Martyrdom operations are legitimate
Abdul Aziz
"The martyrdom operations executed by Mujahideen against the Zionist enemy
are legitimate operations based on the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His
prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and they are the highest form of
martyrdom and a path to Allah's satisfaction and paradise. Mujahideen opting
to martyrdom based on creed and belief chose that path with absolute
awareness and free will. Such operations are one of the most important
strategic weapons of resistance that enabled it to defeat the enemy morally
and impose a new equation in the light of the existing unbalanced material
forces."
>From the Closing statement issued by Muslim Ulama, following their
Conference in Beirut during 25-26 Shawwal 1422 AH
gor...@invalid.invalid
> Martyrdom operations are legitimate
>
> "The martyrdom operations executed by Mujahideen against the Zionist enemy
> are legitimate operations based on the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His
>
> Conference in Beirut during 25-26 Shawwal 1422 AH
Despite what some say, I know in my heart that the killing of innocent
people is wrong, in all cases.
I can't help but wonder, if martyrdom truly is the path to paradise, why
are Muslim Ulama holding conferences instead of blowing themselves up?
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
abdulb...@hotmail.com (Abdul Aziz) wrote:
> "Martyrdom operations are legitimate"...
>
> From the Closing statement issued by Muslim Ulama, following their
> Conference in Beirut during 25-26 Shawwal 1422 AH
How many ulema were present? Who were they? Was the closing statement
adopted unamimously?
You continue to press your position by making statments that appear
authoritative but that lack crucial details. When you are asked for
specifics (when, where, who, context), you generally do not reply.
Those who fight without regard for self in God's cause (fii Sabiil
allaah) and who die at the hand of the ennemy are indeed martyrs who are
promised a great reward.
Those who knowingly and willfully destroy themselves in an attempt to
damage or kill the ennemy are self-killers whose action is condemned by
the words of God in the Qur'an and by the traditions of the Prophet
Muhammad (God's grace and peace be on him).
wa-llaahu 3alim
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:a80j2i$jn3$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> Martyrdom operations are legitimate
>
> "The martyrdom operations executed by Mujahideen against the Zionist enemy
> are legitimate operations based on the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His
<snip>
Abdul do you post these just to shock and offend? The Prophet I know would
never have condone the killing of innocents.
Salaam
G. Waleed Kavalec
-------------------
Do not act in response to how you wish the world was.
Act in response to how the world is.
calon
Qu'ran
002.190-193
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress
limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have
Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but
fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there;
but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress
faith.
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. .
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there
prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no
hostility except to those who practise oppression."
006.151
"Say: "Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from":
Join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your
children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;-
come not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life,
which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He
command you, that ye may learn wisdom."
Suicide bombings almost invariably kill civilians, not soldiers and suicide
is itself a sin. Killing women and children will only make the enemy more
determined and cruel. Enemy soldiers should be the targets not civilians.
The soldiers are the ones enforcing the occupation and they are the ones who
deserve to die. A few weeks ago, soldiers at a checkpoint were killed by a
Palestinian freedom fighter. There needs to be much more of that and not the
kind of suicide operation that kills the innocent. There is no justification
for killing women and children. Only cowards do that and it certainly falls
under the category of transgressing due limits.
"Abdul Aziz" <abdulb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a80j2i$jn3$1...@samba.rahul.net...
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>"The martyrdom operations executed by Mujahideen against the Zionist enemy
The arrogance of such a statement is truly astounding.
No one but God Himself knows if someone is a martyr or not.
One person does a kamikaze act for the sake of God, but another does
it for the sake of a nation-state-- that is NOT a Muslim martyr-- and
only God knows. God knows who God's soldiers are..... not Hamas... not
the Taliban.... not bin Laden.... not Abdul Aziz.
The statements supporting violence and murder in the name of Islam
(rather than peace and delivering the Message) express a very obvious
moral bankruptcy, imho. Anyone who doesn't see a foundation of malice
in these people is truly blind, imho.
If the Muslim-Arabs REALLY cared about the Palestinians they would
have taken them into their homes and gotten them back into life. But
they don't. They USE the Palestinians for their own propaganda
purposes: corrupt regimes and tyrants staying in power and a "dark
complicity" --to use Robert Fisk's phrase-- between the people and
their leaders.
If they REALLY cared they would have followed the Sunnah and followed
a course of escalation--- I've asked this COUNTLESS times and never
gotten an answer: why have the Palestinians never used passive
resistance and civil disobedience? Are you telling me no one among
their leadership-- or the ostensibly "concerned" Muslim-Arab
leadership-- heard of Ghandi or Martin Luther King?
Oh wait. They're "kafr" right? <snort, snort and double snort-- if
that's your answer turn off your computers right now and toss it in
the garbage-- if you have ANY integrity at all!>
And if we all REALLY cared about people subject to oppression and
injustice-- a real mercy to ALL humanity-- we would have at least SOME
passion for similar situations around the world, such as Rawanda. But
we don't. We'll come to fisticuffs over sighting a moon, and gnash our
teeth over hair on a man's face or a woman's head, but not over world
hunger and poverty. Will we take offense when we are called liars? We
ARE liars!
The sloppy, inconsistent, twisted thinking these groups and their
supporters engage in should be absolutely obvious to any honest person
of good will, it seems to me.
We people in the Qur'anic religious traditions, as a group, are
horrible. Face facts. Selfish, self-centered, jingoistic, xenophobic,
self-deluding, rationalizing, violent, filled with hatreds,
inconsistent, ignorant and willfully so. Lazy and irresponsible. The
pride, arrogance, hubris, cheap rationalizations and egos are
absolutely amazing. How banal and mediocre we are! And we call
ourselves "martyrs" and think we are doing "jihad"! WRONG! We're not.
We're playing little boy games. Bang bang you're dead. Allahu akbar!
Does it give you a buzz? Does it make you high? Does it make you feel
all righteous and tingly inside and like you are better than everyone
else as you feed and nurture a passion for hatred and desire for
blood?
Does your local masjid do ANYTHING productive? Do you have active,
institutionalized, research-based da'wah? Do you send volunteers into
soup kitches, or nursing homes, or to work with the disabled? No. I've
yet to hear of one..... not even one. But, my guess is, your
leadership is entrenched: its been the same group of people switching
positions (or not even switching positions) for a decade or more.
That's how it is where I am anyway, and I've no reason to think its
that much different anywhere else in the States.
Drinking alcohol for a buzz would be a good deed in comparison.
It would be one thing to target miltary. Its another to target
civilians. Go ahead.... rationalize it all you want, but your
rationalizations only look like the ramblings of the morally blind--
or the downright evil. In my opinion, of course.
And.... the willingness to ignore large parts of the Qur'an in order
to rationalize what is, after all, not a *Muslim* venture, but a
*nationalistic* venture is absolutely disgusting. Foul. A vandalism of
Islam. A defacement. As is the desire to impose YOUR version of Islam
on other people. There is to be no compulsion in religion! What is it
about that foundational statement that we do not, will not
understand??
Does not Allah Most High clearly state that if an enemy asks for peace
give it to them? (The answer is "yes") Because then you can deliver
the Message to them, and enemies might even become friends, by God's
will.
But Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Taliban, al-Qaeda and their defenders show
NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER with da'wah. Delivering the Message to others
isn't even on their radar screen. It doesn't enter their world view.
They buy a gun rather than study how to communicate with people so
they might effectively deliver the Message-- a complete contradiction
of the Sunnah, to my best understanding. Not to mention an egregious
setting aside of the Qur'an.
If any of them did have the slightest concern with delivering the
Message then they would be eager for close relationships with Israeli
people-- with ALL people-- so they could teach them, exhort them, and
show them what it means to declare and bear witness to "There is no
god but God. God is One."
So they too could be seen as a mercy to humanity. Like the man they
*claim* to follow....
But we, as a group, don't WANT to be seen as a mercy to humanity. We
don't WANT to be known for our piety.
And we aren't.
Because none of these groups and none of their supporters are
concerned with delivering the Message-- but only in the cheapest, most
banal expressions of nationalism and ethno-centrism and lust for
violence-- they do not and will not have my support, and I pray, pray,
pray Allah Most High confounds them and removes them. They are a
blight on Islam-- a defacement-- a vandalism. And they should not
have the support of ANY thinking person who claims to be within the
Qur'anic religious traditions. In my opinion, of course.
A will-to-destroy is a classic symptom of the presence of evil. It is
the will of the demons-- who LOVE when young men are blown to bits.
They cheer and feel happy about it rather than sad and distressed.
And Allah knows best.
Abdul Kader
<ali...@city-net.com> wrote:
>And if we all REALLY cared about people subject to oppression and
>injustice-- a real mercy to ALL humanity-- we would have at least SOME
>passion for similar situations around the world, such as Rawanda.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200201280515.html
http://www.wwf.co.za/best-among-people-are-those-who-benefit-mankind.htm
> Do you send volunteers into
>soup kitches, or nursing homes, or to work with the disabled?
>No. I've
>yet to hear of one..... not even one.
http://www.wwf.co.za/Projects/projects.htm
Look at the above site for a small example of what can happen when
even a few Muslims put aside their ethnocentric blinkers and get
involved with their communities.
Jon Bowden
for the recipients of such operations to nuke the martyrs' cities and Mecca?
This would be fair enough, I should think.
Abdul Aziz
> Abdul do you post these just to shock and offend?
>
InshaAllah, many who read my posts will deduce or know that they seek
to inform what is Islamic, and what is not.
That is, that in all that we Muslims do, all that we think, we should
be guided by Quran and Sunnah and them alone. These are the measure of
our judgment; they determine our judgment, our deeds.
If something is in accord with Quran and Sunnah it is right, for it is
what Allah (SWT) has commanded us do.
Of course, we are human and make mistakes, and may even act on the
basis of a wrong interpretation of Quran and Sunnah. But we trust in
Allah's (SWT) Mercy knowing that we will be held accountable and
judged by Him. Our intention is surely what matters.
If our intention is good - that is Islamic, a desire to do Allah's
Will - then we can hope for such Mercy.
What others may think, say or write about us is irrelevant. What
matters is that we strive InshaAllah to do our duty, as given by Allah
(SWT).
"And whosoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, such are the
Kāfirūn." [5:44 Interpretation of meaning]
Allah (SWT) knows best.
Abdul Aziz
Alwi Kamus
My Dear Jeremy
> No one but God Himself knows if someone is a martyr or not.
I totally agree with you, and i still think this so called 'martyrdom'
operation is a useless military action - the worse mistake of its kind.
> The statements supporting violence and murder in the name of Islam...
> (rather than peace and delivering the Message) express a very obvious
> moral bankruptcy, imho. Anyone who doesn't see a foundation of malice
> in these people is truly blind, imho.
> If the Muslim-Arabs REALLY cared about the Palestinians they would
have taken them into their homes and gotten them back into life. But
> they don't... >>>
Thats not entirely correct, there are millions of palestinians in
diaspora,
it is known that a major portion of Jordanian populations are
palestinian
or palestinian's origin. there are many of them in lebanon, in gulf
countries
in Saudi, egypt and even in far away places like malaysia and brunei.
they contribute to the economic survival of occupied palestine
which is practically dead..
--- I've asked this COUNTLESS times and never
> gotten an answer: why have the Palestinians never used passive
> resistance and civil disobedience? Are you telling me no one among
> their leadership-- or the ostensibly "concerned" Muslim-Arab
> leadership-- heard of Ghandi or Martin Luther King?
I really think my dear jeremy should differentiate between ghandi, ML
king and
the palestinian debacle.
> And if we all REALLY cared about people subject to oppression and
> injustice-- a real mercy to ALL humanity-- we would have at least SOME
> passion for similar situations around the world, such as Rawanda.
You are trapped in your own situation,
Muslims around the world do have concerned about what happened around
the
world. You dont know how much muslims contribution mandela's anti
apartheid
struggle, charitable aids, earthquake, disaster etc..
I clearly remember huge responses from muslims in my country to the
campaign
organised by 'bob geldof' years ago. Every where i see charitable acts
done
by muslims... countries like saudi, brunei and the gulf countries spend
huge
sum of money in charities - most of it channeled into international aid
agencies.
Also these so called 'extremist movement' like the brotherhood in egypt,
they
provided nearly 16% of health care services - all volunteer works. In
Turkey
islamic parties operate huge network of charities - the same trend in
other muslim
countries like malaysia, indonesia etc.
in my country for example, we have refugee from cambodia, myanmar and
indonesia
we have 'rohingyas' - victim of burmese junta, the 'kemboja' people -
victims of
cambodian pol pot regime, we have 'moros' victim of southern filipina
400 year
war, we also took refugee from bosnia-herzog (a very distant land from
us)
we have more than one million 'illegal' immigrants from indonesia, from
bangla desh,
india, pakistan, afghanistan etc..
Our small country, a miniscule compared to america, with small economy..
of course news like this dont reach ordinary americans -
its just not 'newsworthy'
your muslim community around you do not represent the entire muslim
world.
When the rwandan massacres happened, we were horrified and horror
strucked
like any sane human beings.
the thought of 'christians butchering christians' did not even cross our
mind.
we were thinking that a tribe was trying to exterminate another tribe.
When 9/11 happened, muslims around the world, their scholars, their
intellectuals
almost unanimously condemned the attack.
But this is not mentioned prominently in american mass media...
(In this forum, one poster even asked why muslims do not condemned the
attack)
it should be asked why muslim dont have a proper news agency..
the answer is that, there are many many muslim media in the world today
-
but it just dont have airtime in free america. not commercial enough.
> Drinking alcohol for a buzz would be a good deed in comparison.
> It would be one thing to target miltary. Its another to target
> civilians. Go ahead.... rationalize it all you want, but your
> rationalizations only look like the ramblings of the morally blind--
> or the downright evil. In my opinion, of course.
Your criticisms of the desperate extremist group are valid
i have to agree, but what happened to muslims in america not necessarily
true elsewhere.
> But Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Taliban, al-Qaeda and their defenders show
> NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER with da'wah. Delivering the Message to others
> isn't even on their radar screen. It doesn't enter their world view.
Once again you are lumping all these groups in one basket.
they are not the same, they have different origin, different responses,
different circumstances and different methods.
We have to deal differently with each of this group -
it will be costly mistake to think that they are the same homogenous
entity - a mistake which has already been done by your american
government. -- despite all the specialist available.
for example:
Binladen & co. was originally a force to fight secularist ba'athist
Saddam and the marxist yemen state. now look what happened!
(you dont fight marxist with civil disobedience? )
Hamas was an alternative resistance org fighting israeli occupation.
(palestinian were bored with marxist and secular groups.. so they dig
into alternative heavy metal thrash..)
Taliban was a traditional afghanistan society respond to lawlessness and
internecine civil wars. They reperesent traditional segment of afghan.
Your gov. will have the most ardous task facing them. it will be a long
war..
while islamic jihadis: groups of young men eager to prove their mettle
in jihad (the walkabout?)
These groups will popped up here and then - they are temporary and
short-live.
Wassalam
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
Grace and peace be upon all who read this.
snip
>We people in the Qur'anic religious traditions, as a group, are
>horrible. Face facts. Selfish, self-centered, jingoistic, xenophobic,
>self-deluding, rationalizing, violent, filled with hatreds,
>inconsistent, ignorant and willfully so. Lazy and irresponsible. The
>pride, arrogance, hubris, cheap rationalizations and egos are
>absolutely amazing. How banal and mediocre we are! And we call
>ourselves "martyrs" and think we are doing "jihad"! WRONG! We're not.
>We're playing little boy games. Bang bang you're dead. Allahu akbar!
You're HUMAN.
Look at what's happening in my own religious tradition, the Catholic
Church. Is that any better than what you're describing in Islam? Men
vowed to a life with God violating their vows by sexually abusing
young children, ruining their lives?
While I know Islam doesn't adhere to the Christian doctrine of
original sin, and looks differently upon sin from Christianity, I'd
still hold that all of this--the Islamic attitudes you describe and
the evil working its way through the Catholic Church--are examples of
sin in action. Satan sees potential for good, and must corrupt it.
>From a Christian perspective (as my parish priest pointed out in his
Good Friday homily last night, a homily delivered with sorrow, anger
and tears), what is happening now is exactly what happened on our
original Good Friday..the betrayers, the condemners, the victims,
those who choose expediency over what is right...the evil exists and
is continuing to be done. I'm sure that there are parallels in the
life of Muhammed which can be applied today--sinful people twisting
God's message and God's wishes to fit their own desires.
All this come down to is that we are humans, and along with being
human, comes sinfulness. That doesn't excuse the sinful behavior.
There are no excuses for evil. It must be condemned.
But along with condemnation must come proactive behavior to counter
it...see below.
snip
>Does your local masjid do ANYTHING productive? Do you have active,
>institutionalized, research-based da'wah? Do you send volunteers into
>soup kitches, or nursing homes, or to work with the disabled? No. I've
>yet to hear of one..... not even one.
Really? Are there no women's societies to work with the poor, no
men's societies to lend aid? If not, that's a good way to start.
Volunteer work in nursing homes and soup kitchens are good things to
do with youth, get your youth groups and youth organizations doing
these works. Install the habit of charity--da'wah, in your terms,
correct?--at a young age.
Islam is a faith without the degree of structure present in
Catholicism, right? If there are no such organizations in your local
masjid, then why not form them? Start with the youth, perhaps.
What's stopping you--or anyone else--from doing so in their areas of
local worship? Start small, plan big. That's how you change the
world. It's not that hard to get in with helping at local charities.
They'd appreciate it.
Or are there any youth organizations in Islam? If not, why?
snip
>A will-to-destroy is a classic symptom of the presence of evil. It is
>the will of the demons-- who LOVE when young men are blown to bits.
>They cheer and feel happy about it rather than sad and distressed.
Agreed.
jrw
(aisha)
posted and mailed (in case the moderater decides there's insufficient
Islamic content)
Abdul Aziz
>
> Despite what some say, I know in my heart that the killing of innocent
> people is wrong, in all cases.
