Praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds! Peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah!
I have read almost all of the fatawa (pl. of ‘fatwa' - a legal opinion or ruling in accordance with Sharia) issued by known and unknown scholars, preachers and seekers of knowledge concerned with the tafjirat (‘detonated explosions' occurred in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other countries of the Arabian Peninsula), and ahkam (pl. of ‘hukm' - a legal ruling, sentence) of Sharia. And, I have discovered that those fatawa were all based on similar arguments. The key arguments are:
- Those, who carried out those tafjirat, were ignorant, deceived (led astray) youth.
- States, where the explosions occurred, were Muslim states.
- Those, whose destruction was sought, were ahl al-aman (those who are protected by a security deal) and ahl ad-dhimmah (those who pay jizyah /a tax/ to a Muslim government to be able to reside within its country) and ahl al-hudna (those who agreed on a truce).
- Muslims, innocent of any crime were among the casualties.
- Those operations played into hands of kuffar (infidels) against us, giving them an excuse to meddle in our internal affairs, suppress and hinder the da'wah (the call to Islam) and harm the image of Muslim preachers.
Those were the most important, key arguments of the fatawa, and they were published in various magazines, newspapers, Internet websites and forums, to ‘enlighten' the ‘ignorant, drifted astray' youth, and persuade them to return to the path of truth, that is - no longer shedding of innocent blood, and security and prosperity of humankind.
And we have no choice but abide by the fatawa, because we are neither distinguished scholars, nor the reputable tullab al-‘ilm (pl. of ‘talib al-‘ilm', a seeker of knowledge).
But these fatawa have created some complications for us, because they contradict the related fatawa issued earlier by the same scholars and the fatawa of the predecessors (the Salaf).
And in addition to the above, we discovered that your latest fatawa are not in harmony with what we have learned from the Book of Allah (we could find ourselves reading), and the ahadeeth of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, his family, and the companions, and grant them Peace. It is for this reason, we find it necessary to put some troubling us questions forth, and perhaps, by the will of Allah, glory be to Him, some scholars would be inspired to explain related issues to us, and remove our doubts and misunderstandings that have penetrated into our hearts and minds, because of our ignorance, stupidity (as some claimed) and lack of understanding of Sharia...
1. 'Those, who carried out the tafjirat, are ignorant, deceived (led astray) youth.'
We ask: ‘what makes you determine that the bombings were done by Muslim youth? Did anyone of them come to you and claim the responsibility for those actions?'
Have you not taught us that according to our Sharia, the proof rests on the prosecutor (claimant) and an oath is sufficient for the accused (defendant)? Is it not the part of Sharia that you cannot blame anyone without solid proof or evidence? In what reason would you draw your criticizing (condemning) finger at Muslim youth without any proof to your claims? Or was it of some (unknown to us) sort of accusations allowed in Sharia? Please enlighten us, may Allah reward you (if you are truthful)!
The latter is not to say that the Mujahideen did not execute those bombings, but we are not really convinced that they were the ones who carried them out either, and the question is to remain: What made you think that it was them (the youth)? Was it inspired by the reports of CNN and/or the Arabic News Networks, whose position do those newsmakers represent and on what regimes' behalf they act is very well known! Does Allah, glory be to Him, not say?
"O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done".
(The Holy Quran, Surah 49. "The Dwellings", verse 6).
So, did you properly investigate the matter before accusing anyone?
And, we ask you, the noble scholars, to give us your explanations, in accordance with Sharia, why did you describe those, who stand behind the tafjirat, as ‘ignorant and lead astray' by the ‘jihadist ideology' (as though Jihad to be considered as something to be mocked upon)?
How ‘just and fair' it would be to have a debate, broadcasted by CNN or Arab News Networks, between the Muslim scholars and Mujahideen, gathered somewhere in the safety of Mecca or Medina, because the infidel (global policing force of the) Americans cannot enter (as we were told) those Holly Cities to capture their opponents, because the Two Sacred Cities are forbidden for the infidels, unless only the righteous emir (wali al-amr) has decided otherwise.
