali here, not too long after I registered, and those members don't even know me !

Not necessarily, but when someone talks about the "Neo-Khawarij", claims to follow "the real Salafi scholars", makes a point of writing against "terrorism", rants and raves against people who use the term "scholars for dollars" (who really uses this term except the charicatured "Kharijee" in Madkhalee lore?), etc. - then you have to admit, it really sounds like a Madkhali. You can tell alot about people by the words and expressions they use, especially when it is dealing with polemics.

We judge based upon the apparent; sometimes we turn out to be wrong, but that is not our fault, for Islam commanded us to judge on the apparent and not keep our mouths shut on the premise "we don't know what's in their heart".

Anyone can see the statement levelled at you was a bit shortsighted and far removed.

But who labelled whom a "Neo-Khawarij heretic"? Me and the other brothers simply discussed issues with him, but he had to resort to calling us "deviants". If this isn't a Madkhali mentality, then apparently my eyes and ears lied to me during my two years spent with them; these were the same sorts of terms I used when I was 16 and 17, against every Muslim who didn't follow our scholars or who didn't let their beard grow out and cut their pants.

Yet, I did not concern myself with the fundamentals of Islam - and indeed I was praised by the brothers, not due to any knowledge of Islam, but rather since I was a zealous youth who was "strong in manhaj" and "jarh wat-ta'deel". I've been there, done that. I know how Madkhalis think and this subject is very important in my eyes, since it is the Madkhali and the "traditionalist" Sufis who concentrate most on the converts and those Muslims who seek a return to Islam, in this society. We have to show what Salafiyyah is truly about, we need to stress the importance of basic Islamic knowledge and following the Sunnah, not merely on the outward expressions but in its very essence.

those are not the majority. and it is wrong to say that most Muslims in US are sell outs.

I never said that it was the majority. But we have to admit, the organized Muslim institutions and groups here - CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, etc. - are perfect examples of sell-outs and unfortunately they have come to dominate the whole debate in our communities.

If I may use my own masjid as an example, which is typical of our society. It is not we brothers who go there regularly and who interact more with the community, who have the power. But rather those professional self-styled "Muslim leaders" connected to these groups, who only appear on Fridays and special functions, who have the resources and the support from the media and the authorities, who have put them in this position of influence.

many still practice their Islam, didn't change their names or anything, they still do dawah, but the only change is that they stay away from discussing politics, especially in open.

I never meant to say it was the majority and I apologize if my words were taken as such. In the various masajid I have visited, I have met countless good brothers. But the problem is, we are the ones without the influence and we cannot match the resources of the self-styled leaders. Partly because that is not where are hearts are, we care about the Deen, not power and position.

It is important there arise in this country a grassroots organization of Muslims who reject the dichotomy of these groups and who show we can be firm in our principles and discuss politics OPENLY, without doing something which will harm the Muslims or could be viewed as "illegal". Anything short of this is contrary to Islam, which rises people up and makes them into free, dignified, human beings.

But I was making a general comment. Most of the Muslim immigrants to US were quite well-educated middle class academics/professionals, whereas most of the immigrants to the UK were working class Muslims, and hence the difference in the attitude. The US Muslims succumbed to fear even before 9/11, I guess. CAIR, which is supposed to be defending Muslim civil rights in the US has been turned into a huge apology trumpet which is blown each time the angel of death arrests someone's soul.

I would agree with this statement and especially the issue of social class, a dimension which simply cannot be ignored. Unfortunately, your characterization of the dominant trend of leadership in our communities, is right on target and this can be seen in nearly every city where there are Muslims. I hope and pray that the situation changes.

[Abuz Zubair]

Not necessarily, but when someone talks about the "Neo-Khawarij", claims to follow "the real Salafi scholars", makes a point of writing against "terrorism", rants and raves against people who use the term "scholars for dollars" (who really uses this term except the charicatured "Kharijee" in Madkhalee lore?), etc. - then you have to admit, it really sounds like a Madkhali.

Apart from using the term 'khariji', I guess I am guilty of pretty much you've mentioned. In this case, either I am a Madkhali, or you haven't a clue what it is to be a Madkhali.

To be honest, this is the case with most of you guys who have just come to the dawah scene and never lived the days when the split happened, etc, etc... You only know of one thinking strand, and everything that opposes it is simply Madkhalism.

[Suhaib Jobst]

To be honest, this is the case with most of you guys who have just come to the dawah scene and never lived the days when the split happened, etc, etc... You only know of one thinking strand, and everything that opposes it is simply Madkhalism.

I