>
Please refer to previous threads on this forum regarding Fidayee
attacks, where the question of who is "innocent" has been discussed.
According to Hamas, those who are the target of fidayee attacks in
occupied Palestine are not "innocent civilians" but rather occupiers.
I quote from a Qassam Brigades communiqué:
"What the Zionist entity and its ally America call 'innocent
civilians' are called in our Brigades and our Palestinian people's
lexicon settlers and usurpers of our lands. They will only receive
death and displacement and if they wish to save their lives they have
to pack up and leave before they regret it."
And the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) gave glad tidings of
victory and triumph for the religion and its dominance as he said,
"This matter will reach wherever the night and day reach. And Allaah
will not leave a single home built either from hides or fur, except
Allaah causes this religion to enter it, from the supremacy of the
supreme of the humiliation of the humiliated; a supremacy by which
Allaah makes Islaam supreme with, or a humiliation by which Allaah
humiliates disbelief (Kufr) with." - narrated by Ahmad from the
Hadeeth of Tameem Ad-Daaree.
Abdul Aziz
>
> How many ulema were present?
Assalam Aliakum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatu
Over 130 from various countries including Lebanon, Palestine, Sudan,
United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Algeria and Jordan. The organization
concerned was the Islamic Ulama Gathering, based in Lebanon.
If you read the recent Khuttba by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi - from
which I posted an extract on this forum Message-ID:
<a7p6bc$5ri$1...@samba.rahul.net> Subject "Jihad is now fard 'ayn on
every Muslim" - you will see his support for Fidayee attacks.
>Was the closing statement
> adopted unamimously?
AFAIK, yes.
> When you are asked for
> specifics (when, where, who, context), you generally do not reply.
InshaAllah I always strive to reply, as the google archives can show.
If the specifics asked for are relevant, then to the best of my
knowledge I reply.
>
> Those who knowingly and willfully destroy themselves in an attempt to
> damage or kill the ennemy are self-killers whose action is condemned by
> the words of God in the Qur'an and by the traditions of the Prophet
> Muhammad (God's grace and peace be on him).
>
This has been discussed at some length in threads such as the ones
concerning Fidayee attacks, and in several articles I have posted and
written. The distinction is between Istishad (martyrdom) and Intihar
(suicide). For example see
http://galileo.spaceports.com/~aaziz/fidayeen.html
You maintain one position, I another. As I have striven InshaAllah to
show those who like me accept that Fidayee attacks are lawful
according to Quran and Sunnah believe them to be acts of martyrdom.
Allah (SWT) will judge us both, and may He have mercy on us all.
I can accept that you sincerely believe your own view to be correct,
but it does seem that you and others cannot or will not accept that we
who uphold Fidayee attacks may well be right, and that we are only
doing our Islamic duty by propagating what we believe.
Since I do believe Fidayee attacks are correct, lawful, according to
Quran and Sunnah, I have duty to say so, regardless of the
consequences - for myself especially - and regardless of what others
may say or write about such attacks.
"Obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not argue among yourselves in a
way which causes you to lose courage and your strength to depart;
rather, be patient. Surely, Allah is with those who are As-Sâbirin."
[8:46 Interpretation of meaning.]
Shiraaz
>As-Salaam Alaikum,
>>"The martyrdom operations executed by Mujahideen against the Zionist
enemy
>The arrogance of such a statement is truly astounding.
>No one but God Himself knows if someone is a martyr or not.
A poster said that "fidayee attacks" was of Shiite origin. So Abdul
Aziz changed from fidayee attacks to martyrdom operations. It's all
part of his dawah (or fight with the infidels).
W'salaam
haldash
Cant help but wonder why those who legitimize suicide killing of
innocents are not practicing what they preach themselves. Or is it
that they want themselves to be out of harm's way while they brainwash
Muslim children to blow themselves up so the former can enjoy their
fruits?
> Such operations are one of the most important
> strategic weapons of resistance that enabled it to defeat the enemy morally
> and impose a new equation in the light of the existing unbalanced material
> forces."
"Unbalanced material forces" were always the case in the early history
of Islam (or are you ignorant of it?). The Prophet (PBUH) didn't ask
his companions to kill the women and children of Islam's enemy (to
"defeat them morally") and kill themselves in the process (so they can
achieve "highest form of martyrdom"). They fought against overwhelming
odds and trusted Allah to take care of themselves, but they never
directly caused their own death. Killing yourself is suicide, whether
you use a western or eastern word for it.
"Unbalanced material forces" are to be balanced by Devine Forces,
which will come from Devine Guidance, not by pervertising God's word.
The proponents of suicide attacks are as guilty as the Israelis for
bringing death to innocent Muslims - by causing Muslim children to
believe that suicide is Islamic, and for giving Israelis an excuse to
unleash their massacre runs on Muslim population. But most
importantly, they are guilty of misinterpreting Islam to suite their
own political philosophy.
May Allah give peace and guidance to Mankind and free Muslims from
oppression, both from outside and from within.
PeacefulMan
Assalam Alikum (peace to you)
I would certainly agree that fighting the army that occupies your
lands, that humiliate you...etc is legitimate from Islamic and
rational point of view, but the point here is the killing of civilians
(children, women..), as far as my knowledge goes i have never read a
passage in Koran or sunna that legitimate that. at the contrary it is
known that the prophet PBUH had always been very clear about not
killing -not only women and children- but non armed people he also had
even forbidden unnecessary cut of a single tree ! How can blowing a
bomb in a restaurant be legitimate ? you can't even not know if there
is no Muslims, Christians, tourists, Israelis against their government
..Etc. This is absolute non sense.
Jihad is about self defence and fight for freedom against injustice.
not indistinguished killings...
Call this kind of actions "terrorising the enemy", "psychological war"
or whatever, but please don't put the name of Islam on it. This is
harming the Islam more than anything else.
--- not convinced ? read:
you mentioned a conference in beirut allow me to mention the glorious
koran:
«And fight in the path of God with those who are fighting with
you and do not transgress, God loves not those who transgress.»
(2:190)
At the contrary the peace is ALLWAYS considered as a better solution
read:
«Was-solho Khayro» (Peace is better) (4: 128)
«O you who have found faith, enter peace wholly.» (2:208)
But more illuminating still is this one:
«And if they incline to peace, then you incline to it, and trust
in God» (8:61)
In another verse which is in Surah an-Nisa, the Prophet is also told:
«So if they withdraw from you, have not fought with you, and have
put forward peace to you, then God has not placed a path for you
against them.» (4:90)
read also this hadith of the prophet pbuh from Sahih al bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 258:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
"During some of the Ghazawat (battles against oppressors) of Allah's
Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the
killing of women and children."
Is there something clearer than that ????
I think the error a lot of Muslims do is that they assume that we have
the right to treat Israelis like they treat us. if we do we are simply
like them, but don't forget we are supposed to be better than them, we
hold the true religion (din alhak). vengeance is not allowed in Islam.
If Israelis (government) are ruthless and have a complete disregard to
human life else than theirs, we should fight them but according to
what islam teaches us we should not transgress the limits by anger or
hatred nationalism or whatever reason in our hearts. God asks us to be
fair even to our enemies
read:
5.8 O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair
dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to
wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and
fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.
5.9 To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah
promised forgiveness and a great reward.
to finish the aim of Muslims is not to be mighty on earth or to win
the face...etc our aim all is behave righteously on this life because
we know that there will be a day of judgement where every one will be
accountable for every single act he did in his life.
---
Wassalam
May God forgive my mistakes
Ali,
Abdul Aziz
> There is no justification
> for killing women and children. Only cowards do that and it certainly falls
> under the category of transgressing due limits.
>
Please see my reply to gor...@invalid.invalid [ Message-ID:
<ac8728e.02033...@posting.google.com> ] in which I quoted
the following from Hamas:
"What the Zionist entity and its ally America call 'innocent
civilians' are called in our Brigades and our Palestinian people's
lexicon settlers and usurpers of our lands. They will only receive
death and displacement and if they wish to save their lives they have
to pack up and leave before they regret it."
Such occupiers by their very presence, their support for the brutal
occupation, and many other things, are not "innocent civilians" as the
Western media would have us believe.
Allah's Messenger said, "If anyone meets Allah with no mark of Jihad,
he will meet Allah with a flaw in him." [Al-Tirmidhi #3835, Narrated
AbuHurayrah]
Abdul Aziz
> As-Salaam Alaikum,
>
Waliakum Salaam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatu
> The arrogance of such a statement is truly astounding.
> No one but God Himself knows if someone is a martyr or not.
>
All the statement says in this respect is that such operations are a
form of martyrdom, and indeed the highest. It does not say that those
who undertake such operations will for certain be admitted into
Jannah: that is for Allah (SWT) alone to know and decide.
>
> The statements supporting violence and murder in the name of Islam
Please, as I have said and written many times before - including to
you, my brother, as you may recall - do not use such terms. What is
"violence"? What is "murder"? They are Western terms, defined
according to Western law.
If something is in accord with Quran and Sunnah, then that is all that
matters, not what someone calls it. If the use of force so as to cause
injury, and killing in certain circumstances, are in accord with Quran
and Sunnah then they are justified, for they are the Will of Allah
(SWT).
"It is not you who kills them: rather, it is Allah who kills them.
You did not shoot (anything) when you aimed and let go: rather, it was
Allah who shot as a test for the believers, a fair test from the One
Who Hears all, Who understands all. This, in truth, is how things are:
for it is Allah alone who can nullify the plots of the disbelievers."
[ 8: 15-18 Interpretation of Meaning.]
>why have the Palestinians never used passive
> resistance and civil disobedience?
As I believe I wrote to you once before, I suggest you go to occupied
Palestine to find your answer. I suggest you live there, under brutal
Zionist occupation for a while. I suggest you witness your Muslim
brothers and sisters, your relatives, killed and injured and taken
away and held without trial.
Passive resistance is not now an option and never really has been
considering the occupation of Muslim terrority that has occurred, the
expulsion of Muslims, the continued immigration of Jews, the killing
and oppression of Muslims who remain in the areas still under Zionist
control. And so on.
In particular, we are enjoined by Allah (SWT) to resist with lethal
force.
" You who believe! Be not like those who disbelieve (hypocrites) and
who say to their brethren when they travel through the earth or go out
to fight: "If they had stayed with us, they would not have died or
been killed," so that Allaah may make it a cause of regret in their
hearts. It is Allaah that gives life and causes death. And Allaah is
AllSeer of what you do.
"And if you are killed or die in the Way of Allaah, forgiveness and
mercy from Allaah are far better than all that they amass (of worldly
wealths, etc.).
"And whether you die, or are killed, verily, unto Allaah you shall be
gathered. " [ 3: 156 - 158. Interpretation of Meaning.]
Also, and I quote:
"The entire land of Palestine from the river to the sea and from its
northernmost area to its southernmost area with all its cities and
villages and its capital Al-Quds is an Arab-Islamic land. Palestine is
the country of all Palestinians whether those living under occupation
or those forced to live outside it as refugees. Palestine should be
returned back to them and they should return back to it without any
conditions."
> We people in the Qur'anic religious traditions, as a group, are
> horrible. Face facts. Selfish, self-centered, jingoistic, xenophobic,
> self-deluding, rationalizing, violent, filled with hatreds,
> inconsistent, ignorant and willfully so.
The real question, I repeat yet again, is knowing the Will of Allah
(SWT) and striving to do the Will of Allah (SWT). That is all. Repeat,
that is all. We need to know, discover, what is lawful, according to
Quran and Sunnah, and strive InshaAllah to do that.
Any and all other concepts and terms are irrelevant. This is the
simple, beautiful, reality of Al-Islam: submission to the Will of
Allah (SWT) as revealed in Quran and Sunnah.
"Let those who would trade the life of this world for the life
Hereafter fight in the Cause of Allah. And those who do fight in the
Cause of Allah - whether they be killed or are victorious - will have
bestowed on them, by Us, a great reward." [4: 74 Interpretation of
Meaning.]
hook
>As-Salaam Alaikum,
>>"The martyrdom operations executed by Mujahideen against the Zionist
enemy
>The arrogance of such a statement is truly astounding.
>No one but God Himself knows if someone is a martyr or not.
>One person does a kamikaze act for the sake of God, but another does
>it for the sake of a nation-state-- that is NOT a Muslim martyr-- and
>only God knows. God knows who God's soldiers are..... not Hamas...
not
>the Taliban.... not bin Laden.... not Abdul Aziz.
Abdul Aziz who curses Muslims in his songs (singing things like "And
they die cowards bound InshaAllah for the torments of Fire") should
not be seen to represent the Palestinians. The Palestinians live under
the torment of occupation. They know that ethic cleansing is the goal
of the Israelis. They are resisting genocide.
>The statements supporting violence and murder in the name of Islam
>(rather than peace and delivering the Message) express a very obvious
>moral bankruptcy, imho. Anyone who doesn't see a foundation of malice
>in these people is truly blind, imho.
Once again you are taking someone at face value who does not represent
the attitudes of the Palestinians. The malice of disaffected Muslim
Britons has nothing to do with the Palestinians.
>If the Muslim-Arabs REALLY cared about the Palestinians they would
>have taken them into their homes and gotten them back into life. But
>they don't. They USE the Palestinians for their own propaganda
>purposes: corrupt regimes and tyrants staying in power and a "dark
>complicity" --to use Robert Fisk's phrase-- between the people and
>their leaders.
There is no reason for Palestinians to be integrated, they have land
in Palestine. If they are absorbed, then Israel will expel more
Palestinians with the excuse to its backers that the refugees will be
absorbed. Ethnic cleansing must under no circumstances be legitimized.
>If they REALLY cared they would have followed the Sunnah and followed
>a course of escalation--- I've asked this COUNTLESS times and never
>gotten an answer: why have the Palestinians never used passive
>resistance and civil disobedience? Are you telling me no one among
>their leadership-- or the ostensibly "concerned" Muslim-Arab
>leadership-- heard of Ghandi or Martin Luther King?
How can they protest peacefully when their enemy uses deadly force to
break up protests. The Israelis use deadly force to deal with children
throwing stones. Gandhi and Martin Luther King were successful because
of their circumstances. Pacifism is not a one-size fits all solution
to conflict.
>Oh wait. They're "kafr" right? <snort, snort and double snort-- if
>that's your answer turn off your computers right now and toss it in
>the garbage-- if you have ANY integrity at all!>
Only the very small-minded would use the argument about them being
"kafr". The Palestinians would have adopted the methods of King and
Gandhi if these methods worked.
>And if we all REALLY cared about people subject to oppression and
>injustice-- a real mercy to ALL humanity-- we would have at least
SOME
>passion for similar situations around the world, such as Rawanda. But
>we don't.
Quite correct, unfortunately. There is general apathy towards Rwanda
and the Congo, Muslims are not alone in this respect. The media
coverage of events in these places has been abysmal, so we know very
little about these wars.
>We'll come to fisticuffs over sighting a moon, and gnash our
>teeth over hair on a man's face or a woman's head, but not over world
>hunger and poverty. Will we take offense when we are called liars? We
>ARE liars!
You need to change your company. You seem to be surrounded by morons.
>It would be one thing to target miltary. Its another to target
>civilians. Go ahead.... rationalize it all you want, but your
>rationalizations only look like the ramblings of the morally blind--
>or the downright evil. In my opinion, of course.
The Israeli military is not invincible or very professional- the
sniper who killed a number of soldiers at a checkpoint with a World
War 2 era rifle shows that they have become soft because they are used
to killing civilians. They should be targeted more often. Israel is a
militarized society, so the line between combatants and non-combatats
is thin, but killing children can only be justified by those with
perverted values. The strain of a brutal occupation may drive
Palestinians to commit these acts, but those of us who are not under
threat have no excuse to justify these acts. The Palestinians are not
evil, they are driven by despair.
>And.... the willingness to ignore large parts of the Qur'an in order
>to rationalize what is, after all, not a *Muslim* venture, but a
>*nationalistic* venture is absolutely disgusting. Foul. A vandalism
of
>Islam. A defacement. As is the desire to impose YOUR version of Islam
>on other people. There is to be no compulsion in religion! What is it
>about that foundational statement that we do not, will not
>understand??
What is this Western word "rationalize" that you are using, surely we
should not use such infidel words brother "Foundational
statement"...what is this western concept ? And where does this
western word "understanding" come from ? ;-)<WINK>
Seriously, you shouldn't waste your breath trying to reason ( there's
that pesky infidel Western word again) with some people.
>If any of them did have the slightest concern with delivering the
>Message then they would be eager for close relationships with Israeli
>people-- with ALL people-- so they could teach them, exhort them, and
>show them what it means to declare and bear witness to "There is no
>god but God. God is One."
They can't - they live in ghettos and are isolated from Jews who
despise them. Even those who are willing to interact are persecuted.
There is the case of the Arab MK who had his immunity stripped and is
facing trial for saying something that displeased the Jews. How can
you interact with people who hate you and at best view you as a source
of labor until they can find some foreigner to take your place?
>But we, as a group, don't WANT to be seen as a mercy to humanity. We
>don't WANT to be known for our piety.
>And we aren't.
Depends on where you look...
>A will-to-destroy is a classic symptom of the presence of evil. It is
>the will of the demons-- who LOVE when young men are blown to bits.
>They cheer and feel happy about it rather than sad and distressed.
Some Muslims have embraced wanton destruction. But these are in the
minority. The Palestinians should not be judged by the same yardstick
as these people.
>And Allah Knows Best
surayya
Where is the source?
I would like to read it, and see which scholars signed it.
Where did you find it?
Don't email it to me, as no email gets through, and I'm not reading the
other two islam newsgroups either.
I had to travel back from staying with relatives on Friday and the
amount of racist abuse I had to suffer through out that period, being
abused in the street for being an arab.
I'm not an arab, but racists never stop to check first. Anyway I would
like to see the proper source as I am one of those muslims who pays the
price every time there are arab suicide bombers, so I think I have a
right to be shown the source.