And then, after the debate and discussions, the Mujahideen could return safely to their bases and frontlines, as protected as the Holly Land visiting Americans were and are, as some of you (scholars) have asserted a while ago that they are ahl al-aman, who are forbidden to be harmed or killed, while on the Holly Land, so that they could hear the Word of God, and after that you would accompany the Americans to the place of safety and shelter.
"And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know."
(The Holy Quran, Surah 9. "The Repentance", verse 6)
So, let the Mujahideen hear the Word of God, then accompany them back to the place of safety and shelter. May Allah favour us and you in doing righteous deeds!
2. 'States, where the explosions occurred, were the Muslim states.'
That statement confused us! We are too ignorant, dense to understand and comprehend, and unfit to find a reasonable explanation for that assertion, because of its complexity!
Is Afghanistan a Muslim state?
Is Chechnya a Muslim state?
Is Palestine a Muslim state?
Is Kashmir a Muslim state?
Is the East Turkestan (Uyghuristan) a Muslim state?
Is Bosnia a Muslim state?
For, truly, you have issued fatawa in the past, allowing usage of explosives in those countries, and you related that to warfare of Jihad. So what is with this land (of the states within the Arabian Peninsula), is it not Muslim as the other lands of the Muslim states?
Why is that Muslim warfare is considered to be valid Jihad in those mentioned above non-Arab Muslim states, but not in the states of the Arabian Peninsula; and the unintentional killing of Muslims were considered to be a by-product of Jihad in those Muslim lands, but not in the Arabian Peninsula; and the destruction of buildings were considered to be a by-product of Jihad in those Muslim lands, but not in the Arabian Peninsula?
And, why is that warfare against the rulers of those Muslim lands, who are cooperating with the infidels is valid Jihad, but in case of the rulers of the Arabian Peninsula, who are also cooperating with the many same infidels is invalid? And the battle against the aggressors in those states is Jihad, but not in the case of the Arabian Peninsula? So, when it comes to it, that is in no way considered to be Jihad, but instead, turns out to be a ‘terrorism' thing?
We tried to analyze the above through forcing our limited mental capabilities and discovered the following facts:
The Karzai regime claims to be Muslim ... the regime in Riyadh is also claims to be Muslim! The Karzai regime has made the US infidels its wali (an ally, partner) ... the regime in Riyadh has also made an alliance with the US infidels! The Karzai regime is at war with the Mujahideen and righteous reformers... the regime in Riyadh is also fighting against the Mujahideen and righteous reformers! Afghanistan has been colonized by the Crusaders ... and Arabia has also been colonized by the Crusaders, even with a greater force!
The ‘humble' Karzai regime was installed by the infidel (US) patronage ... and the ‘hopeful' regime in Riyadh was installed by the infidel (UK) patronage, which later was second-handed to the ‘diligent maintenance' of the US (as well as the other regimes of the states neighboring the KSA)!
The regime in Kabul does not act upon the laws of Allah, glory be to Him, in many issues ... the regime in Riyadh also manages to bind the laws of Allah, the Lord of the worlds, in many similar issues! The Afghani Muslims are calling for the expulsion of the American infidels out of their lands ... as same as the Muslims of the Arabian Peninsula are calling for the same! All the same, except one difference between the two: Afghanistan does not have al-Haramain (the two Sacred Mosques in Mecca and Medina) in its territory... Was it this distinction that made presence of the infidel occupants in the Arabian Peninsula allowed (halal) and safe for them? ...someone should ask ... why?
Some of the regimes and their founders:
Regimes of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon and Syria have been set up by French.
Regimes of Oman, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan were set up by the British.
Latest versions of the regimes of Riyadh, Egypt, Qatar and Iraq were set up by the Americans.
An example of how the regimes, mentioned above, act together: the Sudan was fought against by the regimes of Riyadh and Cairo, simply because this state did not abide by the whims of the US infidels.
As for Libya... it is not clear, who brought its ruler into the power over the Muslims.
Thus, we need to understand: Why is the battle against the Russians considered - Jihad,
and against the Hindus - Jihad,
and against the Buddhists - Jihad,
and against the Serbs - Jihad,
and against the Jews - Jihad?
But when there is warfare against the USA, who (pinched by the Jews, or without) orchestrates all wars (globally) killing Muslims, then that is not Jihad but ‘terrorism' (with a mixture of imbecility and blindness in the term, meant by the West)?
