Latest fatwa from Bassam Zawadi

[justabro]

as-salamu alaykum

let us not forget that he is still our Muslim brother despite his mistakes. Do we all not make mistakes? He is not a type of brother who would insist on sticking with his mistakes given that confronted with adab and knowledge. To be fair to him, he did say the following:
By shunning him aside and giving him labels and all that does not make you brothers different from madkhali crew (in my opinion), specially you akhee Abu Bakr (I expect little bit more patience and adab from you unlike rest of us). I do not think any of the scholars have dealt or advise to deal with laypeople in this manner, specially if they are sincere and already upon most of the haqq.

I have tried talking with him before... I honestly don't care if he wants to know the truth or not. That's between him and Allah.

I'd rather have a dialogue with a brick wall.

[AbdulMatin]

This sums it up - anyone who can type this obviously needs to have the political reality explained to them. I imagine this brother is very young. waAllahu Allam.

"Nidal killed people who were not actively fighting innocent Muslims (i.e. the leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan welcome US soldiers into their countries to assist them in fighting whom they deem to be corrupt Muslims. This is a valid opinion in Islam, for there are scholars who said that it is permissible for Muslims to ask non-Muslims to help them fight corrupt Muslims. Regardless of Nidal's disagreement with these rulers decision to allow US troops into their land, it is not for him to decide how these rulers should run their country. Furthermore, Nidal wasn't in a position to know how probable those people whom he shot were going to end up going to Iraq and Afghanistan. For all we know, some of them might have most likely changed their minds in the last second or possibly ended up not going for other reasons.)"

???????

"decision to allow US troops in their land"

???????

If it wasn't so tragic this deserves to go in the comedy thread.

ws

[AbdulMatin]

A lot of discussion around this issue could easily be classed as falling under the general principle:

"qawlul haq uraad bihil baatil"

Without going into the issue of what the brother did, right or wrong, the amount of junk which accompanies their "condemnations" is telling, along with the fact they felt the need to condemn

[justabro]

See, the problem is, he has DALEEL, and he wants DALEEL

My issue is not with his ability to occasionally look up a random issue in the books of Fiqh, it's with this twisted perception of reality where Mahmud Abbas, Karzai, the Rafidi political parties in Iraq, etc. are the caretakers of the Ummah. Anyone who questions them is a treacherous Khariji or a takfeeri goon.

This 68-pg thread was an attempt to correct this distorted perception of reality, but you see, it doesn't matter, he has DALEEL (tm):

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/p...tml#post189797

[a-Maze]

I'm a fan of his da`wah work in every other field but articles like this are terrible/worrying. I skim-read the site and more/less understand it, but have a question/thought (or two):

1 - Is a baatil (invalid) 'aqd binding upon parties? For example, it's invalid in origin in itself, or a shart is left-out/missing or one of the involved parties breaks their part of the pact?

2 - If a man or woman in their own judgment/view believes that a contract is invalid/over, are they being treacherous and how are they being treacherous to a non-existent pact?

Also, what contract exists over there and is it communal, individual, or a "customary" one?

3 - What authority would actually be required for someone to do the things Br. Nadal did? What are the times in which a permission is required vs. when a permission isn't required?

4 - What would a UK/US soldier be defined as in light of the Islaamic Law's specific terms? Muhaarib, Ghayr Muhaarib, Mu'aahad and/or any other shar'i terms outlining their status?

Does the country that a soldier is in have any in-put to whether he/she is a 'legal' target?

Jazaak Allaah Khayran

[Abu Abdallah al-Bulghari]

DALEEL (tm)

Brother, that is quite a sense of humor you have here, laughing out loud.

[a-Maze]

BTW, seriously - if he or others who share that view could answer those eight questions, I'd be extremely grateful and thankful - The topic of treaties is much-needed post 9-11.

[justabro]

For all we know, some of them might have most likely changed their minds in the last second or possibly ended up not going for other reasons.

I just caught this bit... he doesn't seem to have a clue about how the US military works. As if some soldier about to get deployed comes in and says, "You know what, I'm having second thoughts, I should have been a plumber after all."

And his commanding officer says, "Oh, ok, I guess we'll just have to see if someone else wants to go instead."

Or does he read the news reports? Wasn't Major Nidal supposedly upset that he was about to get deployed. Why didn't he just "change his mind"? What's there to be upset about then? Hmm...

If you don't even bother to read up on current affairs, why comment on them... someone please explain this to me, it doesn't make any bloody sense.

Also, a few more questions that beg an answer:

These rulers who "invited" American troops, are they aware that they are raping Muslim women? Or that they are torturing Muslim prisoners? Surely Their Eminences would not allow such a thing?

Oh wait... ahh, forgive me... these questions are just me being emotional... you see, I don't have DALEEL (tm)

[Ma al-'Aynayn]

the leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan welcome US soldiers into their countries to assist them in fighting whom they deem to be corrupt Muslims. This is a valid opinion in Islam, for there are scholars who said that it is permissible for Muslims to ask non-Muslims to help them fight corrupt Muslims.

Is this guy retarded or what? I think being a polemicist is getting to his head...

I mean just wow...I don't recall Saddam inviting anyone?! Does anyone else other than Zawwadi? Maybe he (saddam) simply ceased to be ulil amr, when he was 'overthrown' (Hey Bassam isn't that haram?!). WAllahi this is taking the sickness of salafi manhaj to a whole new level. It is not even shocking anymore...they have since long compromised on one of the fundamentals of 'aqeedah: al-walaa wal-baraa'. (Emotions aside, I think serious debate is needed on al-wala wal-baraa', because a lot of sincere people are being mislead on this issue, they seem to associate it more with political divisions than the simple fact that one is supposed to dislike kufr no matter what, obviously it is on different levels depending on individuals and situations etc...)

For the record: I disagree with and condemn that Nidal guy's action, my thread on the topic is testament to that....

...But this is a new record in the hall of fame of Madkhali retardation, I mean it's absolutely ahistorical and not even TRUE. Not to mention the problematic nature of holding such an opinion. It seems like Mr. Zawwadi has outdone even the veteran Madkhalis...apparently (for instance) al-jaabiree agrees,in theory, with Muslim defending themselves, but here we have absolute horse manure justifying why Muslims shouldn't defend themselves.

Damn!

[justabro]

For the record: I disagree with and condemn that Nidal guy's action, my thread on the topic is testament to that....

I just want to say, it is legitimate for you to disagree with and perhaps even condemn his action, but please keep things in perspective.

There are now 40+ less goons to kill and rape our brothers and sisters in Iraq or Afghanistan, well except for these eight brave souls who are very anxious to find their place in Jahannam:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-11-19-replacements-fort-hood_N.htm


May Allah hasten their journey.


In any case, I believe the Qur'an has taught us how to give a balanced response to these sorts of incidents:

Pickthall
: They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein.

These Companions, due to shubha, engaged in fighting in the Sacred Months. This was a grave mistake, but Allah taught the Muslims how to keep it in perspective.

So, therefore our response should be:

Yes, killing a mu'ahad is indeed a grievous matter, but preventing people from Allah's Path (the War on Islam i.e. terror), shedding innocent Muslim blood, violating sanctities, invading our lands, fighting the Shari'a any time anyone tries to apply it, and spreading kufr throughout the land is much greater in Allah's Sight.