Btw I don't blame them for what happens to me, I blame the racist
abusers, I'm not using palestinians as an excuse for the behaviour of
racist whites.
Abdul Aziz <abdulb...@hotmail.com> writes
Imran Razi
> If 'martydom operations' are legitimate, then I suppose it is legitimate
> for the recipients of such operations to nuke the martyrs' cities and Mecca?
> This would be fair enough, I should think.
No, because the martyrs' cause is just in fighting for their homes and
their freedom, and the Israelis are unjust in their occupation and
oppression.
That doesn't mean the MEANS of fighting, i.e., kamikaze bombings, is
correct, but there is no moral equivalence between attacking someone
else's home and attacking those that are attacking your home, as you
imply.
We need to start thinking about terrorism and such in the context of
justice. The basic principle needs to be protection of innocent lives.
On that score, let me note that the US has massacred more innocent
persons that any nation with the possible exception of the Soviet
Union. It's about time Americans start facing up to this reality and
do something to change it.
Imran Razi
Omar
> As-Salaam Alaikum,
Wa alaikum as-salaam Jeremiah,
> No one but God Himself knows if someone is a martyr or not.
This is very clear from the hadith concerning the first three people
to be cast into hell: an alim, a quran reader, and a mujaahid.
> If the Muslim-Arabs REALLY cared about the Palestinians they would
> have taken them into their homes and gotten them back into life.
This did happen, to a limited extent, with the first waves of refugees
in the late 1940's. Saudi Arabia and Jordan both extended citizenship
rights to early refugees.
> They USE the Palestinians for their own propaganda
> purposes: corrupt regimes and tyrants staying in power and a "dark
> complicity" --to use Robert Fisk's phrase-- between the people and
> their leaders.
This is true, to a certain extent. Arab regimes depend upon an
external threat to keep themselves in power. So do Western regimes.
Look how popular Bush has become by pushing the bin Laden apple cart.
We seem to have forgotten that he lost the election and was installed
by a conservative putsch extending its tentacles even into the Supreme
Court.
> Does it give you a buzz? Does it make you high? Does it make you feel
> all righteous and tingly inside and like you are better than everyone
> else as you feed and nurture a passion for hatred and desire for
> blood?
You're right. This is a very important point. People attempt to
justify themselves, to demonstrate their belief with passion and zeal
rather than with humility and trust in God. It gives them a buzz.
These are the people who will trot out chunks of the Quran, this
translation or that - they almost never have enough Arabic to
understand it directly - to prove their arguments. In fact, they offer
no argument at all. They just cite the Quran: They say "You idiot!
"____ __________ ______ _________ " (Quran *.*) Q.E.D.
I know that they have no Arabic, because if they did they would know
that real disputation among scholars is not like this. First, there is
Adab, a mutual respect that comes from humility, and humility is a
sign of religious knowledge. Then, no one simply cites the Quran and
stops. He will then go on to explain his understanding of the citation
and to support this understanding in various ways. Finally, he will
say something like, "And Allah knows best". That is to say, I may be
right and I may be wrong.
The disputation we tend to see in English resembles what we read in
Muhammad b. Abdul Tawwab's "Kitab al-Tawhid" or that in manuals of
fiqh. This is not disputation at all but exposition. Kitab al-Tawhid
was written to be memorized. It is all assertion / evidence. This is
the way fiqh is taught to children. Fiqh manuals are the same.
There is nothing particularly "Wahhabi" about this method. It is used
with children, that is all, and children will dispute among themselves
by shouting "It's in a book...", "it's in a dictionary!"
> Does your local masjid do ANYTHING productive? Do you have active,
> institutionalized, research-based da'wah? Do you send volunteers into
> soup kitches, or nursing homes, or to work with the disabled? No. I've
> yet to hear of one..... not even one.
This is the good work of Churches, Jeremiah, that emerges from 19th
century social activism. There is nothing particularly un-Islamic
about it, it simply has not happened. Muslim communities in the West
are insular. They do not support the local poor, not even the Muslim
poor, but send their Zakat and their Sadaqa back home to Pakistan, to
Egypt, and to Palestine.
> Does not Allah Most High clearly state that if an enemy asks for peace
> give it to them? (The answer is "yes") Because then you can deliver
> the Message to them, and enemies might even become friends, by God's
> will.
>
> But Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Taliban, al-Qaeda and their defenders show
> NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER with da'wah. Delivering the Message to others
> isn't even on their radar screen. It doesn't enter their world view.
They are national resistance movements covering themselves with a thin
veil of Islam. Much of their thinking emerges directly from Western
political traditions. The notion that Islam is an "ideology" for
instance, emerges immediately from the liberal secular traditions of
the West. All of these parties, the Hizb ul-Tahrir, the PFLP, Hamas,
the Ikhwan, are all aberations of modern secularism.
> They buy a gun rather than study how to communicate with people so
> they might effectively deliver the Message-- a complete contradiction
> of the Sunnah, to my best understanding. Not to mention an egregious
> setting aside of the Qur'an.
And even Mao reformed himself.
But with suicide bombings, we should acknowledge that scholars are
divided while remembering that this nation will not agree upon an
error.
> And Allah knows best.
And Allah knows best.
Assalamu alaikum,
Omar
Abdul Aziz
> If 'martydom operations' are legitimate, then I suppose it is legitimate
> for the recipients of such operations to nuke the martyrs' cities and Mecca?
Incorrect, because the fidayee attacks are against a brutal occupying
power which has usurped land, destroyed homes, forcibly evicted people
from their ancestral land, killed thousands upon thousands in the last
few years alone. And so on.
A good overview is at:
http://www.inin.net/mcgillpresentation.htm
Hamas and other organizations are resisting such an occupation. There
is Jihad against the invaders, the tyrants.
" The first obligation after Iman is the repulsion of the enemy
aggressor who assaults our Way of Life and interferes in our affairs".
Ibn Tayymia.
"Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day would not ask for
permission to be exempted from fighting with their wealth and their
lives, since they know that Allah knows all who are Al-Muttaqun. It is
only those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, and in whose
hearts is doubt, that would ask for such an exemption. For they in
their doubt waver." [9: 44-45 Interpretation of Meaning.]
Jonas T. Riker
> >"The martyrdom operations executed by Mujahideen against the Zionist enemy
>
> The arrogance of such a statement is truly astounding.
>
> No one but God Himself knows if someone is a martyr or not.
Same with 'muslim', no one but God himself know if someone is truly a
muslim, yet muslims call themselves as such. In the absence of "i
hope i am a..." one should assume the person is saying this. To err
on the side of maercy. If you will not assume this and blame someone
before asking what their meaning is then I would say that you are the
arrogant one, and the one without mercy.
> One person does a kamikaze act for the sake of God, but another does
> it for the sake of a nation-state-- that is NOT a Muslim martyr--
Are you an expert on self-annihilation? All I see here is that you
are a laptop bombardier; an armchair critic/'general' telling people
of your 'Islam'.
> God knows who God's soldiers are..... not Hamas...
I take it you're a viceroy of God? Deciding which should be left out
& in?
There is a contradiction here- unless you are being rethorical.
> (rather than peace and delivering the Message) express a very obvious
> moral bankruptcy, imho. Anyone who doesn't see a foundation of malice
> in these people is truly blind, imho.
> If the Muslim-Arabs REALLY cared about the Palestinians they would
> have taken them into their homes and gotten them back into life. But
> they don't. They USE-
'the Muslim-Arabs', 'They'? Generalizing are we? Who is the
malicious one now?
> If they REALLY cared they would have followed the Sunnah and followed
> a course of escalation--- I've asked this COUNTLESS times and never
> gotten an answer: why have the Palestinians never used passive
> resistance and civil disobedience? Are you telling me no one among
> their leadership-- or the ostensibly "concerned" Muslim-Arab
> leadership-- heard of Ghandi or Martin Luther King?
Some have used civil disobedience; a number of them were shot. Even
non-Palistinians among them were shot down.
But why do you care of 'passive' resistance? Is it so that CNN/three
letter media will broadcast 'Look! There are the savages being cut
down.' This is not shown. Of if it is, it is explained away on
aparthied-favourable terms.
But I am curious of your fascination of this type of 'resistance'.
This depends on a third party being concerned and/or intervening. And
what if there is no such animal? An apathetic response? What of your
logic then?
> Does your local masjid do ANYTHING productive? Do you have active,
> institutionalized, research-based da'wah? Do you send volunteers into
> soup kitches, or nursing homes, or to work with the disabled? No.
Keep your projections to yourself.
> It would be one thing to target miltary. Its another to target
> civilians. Go ahead.... rationalize it all you want, but your
> rationalizations only look like the ramblings of the morally blind--
> or the downright evil. In my opinion, of course.
And colonizers are civilians? No, not of children, but of those who
are of the age to carry weapons and murder the locals. They are
civilians? A civil apartheid? That is a first.
> But Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Taliban, al-Qaeda and their defenders show
> NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER with da'wah. Delivering the Message to others
> isn't even on their radar screen. It doesn't enter their world view.
Hamas runs hospitals for the sick and cares for the poor in their
areas. That is their da'wah.
What is yours?
> They buy a gun rather than study how to communicate with people so
> they might effectively deliver the Message-- a complete contradiction
Ph.D.s and your classes are not a worthy substitute for people living
in cages. Try water and food.
And Hamas does not have the time nor luxury to travel around the world
delivering your 'Message'.
> If any of them did have the slightest concern with delivering the
> Message then they would be eager for close relationships with Israeli
> people
Zionism is an ideology of colonization. Colonization involves a
combination of a) annihilation b) ethnic 'cleansing' c) collective
punishment.
Any just relationship is one based on mutual respect. This would mean
an end to colonization and to Israel. Then perhaps Palestinians can
endulge in relationships with your people whereby compensation (for
physical loss) can be discussed for 50+ years of oppression. (see a),
b), and c) above)
> A will-to-destroy is a classic symptom of the presence of evil.
A will to destroy evil? (is evil?) ...
Vorna
>Church. Is that any better than what you're describing in Islam?
What's happening in the Catholic Church is that it's finally, albeit tragic
generations too late, albeit sometimes being dragged kicking against the goads
and screaming, finally, finally beginning to DEAL WITH ITS PROBLEMS and TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY and beginning to TAKE ACTION to CORRECT THE SITUATION. Not
blaming it all on centuries of oppression by infidel Protestants. Not blaming
it on infidel Jewish Media Bias or Mossad-agents-posing-as-priests
With the notable exception of our friend Jeremiah and a few others here, I
don't see this happening in Islam as represented in this group or in the real
world.
>While I know Islam doesn't adhere to the Christian doctrine of
>original sin, [...] examples of sin in action.
To be sure, these things are examples of sin in action. Could it be that
there's something in the Islamic conception of sin, and the Islamic conception
of what to do to remedy sin, that actually contributes to Islam's problems?
(Uh, I just heard in my head a chorus of "Islam has no problems. Islam is
Perfect." Have I been reading this group too much?).
Christianity says, "Sin is so ghastly and such an affront to God, and the
sinful nature of Man is so ineradicable by even the most heroic and
extraordinary human efforts that God took utterly extraordinary measures to
deal with it because you -- yes you -- can't."
What I hear Islam saying -- as represented in this group -- is "don't point
your feet toward the front of the masjid, wear a hijab, recite prayers in a
language you may not understand while pointing toward a certain city, do
various other things and if you try really, really, really hard this will --
maybe -- suffice to deal with sin." And then the minority of hotheads and
crazies chime in, "And if you're not sure you've done enough, and you want
something guaranteed to work, let us tell you about Martrydom Operations..."
Is this a misrepresentation? In what ways is it a misrepresentation?
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
snip
Grace and peace be upon all who read this:
>As I believe I wrote to you once before, I suggest you go to occupied
>Palestine to find your answer. I suggest you live there, under brutal
>Zionist occupation for a while. I suggest you witness your Muslim
>brothers and sisters, your relatives, killed and injured and taken
>away and held without trial.
What about Palestinian Christians?
You are confusing ethnic and religious issues.
Not all Palestinians are Muslim.
jrw
(aisha)
Omar
> A poster said that "fidayee attacks" was of Shiite origin. So Abdul
> Aziz changed from fidayee attacks to martyrdom operations. It's all
> part of his dawah (or fight with the infidels).
>
> W'salaam
Assalamu alaikum Shiraz,
The word "fidayee" or "sacrifice attacks" may be used by the Shiites,
maybe even coined by them, but the usage is still common in the Arab
press recently, in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
This is despite the consistant opposition of the Saudi scholars to
suicide bombings, primarily on the basis that suicide is prohibited in
Islam.
The general public tends to see these as heroic acts and so the word
"hujuum intihaariyyah", suicide, is too negative for them to accept.
I have not seen "martyrdom operation" used in Arabic.
Omar
Imran Razi
All of these parties, the Hizb ul-Tahrir, the PFLP, Hamas,
> the Ikhwan, are all aberations of modern secularism.
>
is the secularism condoned and supported by traditional Islam, where
law and politics are separated, and political quietism and acquiescence
is demanded no matter what the injustice if the ruler happens to be
"Muslim."
Traditional Islam, by its de facto secularism and condoning of
political injustice, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If you support traditional Islam, in both its Sunni and Shia forms, you
are contributing to the oppression of Muslims worldwide.
The sad part is that because most Muslims think "Islam" means
"traditional Islam", we are forced to choose between "Islam" and
justice.
And Allah knows best.
Assalamu alaikum,
Imran Razi
Omar
Assalamu alaikum,
> Please, as I have said and written many times before - including to
> you, my brother, as you may recall - do not use such terms. What is
> "violence"? What is "murder"? They are Western terms, defined
> according to Western law.
Please, Abdul Aziz, leave post-modern Islam to Aktar Ahmad. There is
no truth because truth is unknowable. There is no murder, only
killing, there is no violence, only reaction. What is this prattle?
> If something is in accord with Quran and Sunnah, then that is all that
> matters, not what someone calls it.
You asked "what is murder"? It is unlawful killing and that is
precisely how the Quran describes it: /qatl al-nafs bi-ghayr haq/. To
assert that the Sharia has no concept of murder, or that the idea of
murder is a "Western term" is nothing but sophistry, and poor
sophistry at that.
> If the use of force so as to cause injury, and killing in certain
> circumstances, are in accord with Quran and Sunnah then they are justified,
> for they are the Will of Allah (SWT).
Whatever we do is the Will of Allah, regardless of whether or not we
act in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah. You cannot use this, "it
is God's will" argument to justify absolutely every kind of action.
The guys at the Presidency for Girls Education in Saudi Arabia said as
much about the deaths of fifteen schoolgirls. They were, technically,
responsible, in their capacity as public servants with authority over
girls' schools. They should have resigned, admitting at least
negligence and incompetence. Instead they said, "it was the will of
Allah", and enraged the public further.
Assalamu alaikum,
Omar
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
abdulb...@hotmail.com (Abdul Aziz) wrote:
> According to Hamas, those who are the target of fidayee attacks in
> occupied Palestine are not "innocent civilians" but rather occupiers.
> I quote from a Qassam Brigades communiqué:
>
> "What the Zionist entity and its ally America call 'innocent
> civilians' are called in our Brigades and our Palestinian people's
> lexicon settlers and usurpers of our lands. They will only receive
> death and displacement and if they wish to save their lives they have
> to pack up and leave before they regret it."
While this argument might, perhaps, be used to justify raids on Israeli
settlements inside the so-called "occupied territories", it certainly
cannot go very far as a justification for indiscriminately blowing up
non-combattant groups in restaurants, social halls and buses.
Furthermore, even if Hamas and you were 100% correct in your arguments
about the permissibility of suicide attacks, from a tactical and
strategic point of view, it is doing great harm to a peaceful, just
resolution of the issues.
Have you not yet understood the game Ariel Sharon is playing? He wants
Hamas and the others to continue. Every time they attack, he increases
the impostion of Israeli punishment and control on the Palestinians.
When he first became prime minister, he did something NO pious Jew
obedient to the teachings of the rabbis would dare to do. He went up on
the Temple Mount. Most Jews believe that going there is forbidden until
the Messiah comes and rebuilds the Temple. That action provoked a
violent response from Palestinians (as I really believe Sharon expected).
Since then, every time there is an attack in Jerusalem and now Tel Aviv
and Haifa, Sharon responds by attacking the infrastructure of the
Palestinian Authority. He bombs and bulldozes Palestinian Authority
buildings and equipment and then blames Yassar Arafat for not doing more
to stop the violence. He knows that Arafat cannot stop the Palestinian
extremists and Sharon knows it do. Every day, brick by brick and
Palestinian by Palestinian, Sharon is slowly destroying what should have
been the seed from which a Palestinian state would grow. Every time
non-combattant Jewish men, women and children, along with tourists and
religious pilgrims are killed in urban guerilla attacks, Sharon can be
sure of holding and increasing the political support of ordinary
Israelis for his vicious tactics.
As long as Sharon is there, urban attacks against non-military targets
will not destroy the Israeli State, but everyone of them will weaken and
perhaps lead to the eventual destruction of the political structure that
is now represented by the Palestinian Authority. The urban attacks are
doing much more harm to Palestinian interests than to Israeli interests.
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
al...@hushmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Assalam Alaykum
There are a few things which are necessary to understand in this matter:
1. That there are differences on the legal permissivenessof this kind of war amongst the Ulema and that therefore, this issue is best regarded as doubtful and therefore, abandoned.
2. That abandoning battle is permissible when the ratio of 2 enemies to 1 Muslim is exceeded and in this case, the effective military strength ( tanks, armored vehicles) are best considered. This is quite different from superiority of hand held weapons.