Our limited minds cannot get the point, so explain it to us, may Allah bless you (if you are truthful)!
3. 'Those (US military personnel) whose destruction was sought fell into categories of ahl al-aman, ahl ad-dhimmah, and ahl al-hudna.'
...and here's another puzzle, we could not solve...
With regards to the idea that those infidels, we talk here about, are ahl ad-dhimmah:
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
(The Holy Quran, Surah 9. "The Repentance", verse 29)
As far as we know from your lectures, according to the books of the Salaf, ahl ad-dhimmah are the People of the Scriptures, who live in a dar as-Salam obeying the laws of Islam... but, ahl ad-dhimmah cannot reside in the Arabian Peninsula, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, and grant him Peace, said:
'Banish the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula'
(Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, Ahmad, al-Bayhaqi, Malik...)
Why would Americans abide by Sharia while living in the states of the Arabian Peninsula, when the host rulers themselves are not really obedient to it? Please tell us, may Allah bless you (if you are truthful).
Regarding the suggestion that came from some of you (while some others from among you, who disagreed, kept silent) that the Americans, in fact, are ahl al-hudna... Have you not taught us that ahl al-hudna are the enemy with whom the truce was made for a certain period, with the conditions that their troops would withdraw from the warfare against Muslims and remain in their own state/s and would not help other enemies of Muslims by any means...
The US troops are over there in the lands of Muslims, fully engaged in ruthless warfare against Muslims, both armed and unarmed, in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines ... in every corner of the earth. Those crusaders are at global war against Islam. So, how would that be possible to regard them as ahl al-hudna? And, who, amongst nowadays ‘Muslim' rulers, is worthy to make a truce? The ‘Muslim' rulers whose authority being respected by the entire Muslim Ummah, where it was to ‘treat peacefully' the transgressing Americans? Please tell us, may Allah bless you (if you are truthful)!
As for another suggestion of yours, that the Americans, in fact, are ahl al-aman. So, you must answer this question: Who granted them aman (protection)? Was it the ruler, who, according to the consensus (al ijma') of Muslim scholars, committed kufr, because of his al muwalaat (the cooperation) with the infidels?
Sheikh ibn Baaz said:
'The 'ulama (religious scholars) agreed that the one who helps the infidels against Muslims, or gives them any support, is a non-believer like them (a non-believer, with an act of apostasy at that. Could not be worse.).'
Or, was it the ruler, who, according to al Ijma' of the Muslim scholars, committed kufr, because his rule was not in accordance with the laws of Allah, glory be to Him.
Ibn Kathir said:
'Anyone who leaves a clear Sharia, which was revealed to Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Seal of the Prophets, may Allah bless him, and grant him Peace, and does not apply hukm from it (Sharia), but from the laws of kufr, which have been abolished (in Islam), has become a kafir (a non-believer).'
So, what to say about those who take ahkam of the constitution, but not of Sharia?
Whoever does so, has committed kufr by the consensus of Muslim scholars.
Or, was it the ruler, who according to al ijma', committed kufr, because of tahleel (allowing what was forbidden by the Creator, the Lord of the worlds) of usury, sinful, crimes and bid `ah (innovations in worship). That kufr was fostered by manmade laws to remove Islam from the hearts of Muslims.
Ibn Taymiyyah said:
'We know from the foundations of the religion of Muslims and by the agreement among Muslims (al ijma') that anyone who permits practicing of a Sharia other than the Sharia of Muhammad, may Allah bless him, and grant him Peace, becomes an infidel, and it is like the kufr of those who believe in some part of the Book (al Qur'an) and does not believe in another part of the Book (al Qur'an).'
Indeed, this issue seriously bewildered us, because we never were taught that such a sinful ruler can put us to obey the terms of the agreement of protection of the armed and unarmed outlaws! Instead we were taught to question the legitimacy of marriage of any of misguided rulers!
Imam and muhaddith, Sheikh Ahmad Shakir wrote:
'Let every Muslim and Muslimah know! The man who went to fight against people of the religion and makes tanassur (mutual aid; act of cooperation, alliance) for the enemies of Allah, his marriage and the marriage of those who married him is batyl (invalid), and being such could not be made initially permissible, and nothing remains of the marriage, like inheritance and other related matters. And the marriage (taken place) of any of them is annulled.'
Likewise, previous marriage of the apostates who repent, and return to their Lord and religion, and fight against the enemies of Allah, the Lord of the worlds, and help the Ummah is still invalid.
But, after the repentance in order to save the family relationship, the marriage must be renewed; the latter is fardh (an obligatory) procedure. That should be absolutely clear and beyond any doubts. If there were a ruler allowed by Sharia to be a wali (a guardian) at the nikah (a marriage procedure) of his own daughter, then he would be let alone to decide and set up the protection agreement with the enemies of Islam, which would be respected and fulfilled by Muslims from all walks of life globally!
Muslim scholars once have announced takfir of an Egyptian writer, who attacked Islam in his book. They issued a fatwa annulling his marriage. ...So, are we not to declare takfir of those who attribute themselves to Islam but sided up with the Crusaders and Zionists who wage war day and night against Muslims, as if they (who attribute themselves to Islam) were infidels' loyal friends or servants, and acting so from within the Muslim Ummah?
As if we have unknown the ten cases mentioned in ‘the Things which Nullify Islam' (ed.: ‘Nawaqid al Islam' the book by Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahhab). The eighth of which is ‘Supporting and aiding polytheists against the Muslims. The indication of that is Allah, glory be to Him, saying:
"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
(The Holy Quran, Surah 5. "The Spoils of War", verse 51)
You yourselves have taught us those cases... If you want us to erase the statements, give us a clear instruction to do so. We are clueless at your nods and winks!
Something else bothers us: Is that fine to give protection guarantees to the infidels, who openly insist on killing Muslims? Or what do you think about protection guarantees to the infidels, who have already killed Muslims, and continue to do so (are we talking a hunting license for a safari)?
Is that aright to allow them to set up land-sea-and-air bases, and help the infidels' military ‘might' with provisions such as water, fuel, electricity, food, medicine, and other high-grade stuff. Yes, ‘and do not to forget' your assistance in everything necessary for the occupation of Muslim nations, killing and expelling the Muslims - all under the cover up of ‘protection' would be appreciated by the kuffar. The subject was mentioned in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him Peace.
Is a Muslim permitted to give his protection with the legitimate security guarantees to a slipped-down-the-ladder Muslim brother, who committed murder of another Muslim, to save him from the Sharia punishment (hadd), which he, actually, deserves? ...well, it is not permitted, how then does it come that ‘cool and brave' infidels should be given any sort of security guarantees when they have murdered thousands of ‘MOZLEMS' indiscriminately, raped their children, stole and wasted their property, expelled them out of their safety, destroyed their homes and states, cut their relief supplies, abused their dignity and faith, the Muslims who were discouraged by their own Muslim scholars to strive on the Path of Allah to defend their faith and lives from humiliation in this life, and saving their souls from the punishment in the Hereafter?
Yes, we took our time having a search for a something that resembles a ‘security agreement', proposed by some claimed to be ‘of our own' so-called scholars, the agreement applicable on ‘candidates' of the similar ‘credentials and background' that were revealed ‘while on duty' in Muslim countries by the US infidels and their allies. We looked up in the Quran and Sunnah, but could not find any template for such an agreement; in the Torah and Bible with the same result... even in the scrolls of Hindus and Buddhists, we searched. We could not find anything ‘matching'...
Then we reviewed international laws invented by infidel but found nothing close to the objective. Such a security agreement does not exist. Where can we find that? Please, answer that, may Allah reward you (if you are truthful)!
A man named Ibn al-Qayyim, who, I was told, was a Muslim scholar. He, in his book entitled ‘Zad al-Ma'ad' told us:
'During the rule of the Prophet, may Allah bless him, and grant him Peace, if a tribe, or only some members of that tribe had violated a peace treaty with him, may Allah bless him, and grant him Peace, while other members of that tribe complied with the conditions of the treaty, nevertheless, the entire tribe was attacked, and all its members were regarded as offenders. That happened with the Banu Qurayza, Banu Nuzayr, Banu Qaynuqa as well as the people of Mecca. It is the Sunnah of the Prophet, may Allah bless him, and grant him Peace, in relations with treacherous troublemakers.'