3. That the victory must lie in the way shown by Rasoolullah (sas) and in this matter the following be noted:
a. The Arab world has shown no wiilingness to fight the Israelis.
b. Our Palestinian brothers are living in a battelfield where the odds far surpass the 2:1 ratio.
c. That under severe persecution, migration is Sunnah. Consider the early emigrants to Abyssinia and Rasoolullah (sas)'s own migration to Medina.
d. That the only reason why the Arab nations are drumming up so much emotional furore is beacuse none of them would like to take the responsibility of these poor brothers and sisters.
e. The Palestinian Arabs must now be invited and granted refuge by the Arab states. That they be allowed to live normal lives and their health and eductaion ahould be taken care of as if they were citizens.
f. Once again, let Medina(balad-i-Rasoolullah (sas)) take on this responsibility.
g. That armchair mujahids give up this method of getting innocent Muslims killed through rhetoric while they continue with the full facilities of civilized life.
h. The battle for Jerusalem is temporarily lost and Muslims must realize this.History is not played out over a hundred years and Muslims must have this long-view of things.
Victory will, InshaAllah, lie in this.
Was Salaam.
Hush provide the worlds most secure, easy to use online applications - which solution is right for you?
HushMail Secure Email http://www.hushmail.com/
HushDrive Secure Online Storage http://www.hushmail.com/hushdrive/
Hush Business - security for your Business http://www.hush.com/
Hush Enterprise - Secure Solutions for your Enterprise http://www.hush.com/
Looking for a good deal on a domain name? http://www.hush.com/partners/offers.cgi?id=domainpeople
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Hush 2.1
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com
wloEARECABoFAjyoJskTHGFsdGE0QGh1c2htYWlsLmNvbQAKCRAODtYPLSYVArWYAJ97
t42omN8jg316PxwnuKzw6brNlACgiVZSt2P5skujsCHZsXgKOV6HGhk=
=zQOU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
surayya
>>Look at what's happening in my own religious tradition, the Catholic
>>Church. Is that any better than what you're describing in Islam?
Is this a newsgroup about catholicism or Islam?
Very crafty tactics going on here.
I can slaughter their arguments and claims wrt their so-called
catholicism. The propaganda that christians try to pass off on muslims
is unbelievable. The catholic church are doing nothing of what they
claim.
But this is a newsgroup about ISLAM and not catholicism.
MENJ
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<a83slm$9p2$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> Those who fight without regard for self in God's cause (fii Sabiil
> allaah) and who die at the hand of the ennemy are indeed martyrs who are
> promised a great reward.
>
> Those who knowingly and willfully destroy themselves in an attempt to
> damage or kill the ennemy are self-killers whose action is condemned by
> the words of God in the Qur'an and by the traditions of the Prophet
> Muhammad (God's grace and peace be on him).
>
Dear Brother, with all due respect to you, I wonder whether you are
being too harsh on the suicide bombers, in reference to your statement
that:
"Those who knowingly and willfully destroy themselves in an attempt to
damage or kill the ennemy are self-killers..."
I think Shaykh Ibn Jibreen puts it best when he says:
"No doubt on the face of it he is one who has committed suicide,
whereby he has made certain he will be killing himself before anyone
else. However, this can be permissible if he is in warring kuffaar
territory, and knows he will sooner or later be killed at the hands of
the enemy, or will face severe torture and has not found any ploy
except to blow himself up and kill others from the enemy (who subject
the Muslims to torture) along with himself. In doing so, killing a
number of them thereby weakening their strength/force and reducing
their harm and scaring them. So this can be permissible even if it
involves killing the person himself, if he knows he will certainly be
killed, or persecuted and wishes to rid himself of their harm and
attain ease for himself, and his matter is with Allaah the Almighty."
The full response is at
http://www.fatwa-online.com/fataawa/worship/jihaad/0001027_1.htm
> wa-llaahu 3alim
Indeed, only God knows best!
Wassalamu alaikum, `akhee.
surayya
>The guys at the Presidency for Girls Education in Saudi Arabia said as
>much about the deaths of fifteen schoolgirls. They were, technically,
>responsible, in their capacity as public servants with authority over
>girls' schools.
Is that because of poor fire prevention, like smoke alarms? Was there
inadequate fire prevention?
They are not in charge of the religious police are they?
>They should have resigned, admitting at least
>negligence and incompetence. Instead they said, "it was the will of
>Allah", and enraged the public further.
But what about the religious police?
They were party to preventing the girls from escaping, surely they have
to bear most of the responsibility. The investigation cannot merely be
solely concerned with the school building but the idiocy of the police.
Narrator: AbuMusa, SAHIH AL-BUKHARI
One night a house in Medina was burnt with its occupants. The Prophet
(peace_be_upon_him) spoke about them, saying, "This fire is indeed your
enemy, so whenever you go to bed, put it out to protect yourselves."
Narrator: Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari, AL-MUWATTA
The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said,
"Lock the door, tie the waterskin, turn the vessel over or cover it,
and put out the lamp. Shaytan does not open a locked door or untie a
tied knot, or uncover a vessel. A mouse may set fire to people's houses
about them."
surayya
>This is despite the consistant opposition of the Saudi scholars to
>suicide bombings, primarily on the basis that suicide is prohibited in
>Islam.
Strange then, that there are groups of muslims trying to make out that
suicide attacks are wahabi or salafi.
surayya
>>Look at what's happening in my own religious tradition, the Catholic
>>Church. Is that any better than what you're describing in Islam?
Is this a newsgroup about catholicism or Islam?
Jeremiah McAuliffe
> Could it be that
>there's something in the Islamic conception of sin, and the Islamic conception
>of what to do to remedy sin, that actually contributes to Islam's problems?
Not Islam's problems... Muslims' problems!
I think you have picked up on an issue.
Today, the general discourse has reduced the concept of sin down to a
mere legal category-- as you have noticed with the posture issue and
so on.
Sin, though, is more of an existential state-of-being-alienated from
God, it seems to me.
The Sufi Muslims would talk about that......
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>areas. That is their da'wah.
Oh... just so we're clear... this is not strictly -peaking a da'wah as
it is action already in "their" areas.... it is more of a sadaqa.
As a da'wah this is what we call "preaching to the choir". They
already know the Message.
Where is Hamas' outreach to non-Muslims?
Like to the Israelis themselves?!?!
Israelis are largely atheist--- in spite of the fact that the
foundation of the Jewish traditions is "God is One". Funny, that's one
of OUR foundational statements too. The Israelis are ripe for good
da'wah. Or were.... but Hamas and "Islamic" Jihad don't care about
delivering the Message, even though it was good enough for God's
messengers....
95% of Americans already claim belief in God. They can easily say
"there is no god but God" Ripe for good da'wah. And still are......
insha Allah.
Imran Razi
> > Those who knowingly and willfully destroy themselves in an attempt to
> > damage or kill the ennemy are self-killers whose action is condemned by
> > the words of God in the Qur'an and by the traditions of the Prophet
> > Muhammad (God's grace and peace be on him).
Only if by "willfully" you mean "intentionally." Philosophically,
there is a difference, with a long history.
> I think Shaykh Ibn Jibreen puts it best when he says:
>
> "No doubt on the face of it he is one who has committed suicide,
> whereby he has made certain he will be killing himself before anyone
> else.
Shaykh Ibn Jibreen does not properly understand the concept of suicide,
which is INTENTIONAL killing of oneself. The proper term for the topic
at issue would be "kamikaze bombers."
Whether or not kamikaze bombers run afoul of Islamic strictures is
another issue.
Let us stick to correct use of terminology, people.
wa salaam,
Imran Razi
Jeremiah McAuliffe
As-Salaam Alaikum,
Well, my usenet feed isn't up to par again, but based on the amount of
e-mail I got in response to my post I went and had a look at the
thread from google. So I don't have to use it to post I'm just going
to respond in general, except for one quote to which I'll respond.
First, nothing I said negates good things that some Muslims do. I'm
talking about the ummah as a whole, and yes, I am very much talking
out of, and in response to, Muslim America. So, with that disclaimer
that I should have given before... here I go again:
CLEARLY-- the ummah as a whole is NOT known for its good works and
piety--- though there obviously are Muslims who do good works and are
pious. Though I do NOT count government charities in this. They do
things for political purposes, and I'm a cynic when it comes to
politicians. Anyway, Americans are the most charitable people on the
planet.
Second, the problems as I understand them are not just a result of
regular goofiness such that we'll say "Oh! Well, we're just human
after all." The poster who brought this up doesn't know the extent of
the incompetence and crises of leadership that plagues us.
I have brought up the articles of Yahya Emerick more than once, but no
one seems to want to truly address them-- even though they raise
supremely practical issues. We prefer our self-stroking abstract
irrelevant theological issues-- and we aren't even actually educated
in theology.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/yahiyaemerick.htm
I find Emerick's articles exactly right on the money. He could easily
live where I live, or to my understanding, just about anywhere in the
States. The article I've really pushed is "Demanding Professionalism
in our Masjid"
http://www.islamfortoday.com/emerick6.htm
I mean, we're at the level of returning phone calls! That is indeed
pathetic!
How can it be that some of us have enough on the ball to use jets as
bombs and kill thousands, but others can't get someone to answer the
phone or return a phone call or get appropriate training for the job
they are to do? It boggles the mind.
Third, no one better even come close to implying that I have been
merely sitting on the sidelines complaining. I've been smack dab in
the middle of trying to get our main center to simply follow its own
organizational bylaws (among other things). And for that I was
threatened and vilified (as were others). And, of course, the bylaws
STILL aren't followed. The leadership is STILL the same: incompetent,
accountable to no one, and irresponsible and the people are sheeple.
Now, what about the Palestinians?
Well, first of all, they are not all Muslim.
Secondly, they are not fighting for the sake of Allah, nor the ummah,
but for a Palestinian nation-state.
This is no more a "Muslim" issue than it would be for ANY other group
of people who are treated unjustly and oppressively.
Indeed, if we are REALLY sensitive and concerned about that we would
be more sensitive and concerned about the Jews' desire for a safe
place, for they have spent millenia being treated unjustly and
oppressed.
But then, if I'm not mistaken, a recent Saudi newspaper article stated
as fact that Jews use Christian baby blook during Purim.....
Such a thing shouldn't need any comment. Though the fact its in a
State-controlled newspaper belies that. Regardless.... for another
time.
If our compassion, mercy and understanding is only for those who are
like us (and let's face it, "like us" here means "Arab"-- not
"Muslim") than what good is it? What makes us different from anyone
else? Even pagans have compassion, mercy and understanding for each
other. Criminals love their own families. Where do we get off thinking
we are better than anyone else on the planet?
I'm going to say that again:
If our compassion, mercy and understanding is only for those who are
like us than what good is it? What makes us different from anyone
else? Even pagans have compassion, mercy and understanding for each
other. Criminals love their own families. Where do we get off thinking
we are better than anyone else on the planet? Because we call
ourselves "Muslim"? I don't think reality actually works like that.
There is no difference, or very little, between the situation faced by
Ghandi and that of the Palestinians, and even a comparison with King
is not off-base in so far as Palestinians are treated as second-class
citizens.
It is absolutely appropriate and valid to draw comparisons here.
Ghandi fought against colonial occupiers. King fought against
injustice and oppression.
Non-violent civil disobedience and passive resistance works-- and it
only works based on the morality of the victims' stance. The
Palestinians had that stance. They are losing it.
And yet... like the Rushdie affair.... we rush into violence... hungry
for blood.... (are any of the kamikazes Christian Palestinians?) and
Ghandi and King aren't even considered. But then, they are "kafr"
right? They are "Western" and so immediately rejected. Nonsense! And
anyone who can't see through such nonsense pseudo-thinking,
pseudo-theology is a sad, pathetic example of humanity, imho. Or
perhaps just intellectually way below average.
The Institutional Muslim response to 9-11 was weak and unconvincing at
best. Yes, every group came out and said something, but tell me...
other than the Muslim Public Affairs Council where are they now?
Where is Kabbani? "Supreme Council of America." Yeah, right. He and
they abandoned us. Indeed, I think they probably owe me money for an
unfulfilled subscription to their magazine-- which doesn't even seem
to be published any more.
ISNA? ICNA? AMC? Even CAIR?
Yeah. Almost viable.
And.... what did your own local community do? Put out a nice press
release? Is that all? Did you even do that? Did you know HOW to do it
so it actually got reported? Probably not.
Our local egos (who fancy themselves leaders) decided to form yet
ANOTHER group (rather than WORK to make our already extant groups
functional).... and then promptly ignored the one Muslim who had
knowledge and experience in PR, communications and media relations. As
a consequence, what they sent out was picked up for ridicule by a
radio in Atlanta..... Way to go Pittsburgh Muslims! Yeah! We can not,
WILL NOT get it together and act responsibly according to our actual
skills and experience and education.
Has anyone's community actually addressed the issues of extremism and
violence in Muslims?? I mean, for real? I KNOW you have Wahabi/Taliban
types in your town.
Has anyone's community actually addressed the issues of community
development and managerial competence??
If so, I'd love to hear about it and how positive change is being
effected. In detail. What steps were taken?
Muslim media? Not "commercial" enough for American TV? Doesn't stop
Save the Children. Doesn't stop The Liberty Baptist Hour, The Hour of
Power, The 700 Club and countless public access shows.
Even the Mormons put out very effective commercials. They express--
very well-- noble human qualities and they are a terrific da'wah for
them.
How is MPAC getting their people on TV?
Probably the same way Steve Emerson gets on. There is an agent trying
to book him. That agent is paid and is an expert. That is, he or she
is most likely not a physician or an engineer, or some ego who simply
wants to seem important and on TV.
And what an excuse! "not commercial enough". Nonsense! MAKE something
commercial! Oh, wait.... we are afraid of the arts and threaten
artists with death. I forgot. Music and images are haram, right?
We worship physicians and engineers who think they know everything--
or, as Emerick puts it, think that because they can bill insurance
companies for millions they also know how to develop a life-giving
worship community (and write a press release!)
But.... as yet another example of our foolishness and lack of
thought... we don't pick up on how important media, communications,
image and PR is today. (Does your community have a TRAINED media
person?) That's why in my locale the one person with experience was
ignored and marginalized. (And no, its not me. It was a woman, and
face facts: many Muslim men simply don't seem to even like women-- in
spite of all this nonsense about how "honored" they are.)
If bin Laden had spent his millions hiring a good PR firm, and setting
up a political action committee...... you fill in the rest.
This was particularly ironic with the Taliban-- who banned TV and then
realized how astoundingly important it was for them in order to
communicate with the rest of the world.
But then, the Taliban were such a brilliant collection of people they
couldn't tell the difference between an idol, a statue, a work of art,
and an archeological treasure. Oh yeah. Follow them. Support them.
Think they are cool. Smart move. If you are as thoughtless as they
seemed to be if you do so.
But we *will* spend millions to spread that dishonest, academically
unsound travesty of a Qur'anic translation by Hilali and Khan.... and
buy bombs and guns, of course.
Now, for the quote:
>What is "violence"? What is "murder"? They are Western terms, defined
>according to Western law.
This is no Philosophy 101 class... and outside of that context this--
if said seriously-- is the remark of the morally blind and the
spiritually empty, not to be taken seriously, imho. This is banal
sophistry at its worst. And any person of good will can recognize
that. Its like when someone gets bombed to pieces and then says "We
won!" (as we've seen Taliban supporters do) I mean... how dumb do
these people think everyone is such that they even dare to express
such twisted, bizarre thinking?
Show me ONE group of people, through time, who do not have an
understanding of "murder" and "violence". They are not "Western"
terms. They are universally human constructs. The "Western" concept
comes from the story of Adam's two sons..... in case you didn't know
that. Or ignored it because its inconvenient.
And don't even start into the pseudo-issue of LEGAL definitions. Legal
systems are not justice systems and life is much, much more than law
and jurisprudence.
ISLAM is much, much more than law and jurisprudence.
Remember "fitrah"? No. Its one of the things we "forget about" so we
can vilify other groups of people and reject inconvenient truths by
rejecting "terms" or "concepts" that come from another group. Even
universal concepts such as "murder" when it doesn't fit our
self-centered view of the universe. (But we will NEVER reject
conveniences that come from them! Oh no way! Didn't bin Laden have a
Timex watch?)
Rasool Allah was basically rejected for the same reason: "Who is HE to
tell us about Reality?!?" and God's response? "I choose whomever I
will to receive My revelations!"
Like it or not, God chose "the West" as the means by which He has
bestowed much knowledge upon ALL humanity.
With one fell swoop the writer illustrates all my points: the
jingoism, the xenophobia, the sloppy thinking, the cheap
rationalizations and the adolescent "us vs. them" mentality and
intolerance for people not like themselves. Not to mention flat-out
ignorance.
If the author has the slightest integrity he will immediately cease
using all "Western" products and concepts and terms.
But he won't. Because he likes them.
And of course, the question is begged, over and over and over again:
WHOSE VERSION OF THE QUR'AN AND SUNNAH?!?!?!?
There is no "Shariah".
Rather, there are "Shariahs"-- various interpretations of the Qur'an
and Sunnah.... no one knows (or very few, rare individuals) the
fullness of the Divine Law. When we pretend to.... arrogantly talking
"Shari'ah this" and "Shari'ah that" and calling for "Shari'ah" to be
implemented... we only prove our astounding, damnable hubris in the
face of the Divine Mystery.
Obviously, for a Sunni, it ain't the Shi'a version--- I mean, we kill
each other all the time, don't we?
Yes, we do.
Yup! I'm gonna follow YOU guys!
When pigs fly.
(I was gonna say when pigs become halal, but that is indeed possible.)
Stop killing each other and constantly engaging in religious
fratricide, then we can talk about killing all the "kafr".
To purposefully attack civilians is murder. Muhammad Atta and friends
are murderers as far as anyone alive can tell (except, perhaps, those
who attacked the Pentagon), and sadly, so are the Palestinian
kamikazes. Y'know they kill Arab Israelis too? I guess we can brush
that off with some version of "collateral damage". Hmmm. Just like the
"kafr" US military.
But.....
Make no mistake....
There is only ONE reason why a sixteen year old girl blows herself up:
Its because of what adults around her say and do. They tell her how to
respond to injustice and oppression. And it is the adults who are
twisting religion to manipulate the young.... and we see that twisting
right here on this group.
Y'know what every single young man who has ever lived actually wants--
Muslim and non-Muslim?