Ibn al-Qayyim also said:
'And ibn Taymiyyah issued a fatwa to attack the Eastern Christians, when they helped the enemies of Muslims in the war, providing them with money and weapons - despite the fact that they neither attacked us, nor participated in the attack; but he regarded them as violators of the treaty, as same as happened with the Quraysh, who violated the treaty with the Prophet, may Allah bless him, and grant him Peace, by helping Banu-Bakr ibn-Wa'il in war against the prophet's allies.'
Note: it was the case when the Quraysh did not attack the prophet's forces, but aided Banu-Bakr. So, what is to say about the crusading Americans and British, who are in direct offence against us? Indeed, the above assertion of ibn al-Qayyim has only increased the doubts and suspicions in our hearts towards your ‘updated version' of Islam and makes us believe those ‘Muslim terrorist insurgents'. Please explain your position, may Allah reward you (if you are truthful).
4. 'Muslims, innocent of any crime were among the casualties.'
Ibn Taymiyyah said:
'Scholars agreed that if the infidel army uses Muslim captives as human shields but there is a grave concern over the security of the rest of the Muslims, while the infidels do not seem to be defeated, then it is allowed to fight with the enemy, even though it may lead to a certain collateral killing of Muslims who were used as human shields.'
And, another man named ibn Qasim said:
'If they use Muslims as shields, then it is not allowed to cause any harm to the Muslims, except when there is a great risk of having the infidels undefeated, then it is allowed to shoot at the infidels, even causing death among the Muslims. And there is no difference of opinion in this statement.'
You used to repeat to us constantly (planting in us a sense of guilt of improper worship): ‘we must follow the teachings of the Salafi scholars'. And now you tell us: ‘Leave their fatawa behind and learn from us!'? We are surprised and confused to choose between you and the ‘terrorist' Mujahideen who follow the Noble Salaf.
But we are not alongside those ‘terrorists' (thrown away into prisons, driven into the wilderness of mountains, forests, deserts, jungles; blamed by infidels, hypocrites, and uneducated ignorant), no we are here with you and we know that the killing of Muslims is not permissible, and we also know that it is one of the major sins and should not be tolerated...
Would you give us a fatwa with a legal ruling that the killing of infidels of the West is permissible? ...aren't they civilians ... and non-combatant? ...and, killing civilians indiscriminately is not allowed?
Then, would you not agree on killing the US military personnel based in the Arabian Peninsula for their innumerable crimes committed during their large-scale occupation of the lands of Muslims and killing their rebellious Muslim hosts in that process?
You would say that detonated explosions ... here, in ‘Islamic' Arabia ... could and can ‘blindly' kill and maim innocent Muslims... Well, how about us giving up explosives in favour of laying ambushes to kill the armed units of the modern ‘Sons of Liberty' who barged in to change the principals of Islam and annihilate the remnants of our Islamic faith!
So please give us a single fatwa, or a half of it, or a third of it, or at least a quarter of it, which would allow us to kill enemies of Allah, the enemies against whom the Salafi Scholars unanimously agreed fighting was obligatory! Sheikh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said:
'The first obligation after Iman is repulsion of an enemy aggressor who harms the religion and worldly affairs.'
Or, make up for us a different fatwa, may Allah reward you with what you deserve, indicating that the shedding of American soldiers' blood is forbidden (haram) for all Muslims on any soil. We and the entire world maybe could finally relax!
5. 'Those operations played into hands of kuffar (infidels) against us, giving them an excuse to meddle in our internal affairs, suppress and hinder the da'wah (the call to Islam) and harm the image of Muslim preachers.'
It was embarrassing to learn that!
We thought that these infidels and their predecessors have always tried to disintegrate our internal affairs, at least for the last 14 centuries! Long before the attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. had taken place... before the bombings of the Riyadh compounds and Khobar Towers... before the colonization of Afghanistan, Arabian Peninsula, and Palestine... moreover, since the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, and grant him Peace, founded the first Islamic State in Medina! So what has changed since then?
We thought that these infidels would never give up fighting against us, whether we fight them back or not, until we turn on our heels to abandon Islam. Please, could you hint on how to twist or temper the meaning of the verse 227 of the Surah 2. "The Cow":
"and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever-- these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide."?
We thought that these infidels would never be ‘impressed and satisfied' with us, whether we bomb them now or later, until we follow their religion. Please, could you hint on how to twist or temper the meaning of the verse 120 of the Surah 2. "The Cow":
"And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper."?
We thought that these infidels would always spend from their evil gains, whether we set our ambushes all over the place and everywhere or not, until they knock us out from the path of Allah, glory be to Him. Please, could you hint on how to twist or temper the meaning of the verse 36 of the Surah 8. "The Spoils of War":
"Surely those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (people) from the way of Allah; so they shall spend it, then it shall be to them an intense regret, then they shall be overcome; and those who disbelieve shall be driven together to hell."?
We thought that these infidels would never halt to seed corruption among us and assault our religion, whether we conduct Jihad against them or not. Please, could you hint on how to twist or temper the meaning of the verse 118 of the Surah 3. "The Family of Imran":
"O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand."?
O Messenger of Allah! Do not attack caravans of the Quraysh; otherwise they will use that to justify a retaliatory strike!
O Messenger of Allah! Do not fight with the infidels of the Arabian Peninsula; otherwise they will unite in the war against you!
Could you hint on how to twist or temper the meaning of the verses 172 and 173 of the Surah 3. "The Family of Imran":
"(As for) those who responded (at Ohud) to the call of Allah and the Apostle after the wound had befallen them, those among them who do good (to others) and guard (against evil)shall have a great reward. Those to whom the people said: Surely men have gathered against you, therefore fear them, but this increased their faith, and they said: Allah is sufficient for us and most excellent is the Protector."?
O Messenger of Allah! Do not deploy the army against Caesar, because Caesar will gather his forces against us, and there would be no chance of surviving for us. Instead, you should discuss a deal, organise intellectual debates, and strive with tongue and pen, but not with sword and teeth!
O Messenger of Allah! Do not send the army of Osama bin Zayid to ...O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah! Do not send the army of Osama bin Zayd! You will give the Romans an excuse to attack us, and we are nothing compared with the Romans! Just look at us... and look at the Romans!
O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah! What if the Arabs would break away from Islam! Stay in Medina; do not go after the enemies to kill them. Instead, call them to Islam with gentleness and forbearance, because we are too weak to fight them now! So what if they do not pay zakah? At least, they pray!
O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah! Do not fight against the world's superpowers, because Muslims are helpless against them! On the contrary, we should encourage them to join forums, debates, lectures, classes, media and all other available means to save them! How blind we were!
We are ignorant misguided youth; unable to measure words and deeds, and we are intolerant in all our affairs! We want to fight with all kuffar and mushrikeen, as they fight against us! Please could you hint on how to twist or temper the verse 36 of the Surah 9. "The Repentance"
"and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)."?
Subhan Allah!
We were so foolish! Every time we heard the call to attack the enemy, we hurried there, seeking death! Please could you hint on how to reject or at least hide somewhere the hadeeth narrated by Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him:
'The best way of life is the life of a person who firmly holds the reins of his horse in the path of Allah and every time he hears the cries of the battle he rushes in to kill or be killed, whenever he can find it.'
(Muslim)
Whenever infidels killed our brothers, and destroyed our mosques and occupied our lands, we fought with them! Then please could you hint on how to twist or temper the verse 75 of the Surah 4. "The Women"
"And what reason have you that you should not fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, (of) those who say: Our Lord! cause us to go forth from this town, whose people are oppressors, and give us from Thee a guardian and give us from Thee a helper."?
How to be with the people of the Book, the Jews and Christians who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not forbid the forbidden by Allah, the Lord of the worlds, and do not profess Muhammad, may Allah bless him, and grant him Peace?
What backward ideas born in your heads ... It is their right to do so, and none of our business! ... The freedom of conscience and opinion, remember? Then please could you hint on how to twist or temper the meaning of the verse 29 of the Surah 9. "The Repentance"
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."?
We are those who will march forth, whether we are healthy, young, and wealthy, or are ill, old, and poor! Or please hint on how to twist or temper the meaning of the verse 41 of the Surah 9. "The Repentance"
"Go forth light and heavy, and strive hard in Allah's way with your property and your persons; this is better for you, if you know."?