Sex.
Not death. Not killing. Not suicide.
Young men want to get some!
Y'know what every single young woman who has ever lived actually
wants-- Muslim and non-Muslim?
Love.
Not death. Not killing. Not suicide.
Young women want to get some too!
And that is all very, very good.
So.... how dare ANYONE celebrate what those poor kids have done---
what they've been manipulated to do?
Show me ONE senior citizen kamikaze. Their lives are almost over
anyway. Ah! But with that has come an actual appreciation for life and
existence not shared by the young and their manipulators!
Show me ONE "leader" of Hamas or Islamic Jihad-- or ANY supporter of
these types of actions-- who will blow himself up like that. They
won't do it. They like the power they wield!
Show me the parents of these kamikazi kids doing something other than
saying how proud they are-- do it yourself! Be an example to your
kids, if you really think its so good. But they won't do it.... they
like be a "parent of" too much.
Show me ONE of you comfy supporters of them living in "the West" and
playing on the "western" internet on a "western" computer driving a
"western" car and taking advantage of "western" medical care who will
go over there and blow himself up in a restaurant. But you won't do
it. Its too comfy!
If you think these are all good things, DO THEM YOURSELF!
But you won't.
And... question again: Is God not clear enough that if an enemy wants
peace we are to give it to them? Because then we can deliver the
message of God's Transcendent Unity and because God can make enemies
into friends?
OF COURSE its clear enough! One doesn't even need to know Arabic.
What was Rasool Allah's job? Only to deliver the Message.
Don't you know that?
One ONLY needs to listen to their own fitrah.... you don't even need
the Qur'an to know...
Just like one doesn't need to know Arabic-- or even much of anything--
to understand that there can be no compulsion in matters of religion:
no physical compulsion, no social compulsion, no psychological
compulsion.
But.... we will force a man and wife to divorce, send a fiction writer
into hiding, bomb a restaurant, an office building, kill a
"collaborator" without trial.... and then call ourselves "good".
Sorry. I got news for you. None of these things are good things. They
are bad things.
If you don't know that, you got one major problem.
I wonder... who actually buys the food from the Kentucky Fried Chicken
restaurants that are right outside the two Holy Masajid?
And God knows best. Of course! and Allahu akbar!
Allah! Protect the memory and example of Muhammad and all Your friends
and messengers!
Rant mode part 2: OFF
Yusuf Dawood
>>And if we all REALLY cared about people subject to oppression and
>>injustice-- a real mercy to ALL humanity-- we would have at least
>>SOME
>>passion for similar situations around the world, such as Rawanda.
But
>>we don't.
<snip>
>Quite correct, unfortunately. There is general apathy towards Rwanda
>and the Congo, Muslims are not alone in this respect. The media
>coverage of events in these places has been abysmal, so we know very
>little about these wars.
<snip>
Talking about Rwanda, have you noticed how we rarely hear about how
many Rwandans are Christians, about how Catholic nuns are (were?) on
trial for genocide? We don't hear much about the role of the church in
the genocide. We never hear the Rwanda killers described as Christian
fanatics -why? Because the conflict was tribal and religion was
incidental to the whole tragedy. Christians are not being forced to
condemn the Rwanda genocide at every opportunity, but Muslims are
expected to grovel and beg for forgiveness and defend Islam at the
slightest mention of 9-11 attacks. The next time a Christian asks the
silly question: "does Islam condone terrorism" (or some variation on
that theme), ask him the question: "does Christianity condone
genocide?"
To address your comment about the Congo (and Angola and Sierra Leone),
a possible reason for the media not covering these wars in-depth was
that uncomfortable questions about the conflict diamonds funding these
wars would have had to been asked...let's just say the trail would not
have led to "Islamic militants".
Abdul Aziz
> In article <a88jva$7nc$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
>
> While this argument might, perhaps, be used to justify raids on Israeli
> settlements inside the so-called "occupied territories", it certainly
> cannot go very far as a justification for indiscriminately blowing up
> non-combattant groups in restaurants, social halls and buses.
>
Assalam Aliakum
But the crux here - as also in respect of other Fidayee attacks,
elsewhere - is that the targets are not considered to be "innocent"
but rather permissable according to Islamic law just as the attacks
are not in practice "indiscriminate".
It is my understanding - which I know may be incorrect - that it is
not permissable to kill a mu'aahid, and this clearly is not the case
in respect of occupied Palestine.
"Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them
find in you a harshness." [9:123 Interpretation of Meaning.]
"The scholars and people of the knowledge [ahlu al-`ilm], amongst them
'Sahib al-Ikhtiyarat', and Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullah), and
Shawkaani, and a lot of others, and Qurtubi (rahimahullah) in his
tafseer, say that if the disbelievers were to kill our children and
women, then we should not feel ashamed to do the same to them, mainly
to detter them from trying to kill our children and women again."
Sheikh Osama bin Laden (hafidhahullah).
While you and others may well disagree with such a judgment or
interpretation, it is based upon the guidance contained in Quran and
Sunnah, and manifest by learned scholars, and we who accept such a
judgment or interpretation, and act upon it, will be held accountable
by Allah (SWT), Whose judgment is the only one that matters for us.
>
> Have you not yet understood the game Ariel Sharon is playing?
Such political things are, I believe, irrelevant. What matters is that
we do our Islamic duty, in an Islamic way.
Palestine is occupied. Muslims are being killed, maimed, tortured,
humiliated, every day. Therefore our duty, according to Quran and
Sunnah, is Jihad against these invaders until liberation is achieved
and an Islamic society can be created.
Once again, we must take the Islamic view, which is the higher
perspective of this life as but a means to the next; a test from Allah
(SWT). To strive after Jannah is surely to strive to obey the Will of
Allah (SWT) as revealed in Quran and Sunnah. In essence, this striving
is more important than political considerations, or our own comfort.
"March forth, whether you are light (healthy, young and wealthy) or
heavy (ill, old and poor), strive hard with your wealth and your
lives in the Cause of Allah. For this is the best thing for you, if
you only knew." [ 9: 41 Interpretation of Meaning].
"Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day would not ask for
permission to be exempted from fighting with their wealth and their
lives, since they know that Allah knows all who are Al-Muttaqun. It is
only those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, and in whose
hearts is doubt, that would ask for such an exemption. For they in
their doubt waver." [9: 44-45 Interpretation of Meaning.]
"Let those who would trade the life of this world for the life
Hereafter fight in the Cause of Allah. And those who do fight in the
Cause of Allah - whether they be killed or are victorious - will have
bestowed on them, by Us, a great reward." [4: 74 Interpretation of
Meaning.]
> As long as Sharon is there, urban attacks against non-military targets
> will not destroy the Israeli State,
It is not a question of Sharon, but rather the support of Amerika for
the Zionists, especially their supplying of weapons and money. In
addition, there is the blackmail which Amerika uses to pacify Muslim
countries such as Egypt and Jordan in order to prevent those Muslim
countries aiding the Muslims in occupied Palestine. Then there is the
export, the imposition, by Amerika, of kufr.
Even were Sharon to be killed, then the occupation will continue as
long as Amerika supports the Zionists and as long as Amerika is intent
on pursuing its anti-Islamic imperialist policies.
So, we arrive at the judgment that the conflict in Palestine has
another dimension, as Sheikh Osama bin Laden (hafidhahullah) has said.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Riker) wrote:
>
>Are you an expert on self-annihilation? All I see here is that you
>are a laptop bombardier; an armchair critic/'general' telling people
>of your 'Islam'.
Excuse me buddy... but you are... who?
Is there something I said that is not true?
All you've provided are ad hominem arguments. Do you know what that
is?
>> God knows who God's soldiers are..... not Hamas...
>
>I take it you're a viceroy of God? Deciding which should be left out
>& in?
>There is a contradiction here- unless you are being rethorical.
I think that's from the Qur'an, bud.
>'the Muslim-Arabs', 'They'? Generalizing are we? Who is the
>malicious one now?
Saudis, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Iraqis (the ones who gas kurds) etc. etc.
Don't you know? The one's who put on a big show of caring.
Generalizing? Fact!
>
>Some have used civil disobedience; a number of them were shot.
Who, when, where, and why did they stop?
As the saying goes: put up or shut up.
>But why do you care of 'passive' resistance?
Because it works and its civilized and its moral.
Is that too subtle for you to grasp?
Have you ever read anything about Ghandi and King?
>
>But I am curious of your fascination of this type of 'resistance'.
I don't know why. Millions are fascinated by the work of Ghandi and
King and what they accomplished---- all based on the teachings of
Jesus.
>This depends on a third party being concerned and/or intervening. And
>what if there is no such animal? An apathetic response? What of your
>logic then?
I might be able to respond, if this made any sense.
>> Does your local masjid do ANYTHING productive? Do you have active,
>> institutionalized, research-based da'wah? Do you send volunteers into
>> soup kitches, or nursing homes, or to work with the disabled? No.
>
>Keep your projections to yourself.
>
I assume the answer to that then is-- assuming you are a Muslim-- a
great big "NO!".
>
>And colonizers are civilians? No, not of children, but of those who
>are of the age to carry weapons and murder the locals. They are
>civilians? A civil apartheid? That is a first.
Are you saying that because someone is of age to carry a gun they are
legit targets?
Where in the Qur'an and Sunnah do you find such a thing?
Not all the people in Israel are original participants in that
project.... they are people who were just born there. They cannot be
blamed.
>Hamas runs hospitals for the sick and cares for the poor in their
>areas. That is their da'wah.
Maybe it will compensate for their hatred and blood lust and
manipulation of youth.
If compassion and care are only for those who are like us, what makes
us better or different from anyone else?
>What is yours?
Check the links.
>> They buy a gun rather than study how to communicate with people so
>> they might effectively deliver the Message-- a complete contradiction
>
>Ph.D.s and your classes are not a worthy substitute for people living
>in cages. Try water and food.
Who are you talking about that is living in a cage?
Even so--- are you saying they buy a gun rather than water and food?
>
>And Hamas does not have the time nor luxury to travel around the world
>delivering your 'Message'.
MY message?!?!?
Do you even have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
>
>> If any of them did have the slightest concern with delivering the
>> Message then they would be eager for close relationships with Israeli
>> people
>
>Zionism is an ideology of colonization.
But Israelis are PEOPLE.... people are not ideologies.
We deliver the Message of God's Unity precisely as a response to
various ideologies. But, can't do that if you're killing people.
Thank you for illustrating my points about us (assuming you are one of
us) so very clearly.
Omar
Assalamu alaikum Imran,
> In a sense you are correct, but the secularism that gave birth to them
> is the secularism condoned and supported by traditional Islam, where
> law and politics are separated, and political quietism and acquiescence
> is demanded no matter what the injustice if the ruler happens to be
> "Muslim."
That's interesting Imran. Most people are not so observant but prefer
to burry their heads in the sands of half-understood political theory
masquerading as divine revelation.
Part of the difficulty here is semantic. Secularism takes many forms
but is generally understood to be a repudiation of a direct or
immediate role of religion in public affairs. The Framers of the US
Constitution were not athiests, yet they prohibited what they termed
the making of laws with respect to the "establishment of religion".
Most of the so-called secular Muslim world would fall well foul of
this principle.
> Traditional Islam, by its de facto secularism and condoning of
> political injustice, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
As I understand it, traditional interpretations of the Shariah do not
so much "condone" political injustice as attempt to assess public
interest by weighing up alternatives: "this ruler is unjust and should
be overthrown; so, are we able to do that or not? What might be the
costs in terms of public harm?" Some also state an obligation to
emmigrate "if you are able".
This looks nice on paper, as much speculative fiqh does, but in
practice it is what you say it is: an accommodation of political
injustice. We should not attempt to assign blame here, the
accommodation emerges from our fossilised traditions.
> If you support traditional Islam, in both its Sunni and Shia forms, you
> are contributing to the oppression of Muslims worldwide.
It is not traditional Islam that is oppressing the Muslims, although
it may be an accessory. Talking heads like al-Tantawi, deviants like
al-Kabbani, firebrands like al-Qaradawi and Farqan add their voices to
the general cacaphony of discord. With such egotistical leadership is
it any wonder that the masses of the Muslims seek refuge in
"traditional" Islam?
> The sad part is that because most Muslims think "Islam" means
> "traditional Islam", we are forced to choose between "Islam" and
> justice.
It is possible for just states to arise among men. Such states always
root themselves firmly in the same foundational principles of justice,
equality, liberty, brotherhood, and mutual consultation on matters of
public policy. These are Islamic states. Some are self-aware and some
are ignorant of Islam as it has been revealed to us. "And whoever
strives does certainly strive for his own profit."
> And Allah knows best.
>
> Assalamu alaikum,
>
> Imran Razi
Wa alaikum as-Salaam,
Omar
thebit
> "The martyrdom operations executed by Mujahideen against the Zionist enemy
> are legitimate operations based on the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His
> prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam)
The problem with this fatwa is that it has no basis in either of the two.
assalaamu `alaykum
thebit
> Assalam Aliakum
>
waalaykum salaam
> "The scholars and people of the knowledge [ahlu al-`ilm], amongst them
> 'Sahib al-Ikhtiyarat', and Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullah), and
> Shawkaani, and a lot of others, and Qurtubi (rahimahullah) in his
> tafseer, say that if the disbelievers were to kill our children and
> women, then we should not feel ashamed to do the same to them, mainly
> to detter them from trying to kill our children and women again."
> Sheikh Osama bin Laden (hafidhahullah).
I do not like to pit one verse against another. This is something which people have been rebuked for. But
I am afraid to say the above interpretations of the Scholars seem to render 23.96 and 41.34 useless.
> Palestine is occupied. Muslims are being killed, maimed, tortured,
> humiliated, every day. Therefore our duty, according to Quran and
> Sunnah, is Jihad against these invaders until liberation is achieved
> and an Islamic society can be created.
I agree that the only way the problems in Kashmir, Palestine etc. are going to be solved is by
Qitaal-Fiisabillilah. The Americans, Israelis etc. are no particularly interested in being fair or
honest. However, for a Muslim to carry out Jihad we do need certain prerequisites. Another point is that
not one Palestinian group, to my knowledge, has called for an "Islamic" society. Can you tell me of
anyone who has? AFAIK, they all want a (secular) Palestinian state. And, as has been pointed out before,
not all the Palestinians being killed or fighting are Muslim. The PFLP are a secular group with origins
in Christianity (Greek Orthodox). Other similar groups exist.
> Allah (SWT) knows best.
>
> Abdul Aziz
asalaamu `alaykum
Meryem
Selam aleykum,
Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:<a8cpvq$2uc$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> How is MPAC getting their people on TV?
Not sure about this, but my impression is that MPAC successfully
leverages the expertise of "indigenous Muslims": people grounded in
the American civil-rights movement, the anti-war (Vietnam) movement,
and in the practise of non-violent resistance, people who achieved
credibility primarily in the "school of hard knocks" and who do not
necessarily carry a list of titles and degrees after their name,
people who know how to build grassroots support, form coalitions, and
who will not be fooled inshallah into betraying other Muslims for the
sake of the government's terms and conditions for the war on terror.
I have seen no discussion anywhere, and only one small article, about
Louis Farakhan's speech at NOI's conference a few weeks ago. CSPAN
televised the whole thing - two hours - three times. Perhaps CSPAN
thought they were going to expose a proponent of "extremist" Islam. If
so, they would have had to be very disappointed. Mr. Farakhan gave an
excellent speech with spectacular style. He covered history,
geo-politics of the last 250 years, comparative religion, and personal
conduct according to Islam - all while sounding very patriotic. Who
knows what his aqida is, or his intention, or his personal history, or
his lifestyle, or if he has gone through some spiritual
transformation? Imam W.D. Muhammad's presence in the audience seemed
to lend some credibility. However, I heard a prominent Muslim
pronounce takfir on Mr. Farakhan just a few days later, to Jerry
Falwell of all people. I would refer anyone among my family and
friends to that speech to learn more about "moderate" Islam.
By the way, Jeremiah, nice rant.
Selam aleykum,
Meryem
Peace and blessings upon Prophet, his Family, and his Companions.
Omar
> >The guys at the Presidency for Girls Education in Saudi Arabia said as
> >much about the deaths of fifteen schoolgirls. They were, technically,
> >responsible, in their capacity as public servants with authority over
> >girls' schools.
Assalamu alaikum Surayyah,
> Is that because of poor fire prevention, like smoke alarms? Was there
> inadequate fire prevention?
> They are not in charge of the religious police are they?
According to reports in the Saudi press, 15 girls were trampled to
death before a locked exterior door. The building is in a narrow
alley. Generally there is an internal door leading to a small foyer
and then an exterior door. This exterior door is kept locked so that
randy members of the public do not wander in, goat like, and rape the
girls. To prevent this calamity a geriatric screw snoozes without.
That is the normal arrangement.
The religious police are volunteers nominally supervised by members of
the ulema. For the past several years they have ceased to appear in
pairs, but are now escorted singly by armed police. I assume that the
police are there to protect the public from the legendary zeal of the
Hai'a' to enforce "God's law": no singing, no dancing, no hanging
around the ladies entrance.
> >They should have resigned, admitting at least
> >negligence and incompetence. Instead they said, "it was the will of
> >Allah", and enraged the public further.
>
> But what about the religious police?
Persons unknown have been moving to do away with the religious police
for several years. They've been left out of repeated restruturing of
the security forces and even banned from up market shopping areas
where feckless Saudi youth hang out in designer duds and chatter to
girls on mobile phones as both roam aimlessly through a glass and
marble labyrinth dedicated to the great god mamon. If I was in the
Hai'a' I wouldn't go near the places anyway - I'm not in the Hai'a'
and I don't.
> They were party to preventing the girls from escaping, surely they have
> to bear most of the responsibility. The investigation cannot merely be
> solely concerned with the school building but the idiocy of the police.
The chief of police in Makkah said that members of the "Commmission"
had obstructed civil defense personnel. These were subdued by the
police and subsequently ignored. He must have heard this from police
officers who were there. The Minister of the Interior said that we
should not accuse others without evidence, most especially not on the
basis of unconfirmed press reports.
What officials say and what they do are usually not the same. If the
hai'a' were involved then you can be certain that heads will roll,
figuratively that is. It might even be a factor in the disappearance
of the religious police or their eventual integration into one or
another of the existing security forces.
If they really didn't have anything to do with it then nothing more
will be said. Public reaction to the event and the news reports does,
however, indicate a general lack of patience with the religious police
and I think it is reasonable to expect some changes to be announced
fairly soon, though not so soon as to induce us to suspect that the
new arrangements have anything to do with the Makkah stampeed.
The politics are not transparent. There is honor here that extends
beyond the individual. You may remember the airport police who
hijacked that plane and took it to Iraq. The father of one of the
hijackers went to a senior member of the family and begged for
forgiveness for his son, his family was in shame. It was forgotten, or
so I hear.
> Narrator: AbuMusa, SAHIH AL-BUKHARI
> One night a house in Medina was burnt with its occupants. The Prophet
> (peace_be_upon_him) spoke about them, saying, "This fire is indeed your
> enemy, so whenever you go to bed, put it out to protect yourselves."
>
> Narrator: Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari, AL-MUWATTA
> The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said,
> "Lock the door, tie the waterskin, turn the vessel over or cover it,
> and put out the lamp. Shaytan does not open a locked door or untie a
> tied knot, or uncover a vessel. A mouse may set fire to people's houses
> about them."
Both of these hadiths are about turning the lights out before you go
to bed. They are good evidence to place before those who parrot
insurance agents saying, "I was not responsible, it is an "Act of
God".
Assalamu alaikum,
Omar
Omar
> Omar <om...@email.is> writes
> >This is despite the consistant opposition of the Saudi scholars to
> >suicide bombings, primarily on the basis that suicide is prohibited in
> >Islam.
Surayya said,
> Strange then, that there are groups of muslims trying to make out that
> suicide attacks are wahabi or salafi.
That's because the terms "Wahhabi" and "Salafi" cover a wide range of
people. Wahhabi is now used almost exclusively by Sufis as an
invective that they spew at virtually anyone they happen to dislike.
If you hear it you can safely ignore it, unless you are particularly
interested in knowing who the Sufis don't like.
Salafi persists and most "salafis" are self-declared. You'll even hear
them saying, "He's not a salafi", like, he's just a poseur.
While some people criticize salafis for being politically indifferent
and largely concerned with the length of their beards and especially
those of others, the minimum legal hight of trouser legs, and whether
to use miswak in the mornings or in the afternoons in Ramadan, others
declare that they are political extremists who fly planes into tall
buildings, so go figure.
Hisham al-Kabbani got off his flying carpet long enough in September
to proclaim to the American media that extremists had taken over
eighty-percent, or some ridiculous number, of mosques in America.
Thank's alot, Hisham, for helping out. The gorgeously photogenic
al-Kabbani frantically dashed from photo-op to photo-op for about a
month bad mouthing American Muslims who really have no need for
refugee immigrant Arabs in Turkish fancy dress to lead them. Yeah, we
heard a lot about Wahhabis in September.
Assalamu alaikum,
Omar
saifu
> many Rwandans are Christians, about how Catholic nuns are (were?) on
> trial for genocide? We don't hear much about the role of the church in
> the genocide.
Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, wa Salatu wasallam 'alaa Resulillah):
Another example, they do not ask about the belief of American Cristian
"fundamentalists" who believe in the battle of Armagedon. And Why do
the Christian "fundamentalists" supports the zionist entity. The
Christian "fundamentalists" believe that the existance of the zionist
entity is a precondition for this battle which will consume all except
the Christians.
They support the Jews not out of love but to help achieve the
fulfilment of a "death and destruction". The establishment of the
zionist entity was achieved because of the religious belief, mainly
Zionists, and Christians. How else could a German or a Russian claim
ownership of a land in Palestine.
Islam is scrutinized because it is the only religion that is a threat
to the aspirations of Shaitan. But Allah (subhanehu wa Ta'alaa)
fulfils his plan:
" They intend to put out the Light of Allah (i.e. the religion of
Islam, this Qur'an, and Prophet Muhammad ) with their mouths. But
Allah will complete His Light even though the disbelievers hate (it).
"
" He it is Who has sent His Messenger (sallalhu 'alaihi wa sallam)
with guidance and the religion of truth (Islamic Monotheism) to make
it victorious over all (other) religions even though the Mushrikun
(polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of
Allah and in His Messenger Muhammed ) hate (it)." - Surah as saff 8 -
9.
Saifu,
Jonas T. Riker
> On 1 Apr 2002 22:04:08 GMT, altrelig...@yahoo.com (Jonas T.
> Riker) wrote:
>
> Is there something I said that is not true?
>
> All you've provided are ad hominem arguments. Do you know what that is?
You're explanation of the argument as 'ad hominem' would be true if I
was intending my piece as purely a logical one; but I used a
rethorical device.
And since you ignored my earlier argument of you said that was not
true, here it is presented for you:
Same with 'muslim', no one but God himself know if someone is truly a
muslim, yet muslims call themselves as such. In the absence of "i
hope i am a..." one should assume the person is saying this. To err
on the side of mercy. If you will not assume this and blame someone
before asking what their meaning is then I would say that you are the
arrogant one, and the one without mercy.
> >I take it you're a viceroy of God? Deciding which should be left out
> >& in?
> >There is a contradiction here- unless you are being rethorical.
>
> I think that's from the Qur'an, bud.
Or rather your interpretation of it. Again, you have not understood
my earlier argument.
> >'the Muslim-Arabs', 'They'? Generalizing are we? Who is the
> >malicious one now?
>
> Saudis, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Iraqis (the ones who gas kurds) etc. etc.
> Don't you know? The one's who put on a big show of caring.
>
> Generalizing? Fact!
The ones who gas kurds? I take it, being an Ameri, you are the ones
who have murdered Vietnamese, exterminated Japanese, and 'cleased' the
continent of 'indians'. Would this be accurate in your case? 'Fact!'
You're 'the one's who put on a big show of being' balanced & moral.
'Jesus Christ is my political philosopher....'
I noticed you have followed Judaism & its cohorts and not mentioned
the Iranians who were gased or the Shia. I suppose because since
'you' funded Iraq covertly in the '80 to murder Iranians (& Kurds) and
supplied it with feeder stock of bioweapons and gas, you would not
want to mention atrocities commited for 'your' sake.
> >Some have used civil disobedience; a number of them were shot.
>
> Who, when, where, and why did they stop?
>
> As the saying goes: put up or shut up.
Here it is courtesy of Fisk, now shut up.
"Some hope. Only a day earlier, an Israeli soldier opened fire on a
group of unarmed western protesters near Bethlehem , wounding five of
them in front of the BBC's own cameras before trying to shoot
television reporter Orla Guerin as well. We were thinking about that
when the bullets flew around us on the road in central Bethlehem. We
thought about it again when we crept out of the house in the late
afternoon."
This was not announced on your CNN of course; this was in The
Independent, a paper you should be familiar with.
> >But why do you care of 'passive' resistance?
>
> Because it works and its civilized and its moral.
>
> Is that too subtle for you to grasp?
>
> Have you ever read anything about Ghandi and King?
Have you ever read anything about Muhammad? <snort>
His works, and the admonitions in the Koran about fighting back (yes,
using violence) against oppressors and esp. against those who take
one's homes are clear and self-evident. But I suppose this is not
moral or civilized for you.
Is it too subtle for you or are you being obtuse?
> >This depends on a third party being concerned and/or intervening. And
> >what if there is no such animal? An apathetic response? What of your
> >logic then?
>
> I might be able to respond, if this made any sense.
So you cannot answer. Because your tactics cannot work against those
who have a reckless disregard for human life. To those people who
call others 'goyim', literally meaning 'cattle'.
Do I have to remind you that Muhammad (whom you claim to follow) also
used passive resistance-up to a point. Then came war when they were
'cleansed' from their homes. The analog of this to our time is clear.
This much is clear:
The current leader of the regime has cleared stated since he was put
into power that peace along the Oslo lines will not be accepted. That
he wants to kill his 'peace' partner. That he will not remove colonies
that have been erected.
As well, members of the security apparatus of the regime have even
exorted others to study the methods of the Nationalist Socialist
police forces of yesteryear so that they can 'learn' from them how to
'neutralize' ghettos.
> >Keep your projections to yourself.
>
> I assume the answer to that then is-- assuming you are a Muslim-- a
> great big "NO!".
Keep your assumptions to yourself as well.
> >And colonizers are civilians? No, not of children, but of those who
> >are of the age to carry weapons and murder the locals. They are
> >civilians? A civil apartheid? That is a first.
>
> Are you saying that because someone is of age to carry a gun they are
> legit targets?
Because someone is of an age where they are REQUIRED to carry weapons
and defend apartheid means they are complicit in the crime of ethnic
cleansing and annihilation.
All those who have served or are serving in the security apparatus of
the apartheid regime are to be executed.
> Not all the people in Israel are original participants in that
> project.... they are people who were just born there. They cannot be
> blamed.
Not being an original participant in the orgy of ethnic cleansing
means they have a chance to redeem themselves and either emigrate to a
society that is free of the crime of apartheid or actively fight
against it. Otherwise they will eventualy participate in the security
apparatus of such a regime and they too will be held responsible.
And ethnic cleansing and mass murder is an ongoing project for an
apartheid. By definition it cannot end until all those who are
'goyim' are 'dealt with'.
For example now we hear talk of 'transfer'. Are you telling everyone
in this forum that participants in such an endeavor (who could not be
blamed before) are innocent of this crime or even innocent of
bulldozing homes daily and colonizing more of the local's land?
What sort of creature are you?
How many more excuses and rationalizations will you take part in?
> >Hamas runs hospitals for the sick and cares for the poor in their
> >areas. That is their da'wah.
>
> If compassion and care are only for those who are like us, what makes
> us better or different from anyone else?
Compassion is for that which appears human or good. For evil
activities must be stopped before we can embrace the sinner.
Especially for a crime such as apartheid.
> >What is yours?
> Check the links.
As you said in another post 'stick & stones...'. Words aren't much.
What are YOUR actions; what is YOUR da'wah.
> Who are you talking about that is living in a cage?
>
> Even so--- are you saying they buy a gun rather than water and food?
Are they given much of a choice when the dogs of colonists are given
more water per day then the locals themselves.
> We deliver the Message of God's Unity precisely as a response to
> various ideologies. But, can't do that if you're killing people.
And you claim to understand Muhammad's teaching? Better read up on
him 'bud.
> Thank you for illustrating my points about us (assuming you are one of
> us) so very clearly.
I have never liked you passive aggressive types. Claiming innocence
and hurt all while being a hypocrite. Your Katz-ian tactics won't
work with me.
I repeat again: Is a will to destroy evil itself evil? What was one
of the names of the God you claim to believe in called? ....
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Riker) wrote:
>Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote
>> On 1 Apr 2002 22:04:08 GMT, altrelig...@yahoo.com (Jonas T.
>> Riker) wrote:
>>
>> Is there something I said that is not true?
>>
>> All you've provided are ad hominem arguments. Do you know what that is?
>
>You're explanation of the argument as 'ad hominem' would be true if I
>was intending my piece as purely a logical one; but I used a
>rethorical device.
Oh. Well, that's ok then. ;-)
>And since you ignored my earlier argument of you said that was not
>true, here it is presented for you:
Guess I must have confused it with the rhetoric. Maybe if you put a
headline on each paragraph....
>Same with 'muslim', no one but God himself know if someone is truly a
>muslim, yet muslims call themselves as such. In the absence of "i
>hope i am a..." one should assume the person is saying this. To err
>on the side of mercy. If you will not assume this and blame someone
>before asking what their meaning is then I would say that you are the
>arrogant one, and the one without mercy.
I'm still not sure what the argument is. I absolutely agree with the
idea that the proper response to "Are you a Muslim?" is actually
"insha Allah".
In general though, since "Muslim" is understood as meaning "within the
Qur'anic religious traditions" most just say "yes" if asked.
Still, I'm not sure what your point is.
>> >I take it you're a viceroy of God? Deciding which should be left out
>> >& in?
>> >There is a contradiction here- unless you are being rethorical.
>>
>> I think that's from the Qur'an, bud.
>
>Or rather your interpretation of it. Again, you have not understood
>my earlier argument.
True, and I haven't understood it again. Maybe if you rephrase it.
Actually, it is not my interpretation, but that of Khaled M. Abou
El-Fadl regarding Qur'an 74:31.
But yeah... it all comes down to interpretation!
>> >'the Muslim-Arabs', 'They'? Generalizing are we? Who is the
>> >malicious one now?
>>
>> Saudis, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Iraqis (the ones who gas kurds) etc. etc.
>> Don't you know? The one's who put on a big show of caring.
>>
>> Generalizing? Fact!
>
>The ones who gas kurds? I take it, being an Ameri, you are the ones
>who have murdered Vietnamese, exterminated Japanese, and 'cleased' the
>continent of 'indians'. Would this be accurate in your case? 'Fact!'
Very accurate. Though we didn't exterminate the Japanese, but we did
inter Japanese-Americans.
Your point is.... what exactly?
>You're 'the one's who put on a big show of being' balanced & moral.
>'Jesus Christ is my political philosopher....'
Huh?
Are you confusing me with someone else?
I've never said anything like Jesus is my political philosopher.
>I noticed you have followed Judaism & its cohorts and not mentioned
>the Iranians who were gased or the Shia.
Feel free to add to the list. Its a long one all through history.
The logical fallacy on your part is that since I don't mention
everything I'm somehow denying its truth or significance.
>I suppose because since
>'you' funded Iraq covertly in the '80 to murder Iranians (& Kurds) and
>supplied it with feeder stock of bioweapons and gas, you would not
>want to mention atrocities commited for 'your' sake.
No! Mention it!
>> >Some have used civil disobedience; a number of them were shot.
>>
>> Who, when, where, and why did they stop?
>>
>> As the saying goes: put up or shut up.
>
>Here it is courtesy of Fisk, now shut up.
Please give the link to the full article. When was this written.
>
>"Some hope. Only a day earlier, an Israeli soldier opened fire on a
>group of unarmed western protesters near Bethlehem , wounding five of
>them in front of the BBC's own cameras before trying to shoot
>television reporter Orla Guerin as well. We were thinking about that
>when the bullets flew around us on the road in central Bethlehem. We
>thought about it again when we crept out of the house in the late
>afternoon."
That is no indication of any program of civil disobedience and passive
resistance. A massacre perhaps, but not a program of social activism
and change a la Ghandi or King.
So, the question remains: who when where and why did they stop.
This kind of social change is not a one-time protest. It is a
long-term strategy that entails concerted community effort over a
period of time.
>
>This was not announced on your CNN of course; this was in The
>Independent, a paper you should be familiar with.
I am familiar with it. I read its op-ed pages regularly online.
>> Have you ever read anything about Ghandi and King?
>
>Have you ever read anything about Muhammad? <snort>
Is that a "No. I have not read anything about Ghandi or King"?
>His works, and the admonitions in the Koran about fighting back (yes,
>using violence) against oppressors and esp. against those who take
>one's homes are clear and self-evident. But I suppose this is not
>moral or civilized for you.
The Sunnah is a progressive action. And exhortations during war are
only properly understood within the context of all moral exhortations.
First, the Muslims were in hiding.
Second, the Muslims endured patiently. All the while delivering the
Message
Third, the weakest sought asylum in a foreign land.
Fourth, they all emigrated.
And then they defended themselves against aggressors.
>
>Is it too subtle for you or are you being obtuse?
Your statement was not subtle at all.
My statements just added at least some subtlety to the issue of when
to fight.
>> >This depends on a third party being concerned and/or intervening. And
>> >what if there is no such animal? An apathetic response? What of your
>> >logic then?
>>
>> I might be able to respond, if this made any sense.
>
>So you cannot answer.
In general, no, I cannot answer something that I just said didn't make
sense to me. Try rephrasing it.
>Because your tactics cannot work against those
>who have a reckless disregard for human life.
No. I can't answer because I don't understand what you are asking.
Regardless, they are not my tactics.
And if you would read Ghandi and King, and educate yourself, you would
know that their tactics (not mine) do indeed work in response to those
who have a reckless disregard for human life.
There is an excellent video series about the American civil rights
movement called "Eyes on the Prize".
>Do I have to remind you that Muhammad (whom you claim to follow) also
>used passive resistance-up to a point. Then came war when they were
>'cleansed' from their homes. The analog of this to our time is clear.
I'm not sure of the history here.
What war cleansed the Muslims from their homes?
I know the left and moved..... and then faced external threats to the
community.....
>This much is clear:
>
>The current leader of the regime has cleared stated since he was put
>into power that peace along the Oslo lines will not be accepted. That
>he wants to kill his 'peace' partner. That he will not remove colonies
>that have been erected.
Are you talking about Israel? Then say "Israel" rather than "the
regime".
Y'mean Sharon? Then say it. You'll find no argument from me on his
behalf.
>>
>> I assume the answer to that then is-- assuming you are a Muslim-- a
>> great big "NO!".
>
>Keep your assumptions to yourself as well.
If you don't answer the question all I can do is assume.....
Tell us: what does your local community actually do? Is it run
professionally? Are activities becoming institutionalized? etc.
>Because someone is of an age where they are REQUIRED to carry weapons
>and defend apartheid means they are complicit in the crime of ethnic
>cleansing and annihilation.
Are you saying that every Israeli in a disco or a pizza parlor is
required to carry a weapon? I did not know that.
>All those who have served or are serving in the security apparatus of
>the apartheid regime are to be executed.
Uh huh.
I think that's enough......
Abdul Aziz
>
> I agree that the only way the problems in Kashmir, Palestine etc. are going to be solved is by
> Qitaal-Fiisabillilah. The Americans, Israelis etc. are no particularly interested in being fair or
> honest. However, for a Muslim to carry out Jihad we do need certain >prerequisites.