We are those who will plunge ourselves into battles against infidels, without even thinking or looking back!
Or, would you hint on how to warp, discredit and reject the story narrated by Abu Dawud and at-Tirmidhi:
'During the Battle of Constantinople, a man from among al-Muhajireen (the Emigrants) attacked the Romans, penetrating deep into their ranks and fought, who later was killed. Abu Ayyub Al-Ansari who was with us has heard some people saying, 'He has casted himself to his perdition with his own hands' (referring to 2/195). Abu Ayyub said, 'we know this ayah better, for it was revealed about us, al-Ansar (the companions of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and his companions, and grant them Peace), who participated in Jihad with him. When Islam became strong, we met and said to each other, 'Allah has honored us to be the Companions of His Prophet... Alhamdulillah, Islam is victorious and its followers' increased in numbers... A while before we had to ignore our properties and the needs of our children... The war's over, so let's go back to our families and do farming...'
Then this ayah (2/195) was revealed about us:
"And spend in the way of Allah and cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands, and do good (to others); surely Allah loves the doers of good." The 'perdition' refers to staying with our families (desperately trying to impress our wives and quench our children for entertainments) and estates (being obsessed with worldly affairs forgetting to worship the Provider) and abandoning Jihad." Abu Ayyub, may Allah be pleased with him, remained patient and steadfast until his death and was buried in Rome."
‘Jihad, jihad, jihad... what is it with us and jihad? Do we not understand anything (a civilized approach to achieve our idealistic objectives) except jihad (drown our wellbeing in blood and rot in trenches)?
So what that our enemies have invaded our lands and countries, allowed themselves our possessions and smeared our honour with filth, and mocked at our religion? So what? Is there not any other way to solve these issues, except this jihad?
Why do we not take those people who keep their seats as an example? Please could you hint on how to twist or temper the meaning of the verses 95 and 96 of the Surah 4. "The Women":
"The holders back from among the believers, not having any injury, and those who strive hard in Allah's way with their property and their persons are not equal; Allah has made the strivers with their property and their persons to excel the holders back a (high) degree, and to each (class) Allah has promised good; and Allah shall grant to the strivers above the holders back a mighty reward: (96) (High) degrees from Him and protection and mercy, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.",
their squatting is an intellectual response to the call for jihad; the way to ‘save and develop' the country, calling for the adoption of the custom of security by giving up.
Well, what is it with us and those things such as dirt, wounds, swords and spears? Well, what is it with us and our desire to climb the mountains and fight in the ocean waves?
Why do we not understand anything except a (gory) neck chopping ‘custom'...? ...any chance to twist or temper the meaning of the verse 4 of the Surah 47. "Muhammad":
"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them,"
...murder ... any chance to twist or temper the meaning of the verse 5 of the Surah 9. "The Repentance":
"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
... and terrorism ... any chance to twist or temper the meaning of the verse 60 of the Surah 8. "The Spoils of War":
"And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby (terrorize) the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly."?
Why would we not show (the soft side of the humanity) mercy (getting paid by the same coin in turn) to infidels... any chance to twist or temper the meaning of the verse 29 of the Surah 48. "The Victory":
"Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces (light of Iman) because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Taurat and their description in the Injeel; like as seed-produce that puts forth its sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them; Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward."!
And our humbleness before them would be a cause of their becoming Muslims... any chance to twist or temper the meaning of the verse 54 of the Surah 5. "The Spoils of War":
"O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah's way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer; this is Allah's Face, He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.".
Why do we not mind our own business, like construction, or agriculture, or something else and stop talking about jihad?
And is it a good time for jihad... in the twenty first century... in the era of the Internet and space discoveries... what is it with us and this jihad to kill the US and their allies' military personnel that ‘engaged' in ‘asymmetric warfare' to ‘eliminate' ‘barbarian' ‘armed insurgents' ‘physically'?
O scholars! Take care of your duty...
O Allah! Inspire the youth of this Ummah to righteousness and justice.
Written by Husayn ibn Mahmud
18 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1424 Hijri
19 May 2003 Greg.
Source: TawbaInfo
Translation: by Kavkaz Center
Kavkaz Center
Our button
print version