I believe the requirements have been given by Sheikh Abdullah Azzam
(shaheed) in Ilhaq bil-qawafilah (Join the Caravan) and Al-Difa` `an
Aradi al-Muslimeen (Defence of Muslim Lands).
I <quote>:
THE SECOND QUESTION
Shall we perform jihad, although we do not have a single leader?
ANSWER : Yes, we should fight, even though we do not have a leader.
Nobody [among the scholars] has said that an absence of unity of
Muslims behind a [single] leader waives the duty of jihad. To the
contrary, we have seen the
Muslims, in the days of the Wars of the Crusades and Tartars, fighting
although their leaders were in discord, with a [different] leader, or
even several leaders, in each country. Thus, there was a leader in
Halab, a leader in Damascus, and more than one leader in Egypt. Some
of them used to appeal to the Crusaders for help against their own
brothers [who were rival] leaders, as occurred with Shawir who sought
assistance from the Crusaders against Dargham,
another [Muslim] leader in Egypt.
None of the scholars has said that this condition, and this scum,
waives the duty of jihad for defense of the Muslim land. To the
contrary, it multiplies their obligation.
Similar was the situation in Andalus which was, as described by a
poet,
They have fractured into sects, so each region
Contains a Commander of the Faithful and a shining.
Another said,
Among that which makes me averse to the land of Andalus Are
bolstered and premeditated appellations;
Titles of a kingdom out of its place, Like a puffed-up cat which
speaks of a lion's attack
Yet, none of the scholars said that there is no jihad in this
circumstance; rather, the prominent scholars were at the forefront of
the ranks in Andalusia.
The battle may be lacking in a legitimate commander who posesses
authority from the universal leader, as occurred on the day of Mu'tah,
when Khalid ibn al-Walid rose and took over the banner. Allah redeemed
the Muslim army by means of him, and the Prophet (may Allah bless him
and grant him peace) praised him.
The Imam or the Commander of the Faithful may not be present, and this
does not waive the necessity of fighting and defending the Muslim
lands. We do not wait until a great state is established and the
Caliphate is resumed, for the
universal leadership and the Caliphate will not come through [mere]
theory, education and study. In fact, jihad is the safest path for
transformation of the specific leadership, i.e. the leadership of
combat, into the universal leadership and Caliphate.
The mujahidin select, from among themselves, a leader for jihad who
will improve their status, put them in order and hold back their
strong from their weak...
Ibn Qudamah says, "If the Imam is non-existent, jihad is not
postponed, because its utility is lost by its delay." Al-Mughni, vol.
VIII, p. 253. </quote>
> Another point is that
> not one Palestinian group, to my knowledge, has called for an "Islamic" society. Can you tell me of
> anyone who has?
Hamas. See their founding charter.
"The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian Movement
which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life
and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.
Only under the shadow of Islam could the members of all regions
coexist in safety and security for their lives, properties and
rights....Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur'an its
Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most
sublime belief..."
As regards other groups, Hamas says, for example of the PLO:
"When the PLO adopts Islam as the guideline for life, then we shall
become its soldiers, the fuel of its fire which will burn the enemies.
And until that happens, and we pray to Allah that it will happen soon,
the position of the Hamas towards the PLO is one of a son towards his
father, a brother towards his brother, and a relative towards his
relative who suffers the other's pain when a thorn hits him, who
supports the other in the confrontation with the enemies and who
wishes him divine guidance and integrity of conduct."
Also, in regard to non-Muslims:
"Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three
religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in safety and
security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of
Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that
effect. The members of other religions must desist from struggling
against Islam over sovereignty in this region."
surayya
>That's because the terms "Wahhabi" and "Salafi" cover a wide range of
>people.
Yes, but they are well aware of the split and division amongst that
salafi/wahabi camp, where their opposing methodologies are completely
the opposite of each other.
They do not make the distinction on purpose. Most non-muslims haven't
got a clue about it, but the sufis know it only too well.
>If you hear it you can safely ignore it, unless you are particularly
>interested in knowing who the Sufis don't like.
I don't think we have much of a choice about it, their propaganda
machine is so loud, we couldn't possible miss it or ignore it.
> Yeah, we
>heard a lot about Wahhabis in September.
Doesn't it make you want to go back to America?
Surayya
Jonas T. Riker <altrelig...@yahoo.com> writes
>Some have used civil disobedience; a number of them were shot. Even
>non-Palistinians among them were shot down.
The white converts liken all ethnic muslims to black americans and their
freedom movement. They cannot see ethnic muslims in any other light.
Civil disobedience was not the methodology of Malcolm, but they were
raised to dislike/besmirch Malcolm and prefer Luther, and they carry it
into Islam with them. They don't even refer to their own muslim american
history because its black.
But they can see ethnic muslims in no other light but as an insipid
stereotype of black americans. They aren't even aware of how black
muslims from America have been helping ethnic muslim populations, they
are ignorant of it.
Their arguments are about themselves, they are the only population who
have done nothing for other muslims, and only for their own kind.
Btw, the israelis opened fire on a peace demonstration, who weren't even
armed. It went out in the early hours. The white converts approach path
is that these people should just stand there and be slaughtered.
Surayya
Saqib Virk
news:a80j2i$jn3$1...@samba.rahul.net...
>
> Martyrdom operations are legitimate
SV
Suicide bombings are illegitimate and the work of those who have no
understanding of Islam.
> "The martyrdom operations executed by Mujahideen against the Zionist
> enemy are legitimate operations based on the Book of Allah and the
> Sunna of His prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and they are the
> highest form of martyrdom and a path to Allah's satisfaction and paradise.
SV
This is the sort of thinking that has helped to weaken Muslims and
turn the
community away from the path of God.
> From the Closing statement issued by Muslim Ulama, following
> their Conference in Beirut during 25-26 Shawwal 1422 AH
SV
Then these Muslim Ulama are the worst of beasts.
The Holy Prophet was so insistent on the rules of war that he declared
whoever did not observe them would fight not for God but for his own
mean self. (Abu Duwad) I have posted an explanation detailing the
Quranic injunctions concerning warfare, as I understand them, here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a8kdmm%24hrc%241%40samba.rahul.net
>From the Quran we may derive the following:
1. War is to be resorted to only for the sake of God and not for
selfish
motives, not for agrandizement or for the advancement of any other
interests.
2. We can go to war only against those who attack us first.
3. We can fight only those who fight against us. We cannot fight
against those who take no part in warfare.
4. Even after the enemy has initiated the attack, it is our duty to
keep warfare within limits. To extend the war, either territorially or
in respect
of weapons used, is wrong.
5. We are to fight only a regular army charged by the enemy to fight
on his side. We are not to fight others on the enemy side.
6. In warfare, immunity is to be afforded to all religous rites and
observances. If the enemy spares the places where religous ceremonies
are
held, Muslims also must desist from fighting in such places.
7. Fighting is to continue only so long as persecution and
interference with
religion and religous freedom lasts. When persecution ends and
religion
becomes free and interference with it is no longer premitted and the
enemy
declares and begins to act accordingly, then there is to be no war.
8. If the enemy desists, it is the duty of the Muslims to desist also.
If
the enemy inclines towards peace, Muslims are to accept the offer even
at
the risk of being deceived.
Some sayings of the Prophet on the subject of war;
1. Muslims are forbidden to mutilate the dead. (Sahih Muslim)
2. Muslims are forbidden to resort to cheating. (Muslim)
3. Children are not to be killed, nor women. (Muslim)
4. Priests and religous functionaries and religous leaders are not to
be
interfered with. (Sharh Maani al-Athar by al-Tahawi)
5. The old and decrepit and women and children are not to be killed.
(Abu Duwad)
6. The possibility of peace should always be kept in view. (Abu Duwad)
7. When Muslims enter territory, they should not strike terror into
the general population. They should premit no ill treatment of the
common people. (Muslim)
8. A Muslim army should not camp in a place where it causes
inconvenience to
the general public. When it marches it should take care not to block
the road nor cause discomfort to other wayfarers.
9. No disfigurement of face is permitted. (Bukhari and Muslim)
10. The least possible losses should be inflicted on the enemy. (Abu
Duwad)
11. When prisoners of war are put under guard the closely related
should be
put together. (Abu Duwad)
12. Prisoners should live in comfort. Muslim should care less for
their own
comfort than the comfort of the prisoners. (Tirmidhi)
13. Emissaries and delegates from other countries should be held in
great
respect. Any mistakes or discourtesies they commit should be ignored.
(Abu
Duwad)
14. If a Muslim commits the sin of ill-treating a prisoner of war,
atonement
is to be made by releasing the prisoner without any form or ransom.
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk
Shuaib
> That's because the terms "Wahhabi" and "Salafi" cover a wide range of
> people. Wahhabi is now used almost exclusively by Sufis as an
> invective that they spew at virtually anyone they happen to dislike.
This shows you don't really know what's happening. "Wahhabi" and
"Wahhabism" are widely used and accepted terms.
For example, check the Merriam Webster Dictionary at
http://www.m-w.com . If you look up "Wahhabi", you will read:
Wahhabi
a member of a puritanical Muslim sect founded in Arabia in the 18th
century by Muhammad ibn-Abdul Wahhab and revived by ibn-Saud in the
20th century
You will also find the term "Wahhabi" and "Wahhabism" in many other
dictionaries.
According to Omar's argument, the compilers of these dictionaries must
be "Sufis" - which sounds like a pretty ludicrous argument to me,
stemming more from ignorance than from knowledge.
Actually, I've read that Wahhabis tend to dismiss everyone they
disagree with as "Sufis". Perhaps this is the real basis of Omar's
ignorant comments here.
> Salafi persists and most "salafis" are self-declared. You'll even hear
> them saying, "He's not a salafi", like, he's just a poseur.
>
> While some people criticize salafis for being politically indifferent
> and largely concerned with the length of their beards and especially
> those of others, the minimum legal hight of trouser legs, and whether
> to use miswak in the mornings or in the afternoons in Ramadan, others
> declare that they are political extremists who fly planes into tall
> buildings, so go figure.
These two are not mutually exclusive. A person can conceivably both
be obsessed with the "minimum legal height of trouser legs" as well as
"fly planes into tall buildings".
So Omar's puzzlement here just seems irrational.
One of Ibn abd al-Wahhab's more interesting innovations in religion
>from "Kitab al-Tawhid" is:
- Mentioning the "two hands of Allah" - something which is not
supported by Qur'an or hadiths (chapter 67).
Neither the Qur'an nor the hadiths gives Allah s.w.t. a specific
number of "hands" the way Ibn abd al-Wahhab does.
According to Wahhabis, taqlid [which some call "blind following"] is a
form of shirk [polytheism]. On this basis, those who accept this
statement by Ibn abd al-Wahhab, that Allah has "two hands", are by
their own criteria worshipping Ibn abd al-Wahhab and are polytheists,
since such a statement does not occur in the Qur'an or hadiths but is
his own innovation.
So, from their own arguments, we see that Ibn abd al-Wahhab is himself
an innovator in religion, and any who follow him is a polytheist.
For this post, I've referred to the translation "Kitab At-Tawhid",
translated and published by Dar-us-Salam Publications, Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia (published in 1996/1416).
Shuaib
vmi...@yahoo.com
> Actually, I've read that Wahhabis tend to dismiss everyone they
> disagree with as "Sufis".
Just as anyone opposing the thinking of some "sufi" groups
is conveniently dismissed as wahhabi or salafi.
The truth is that there are a lot of labels in use for the purpose
of putting down others whose views are disagreeable to one's own.
This slew of epithets is freely used by holders of all viewpoints
to vent their contempt for muslims with differing viewpoints. It
is, sadly, a rampant disease among most muslims today.
And Allah(SWT) Knows Best.
Viqar Ahmed
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
Abdul Aziz
> Suicide bombings are illegitimate and the work of those who have no
> understanding of Islam.
>
Assalam Aliakum.
The above is your opinion. My own view - which should be well known by
now :) - differs.
Another scholar - The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ahmed al-Tayyeb - has
recently affirmed the validity of fidayee attacks as used by groups
such as Hamas, calling them "the highest form of martyrdom."
We both - and many others - have made our choice as to the Islamic
status of fidayee attacks, and Allah (SWT) will judge us. May Allah
(SWT) have Mercy upon us and forgive us, and protect us.
"It is not you who kills them: rather, it is Allah who kills them.
You did not shoot (anything) when you aimed and let go: rather, it was
Allah who shot as a test for the believers, a fair test from the One
Who Hears all, Who understands all. This, in truth, is how things are:
for it is Allah alone who can nullify the plots of the disbelievers."
[ 8: 15-18 Interpretation of Meaning.]
>
> > From the Closing statement issued by Muslim Ulama, following
> > their Conference in Beirut during 25-26 Shawwal 1422 AH
>
> SV
> Then these Muslim Ulama are the worst of beasts.
"The believers are nothing else than brothers. So make reconciliation
between your brothers, and fear Allâh, that you may receive mercy." [
49:10 Interpretation of Meaning]
"Obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not argue among yourselves in a
way which causes you to lose courage and your strength to depart;
rather, be patient. Surely, Allah is with those who are As-Sâbirin."
[8:46 Interpretation of meaning.]
"And by the Mercy of Allah, you dealt with them gently. And had you
been severe and harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about
you; so pass over (their faults), and ask (Allah's) Forgiveness for
them; and consult them in the affair. Then when you have taken a
decision, put your trust in Allah, certainly, Allah loves those who
put their trust (in Him)." [ 3:19 Interpretation of Meaning]
"Whoever desires to advise (or admonish) someone should not do so
openly, rather he should take him by the hand and take him into
seclusion (and then advise him). And if he accepts (the advice) from
him then (he has achieved his objective) and if not, then he has
fulfilled that which was a duty upon him." Reported by Ahmad (3/403)
and Ibn Abee 'Aasim (2/521)
Gilberto Simpson
> Today, the general discourse has reduced the concept of sin down to a
> mere legal category-- as you have noticed with the posture issue and
> so on.
> Sin, though, is more of an existential state-of-being-alienated from
> God, it seems to me.
How so? I don't mean this is a reproach but this seems distinctively
Christian. I mean, Christianity teaches the doctrine of original sin
where sinfulness is a basic part of the human condition. "To err is
human...". It's something that is built into us, since Adam (says the
doctrine).
But at least in terms of Islam, I've generally read/heard the idea
that our basic nature is good, humanity is Allah's vicegerent, made in
His image, according to some hadith, ranking higher than the angels,
born in a natural state of islam. But sinful acts are just dust on the
mirror, rust on the heart. A human being is a noble creature, but when
we don't live up to that natural state, we become like animals. In any
case, I've heard Muslims talking about *sins* but not *sin*. And 1) I
am not convinced that *sin* is the proper way to look at the problem
and 2) I don't see this approach to be particularly Islamic.
-Gilberto
Albert B. Bach
Berkeley, CA resort to this approved method to defeat the enemy of
Islam morally and impose a "new equation?"
I understand there are people in Berkeley who will readily volunteer.
America, as Zionist lapdogs, are complicit in the deaths of
Palestinian children, and there appears to be only one proper
response, as was said by the Ulama, to the "unbalanced material
forces."
When will Americans begin to suffer the daily fate of the Zionist
enemy?
Will campus busses be targeted, or are they friendly?
Noah's bagels. That's surely a target.
There is a petting zoo nearby. Surely that would bring great praise
in the Muslim world. I can see the candy flowing in the streets of
Gaza now.
For the Qur'an notes 18.46: "Wealth and children are an adornment of
the life of this world;"
Remove this wealth and this adornment and you will remove the will to
resist.
asalaamu `alaykum
abdulb...@hotmail.com (Abdul Aziz) wrote in message news:<a80j2i$jn3$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> Martyrdom operations are legitimate
>
> "The martyrdom operations executed by Mujahideen against the Zionist enemy
> are legitimate operations based on the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His
> prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and they are the highest form of
> martyrdom and a path to Allah's satisfaction and paradise. Mujahideen opting
> to martyrdom based on creed and belief chose that path with absolute
> awareness and free will. Such operations are one of the most important
> strategic weapons of resistance that enabled it to defeat the enemy morally
> and impose a new equation in the light of the existing unbalanced material
> forces."
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On 10 Apr 2002 08:38:14 GMT, ti...@umich.edu (Gilberto Simpson) wrote:
>Jeremiah McAuliffe <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:<a8cpva$2tv$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>> Sin, though, is more of an existential state-of-being-alienated from
>> God, it seems to me.
>
>How so? I don't mean this is a reproach but this seems distinctively
>Christian. I mean, Christianity teaches the doctrine of original sin
>where sinfulness is a basic part of the human condition.
To talk about sin as a state-of-being is not at all the same as the
idea of original sin, or sin being an ontological part of the human
condition.
> A human being is a noble creature, but when
>we don't live up to that natural state, we become like animals.
Right. Those are existential states-of-being.
>case, I've heard Muslims talking about *sins* but not *sin*. And 1) I
>am not convinced that *sin* is the proper way to look at the problem
>and 2) I don't see this approach to be particularly Islamic.
Certainly the talk in the Qur'anic traditions has reduced the idea of
"sin" down to mere legalisms, but that seems to violate a tawheedian
world view.
We don't talk about "kufrs" but "kufr"-- a state of being.
Certainly we do sins..... and for some that is perhaps a rare thing,
or a mistake or a weakness..... but when we say "I am a sinner" we are
entering another realm of analysis that goes beyond mere observable
behaviors.
God knows best.
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Page O' Heavy Issues
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
Page O' Heavy Music
http://www.ampcast.com/emergency
And Other Stuff
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/mcauliffe/
saifu
> Assalamu Alaikum;
>
>
Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, Wasselatu Wasselam 'alaa Resulillah,
A definition problem;
What is the status of a Palestinian boy who is shot on the head and
killed while throwing stone at Zionist soldiers. Do the west or the
Muslim apologist consider him a "Suicide Stone thrower", a Martyr or a
"Terrorist".
Can one claim that "he has cast himself into destruction" or "commit
Suicide" - see the report by Abu Ayub Al Ansari, below, for an
explanation of the Ayah:
" You shall spend in the cause of GOD; do not throw yourselves with
your own hands into destruction. You shall be charitable; GOD loves
the charitable." - Surah Al Baqara 195.
>
> I think Shaykh Ibn Jibreen puts it best when he says:
>
> "No doubt on the face of it he is one who has committed suicide,
> whereby he has made certain he will be killing himself before anyone
> else. However, this can be permissible if he is in warring kuffaar
> territory, and knows he will sooner or later be killed at the hands of
> the enemy, or will face severe torture and has not found any ploy
> except to blow himself up and kill others from the enemy (who subject
> the Muslims to torture) along with himself. In doing so, killing a
> number of them thereby weakening their strength/force and reducing
> their harm and scaring them. So this can be permissible even if it
> involves killing the person himself, if he knows he will certainly be
> killed, or persecuted and wishes to rid himself of their harm and
> attain ease for himself, and his matter is with Allaah the Almighty."
>
> The full response is at
> http://www.fatwa-online.com/fataawa/worship/jihaad/0001027_1.htm
>
>
The above fatwa contains arguments that can be used to lead to the
opposite conclusion that was intended by Shaikh Ibn Jibreen. The
argument: " ...and knows he will sooner or later be killed at the
hands of the enemy, or will face severe torture and has not found any
ploy except to blow himself up and kill others from the enemy (who
subject the Muslims to torture) along with himself" is not clear and
misleading.
I hope that it is a translation error as it contains errors that can't
be expected to come from a Shaikh of Ibn Jibreen's stature. The Fiqh
question that is not clearly discusssed here is, what is the evidence
that supports that a Muslim can commit suicide to avoid torture. Is
this not one of the reasons (intention) that falls in the catagory of
blameworthy "Suicide"? according to the Shari'ah. Yes, one should die
fighting and not surrender to the enemy, but to avoid severe torture
is not a valid reason.
"Martyrdom operations" also refered as "suicide Bombing" which cause
the death of the Muslim that detonates an explosive strapped to
himself requires to be addressed using Fiqh (jurisprudence)
principles. The simplistic citation of Qur'anic Ayah's or Ahadith of
the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alahi wasallam) will not apply as
it ignores *intention* which is an integral part of the prohibition of
"suicide".
The first Hadith in sahih al Bukhari:
Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab: "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The
reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get
the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for
worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what
he emigrated for." - Sahih Al Bukhari.
Therefore, one may partcipate in the battle of Yarmuk (against the
Romans), for example, using his sword but may have the wrong
intention invalidating his effort. According to another saying of the
Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) one who goes to Jihad
with the wrong intentions, would be among the first who would go to
hell.
One often used Ayah by the detracters of "Martyrdom Operations" - we
consider them as such and Allah knows the final status as per the
above hadith (intentions):
" You shall spend in the cause of GOD; do not throw yourselves with
your own hands into destruction. You shall be charitable; GOD loves
the charitable." - Surah Al Baqara 195.
Abu Ayub Al Ansari (radiallahu 'anhu) explains the mistake of applying
the above Ayah to "Martyrdom Operations".
"Reported by al-Tirmidhee through Aslam Abi Umran, that during the
Battle of Kastantinia, a Muslim undertook to fight many of the enemies
himself; he penetrated the Roman army killing some of them and was
killed. As a reaction, some Muslims said: "he has cast himself into
destruction". Abu Aiyub Al-ansari replied: "you are misinterpreting
this verse, it is about us "al-Ansar"; when Islam was dignified by
Allah and Islam had received many other supporters, some of us said
secretly away from the prophet "our money is lost, Islam is dignified
and its supporters are numerous, it is better to stay at home and
invest our money". At that time, Allah revealed to His prophet in
reply "Give generously for the cause of Allah and do not with your own
hands cast yourselves into destruction."
Note that the command "do not with your own hands cast yourselves into
destruction." in the above Ayah can also be used in its leteral sense.
Another often quoted saying of the Messenger of Allah in opposition to
"Martyrdom Operations" is,
"Indeed, whoever (intentionally) kills himself, then certainly he will
be punished in the Fire of Hell, wherein he shall dwell forever))," -
Sahih Al Bukhari and Muslim.
Narrated Abu Huraira, the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wa
sallam) said:
"Whoever purposely throws himself from a mountain and kills himself
will be in the (Hell) Fire falling down into it and abiding therein
perpetually for ever: and whoever drinks poison and kills himself with
it, he will be carrying his poison in his hand and drinking it in the
(Hell) Fire wherein he will abide eternally for ever; and whoever
kills himself with an iron weapon, will be carrying the weapon in his
hand and stabbing his abdomen with it in the (Hell) Fire wherein he
will abide eternally forever".
The above saying must be understood based on the intention of the
Muslim who "killed himself" - is it to avoid pain and suffering, or
other vaild reasons which may be commendable as in the case of
"martyrdom operations". This can be explained by what is Related, on
the authority of Jaber Ibn Samurra:
"a man was suffering from a troublesome lesion. He took a knife and
slew himself. The Prophet refrained from penforming the death prayer
over him". - reported by Ibn Habban.
Here is an example of this consideration (definition) from a statement
made by Shaikh Uthaimeen (rahimahullah) against "Martyrdom operations"
or "Suicide bombing":
"In reality, the one who commits suicide, generally does so because of
his desperate situation, either as a direct result of an act of Allaah
or a human being. So you find him unable to cope with that which has
afflicted him, and in actual fact he is like one who is calling for
help from the scorching heat of the fire. So he has progressed from
that which was tough (bad) to that which is worse. And if he was
patient, then Allaah would have assisted him in dealing with the
difficulty."
The Shaikh seems to qualify his response: "generally does so because
of his desperate situation". As far as "Martyrdom operations" being
commendable, there are many sayings of the Scholars (although modern
weapons such as Bombs are unknown to them - they are in support of
Martyrdom Operations where the Muslim fighter puts himself in a
position facing death intentending to harm the enemy. Therefore, it
is a form of one of the noblest of all relegious duties, Jihad, firmly
established in the Koran and in the ahadith of the Messenger of Allah
(sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) , and enjoined for the purpose of
Protecting Islam and Muslims. No doubt that suicide is forbidden, but
martyrdom is praised, and encouraged:
The Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alahi wa sallam) said:
"By him (Allah subhanehu wa ta'alaa) in Whose Hand is my life, I love
that I should be killed in the way of Allah; then I should be brought
back to life and be killed again in His way, then I should be brought
back to life and be killed again ..."; The premise, in this context is
the oposite of what Shaikh Uthaimeen defined, above - the correct
understanding must be that the Muslim thinks that the military
operation that he will engage in would bring his death and that he is
not doing it because of "his desperate situation" as it is the case
with most suicides which are committed by non-Muslims ( illness, loss
of property, etc) . The Believer is required to bear all adversity
with patience and will be rewarded for it.
"O you who believe! Seek help in patience and As-Salat (the prayer).
Truly! Allah is with As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.).
And say not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah, "They are
dead." Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not.
And certainly, We shall test you with something of fear, hunger, loss
of wealth, lives and fruits, but give glad tidings to As-Sabirin (the
patient ones, etc.).
Who, when afflicted with calamity, say: "Truly! To Allah we belong and
truly, to Him we shall return." They are those on whom are the
Salawat (i.e. blessings, etc.) (i.e. who are blessed and will be
forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who) receive His Mercy,
and it is they who are the guided-ones. " Surah Al Baqarah 153 - 157.
Note that only Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa) knows when a soul will
leave this life. As there are situations where a person could be
severly wounded from a bomb blast at close range and then servive -
that was the case of the Hizbullah fighter who was later returned to
Lebanon as part of prisoner exchage with the zionist entity.
In this context, Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa) says,
"And no person can ever die except by Allâh's Leave and at an
appointed term. And whoever desires a reward in (this) world, We shall
give him of it; and whoever desires a reward in the Hereafter, We
shall give him thereof. And We shall reward the grateful."
As for the Ijtihad of the Ullema of Islam in relation to "Martyrdom
operations", here are some examples:
Shaikh Al Islam (ibn taymiyya) in Majmu' al fatawa said: "Muslim
narrated in his Sahih, the story of Al-ukhdud (the furrow, which the
Prophet (sallalhu 'alaihi wasallam) told to his companions) in which
"a young Muslim contributed himself for the cause of Allah". That is
why the four Scholars said that, it is right for a Muslim to fight
many unbelievers alone even if he thinks he will be killed. "
Ibn Khuwaiz Mindad said: "there are two situations in which a Muslim
can fight the enemy alone:
- If he is sure that he will hurt the enemy and survive.
- If he is sure that he will hurt the enemy but he will be killed
Imam Al Qurtubi said, in his Tafsir: "Al-Kasem Bin Mukhaimara said:
'It is allowed to fight the enemy alone if you seek Al-Shahada
(Martyrdom) and you are strong enough to do it. This is obvious in the
Qur'an 'Some people would give away their lives to gain Allah's
contentment'."
al-Dasuki said: "We can say that it is Islamic for a Muslim to fight
many unbelievers alone with two conditions;
- He does it for the cause of Allah.
- He is sure that he will hurt them (if not then it is disliked )."
Al-jassas said: "Mohammed Bin al-Hasan Al-Shaibani said: 'If a Muslim
fought a thousand of the unbelievers with the intention to gain
Allah's contentment (hurting the enemy or encouraging the other
Muslims) it is right and he will be rewarded, Allah willing.
Otherwise, it will be Islamically void, useless and pointless."
Muslim Mujtahid's can use analogy - Qiyas is an integral part of
fiqh: For example consider the following:
"In the battle of Yamama, when Hanifa tribe made their castle
inaccessible to the Muslims, Al-Bara'a Bin Malek asked Muslims to put
him in the leather shield and throw him to the enemy. He fought them
alone and opened the gate for his brothers".
The action of Al-Bara'a Bin malek (radiallahu 'anhu) shows that a
Muslim can put himself in a situation where he can face certain death.
The only diffrence here is that Al-Bara'a Bin malek's death would
happen due to wounds from spears, arrows, swords or other premitive
weapons. It is conceivable that one may prefer instant death as a
result of a bomb blast than from a wound from sharp objects.
And relative look at death, Ali (radiallahu 'anhu) used to exhort
people to fight, saying, "if you are not killed (fighting) you will
die; By him in whose hand my life is, It is (prefered) easier to be
struck with a sword a thousand times in comparison with dying in your
bed" - refering to the agony of death in normal death.
The only reference missing from the above Fiqh rulings and examples to
apply to our time is the use of modern weapons (bomb).
The other relevent issue, what is a legitimate target, can be
determined by the people of palestine, their Ullema and their leaders.
Here is what Ali Safuri, the head of the Islamic Jihad said: "Nobody
has the right to put forward an initiative to solve the problem of the
Palestinian people. Nobody except the Palestinian people, because the
Palestinian people comprehend their own cause better than anyone. " On
the other hand, Muslim scholars should discuss the issue of
"legitimate target" as it is a question that requires a thorough
anlalysis. This is because of the fact that there are Ahadith,
prohibiting the killing of non-combatants. They can influence the
target selection provided they do a thorough analysis of the question
in the Palestinian context.
An important lesson from Muslim history: The Messenger of Allah
(sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) did not object to the actions of Abu
Baseer (radiallahu 'anhu) - attacking the caravans of the Mushreekeen.
The Messenger of Allah (sallahu 'alaihi wassallam) and the Muslims had
a treaty with the Mushrikeen and were not able to protect Abu Baseer
from the Mushrikeen of Mecca - most importantly they did not oppose
him or interfere with the actions that he took against the mushrikeen.
Note that his action - In an islamic state - is one that deserves the
most severe punsihment under Shar'ah law. Here is a better narration
of Abu Baseer's story.
" The incident of Abu Baseer is one from which Scholars of Fiqh can
deduce laws and rulings, and branch off from them as much as Allah
wills.
That incident, in brief, involves the Prophet (s.a.w) making a pact
with the Quraish - on the Day of Hudaibiya - that whoever of the
Quraish becomes a Muslim and comes to the Prophet (in Medina) the
Prophet should return him back to them.
The end of this incident as reported in the Sahih is as follows, 'So a
man, called Abu Baseer from the Quraish came to him (i.e. the
Prophet), while the man was a Muslim. So they (Quraish) sent two men
demanding his return to them. They said, "The pact you had made with
us?" So he (the Prophet) gave him to the two men.
The two set out with him (to Mecca). When they reached Dhul-Hulaifa,
they stopped and began eating from their dates. Abu Baseer said to one
of the two men, "By Allah, I see that this sword of yours is good, O
So and so!" The other one unsheathed it and said, "Yes, By Allah it is
good. I have tried it then tried it and then tried it! Abu Baseer
said, "Show me I will look at it." So he allowed it to him and he
struck him until he became cold. The other one escaped until he
reached Medina.
He entered the Mosque racing. The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) upon
seeing him said, "This one has indeed seen something alarming." When
he reached the Prophet (s.a.w), he said, "By Allah, my companion has
been killed and I was (almost) dead." Abu Baseer came and said, "O
Prophet of Allah, Allah has indeed kept up your guarantee as you did
return me to them and then He saved me from them." The Prophet (saw)
said, "Woe! His mother is flaring a war, if only there was someone for
him!" When he heard that he knew that the he would return him to them
(once again). So he left until he came to the seashore.
Abu Jandal ibn Suhail left them (i.e. the Meccan polytheists) and
joined Abu Baseer. Not a man would leave Quraish who became a Muslim
except that he joined Abu Baseer until they became a gang. Then By
Allah they would not hear of a caravan of Quraish leaving for Sham
except that they intercepted it and killed them and took their wealth"
We can learn from this the following.
ONE: The one killed from the Polytheists was a messenger (an
ambassador) and messengers as is well known are not to be killed.
Despite that the Prophet (s.a.w) did not disapprove of Abu Baseer
having killed him nor did he order him to pay the blood money or
ransom, but affirmed Abu Baseer's saying, as is reported in another
narration, "O Messenger of Allah, there is no covenant or pact between
me and them." So that was an approval from the Prophet for what he
did, and that he has an independent liability and guarantee, separate
to that of the Muslims, and if the Prophet waved the (demands on the)
blood of that messenger then others besides him are more fitting of
that. [See Fath (vol 5, pp412)].
TWO: The Prophet (s.a.w) urged the Muslims to join Abu Baseer as is
understood from his saying, "Woe! His mother is flaring a war, if only
there was someone for him!" And in another version of the narration,
"if only there was a man for him!" So he added to his approval a
further encouragement of others to join him." - Exerpts from "A
Statement To The Ummah Concerning the Recent Events" by Sheikh Safar
bin 'Abdir-Rahmaan al-Hawaali - full article can be read at:
http://www.IslamicAwakening.com/Articles/bayaan.phtml
To affirm the right of the palestinians to fight for their rights,
according to the Shari'ah,
it would suffice to quote the Ayah:
" Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who
fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you
out of your homes. Verily, Allâh loves those who deal with equity.
It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of
religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive
you out, that Allâh forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will
befriend them, then such are the Zâlimûn (wrong-doers those who
disobey Allâh). " - Surah Al Mumtahinah 8 - 9.
"And fight in the Way of Allâh those who fight you, but transgress
not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors.
And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where
they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. " -
Surah al Baqara.
Who can be considered a Shahid? - the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu
'alaihi wa sallam) said:
"Abdullah bin `Amr bin Al-`As (May Allah be pleased with them)
reported: The Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi was sallam) said,
"He who is killed while defending his property is a martyr.'' -
Al-Bukhari and Muslim.
" Sa`id bin Zaid bin `Amr bin Nufail (May Allah be pleased with him)
reported, one of the ten Companions who were given the glad tidings of
entering Jannah reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu
'alaihi was sallam) saying: "He who dies while defending his property
is a martyr; he who dies in defence of his own life is a martyr; and
he who dies on defense of his faith is a martyr, he who dies in
defence of his family is a martyr.'' - Reported by Imam Ahmad, Imam
abu Dawud, Imam an NAsa'i and At-Tirmidhi.
" Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: A man came to
the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi was sallam) and asked, "O
Messenger of Allah! What shall I do if someone comes to me with the
intention of taking away my property?'' He replied, "Do not hand over
it to him.'' The man asked, "What shall I do if he fights me?'' The
Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi was sallam) said, "Then fight
him.'' "What will be my position in the Hereafter if he has killed
me?'' The Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi was sallam) replied,
"In that case you are a martyr.'' The man asked: "What if I killed
him?'' The Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi was sallam) replied,
"He will be in the Hell-fire.'' - Sahih Muslim.
*** The bove Hadith highlights the fact that whoever gets killed in an
effort to protect his property and other things related to this dunya
is a martyr. We learn that in the course of struggling to protect
one's life and property, it is quite fair to kill an occupier, robber
or plunderer. Such a killing is not deemed a sin. In case he is a
Muslim, he will go to Jannah after suffering the punishment of his
attacking a Muslim. But if the agressor is a Muslim and regards the
act of attacking Muslims and encroaching upon their property lawful,
he will be in Hell forever.
Other types pf Martyrs in Islam - Abu Hurairah (Radiallahu 'anhu)
reported: The Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi was sallam) said,
"The martyrs are of five kinds: One who dies of plague; one who dies
of disease of his belly; the drowned; one who dies under the debris
(of construction, etc.), and one who dies while fighting in the way of
Allah.'' - Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim.
*** We hope (Insha Allah), for the Muslims who died on 9/11, the
status of Shahid as per the above hadith.
Here are some current opinions by Muslim Ullema in relation to
"Martyrdom Operations":
After the killing of 25 Israelis in Hamas operations last week, the
government apointed Mufti of Egypt, Shaikh Tantawi said:
------------------------
" that Shari'a "rejects all attempts on human life. In the name of
Shari'a we condemn all attacks on civilians, whether they were carried
out by a state (Israel) or by other groups
(Palestinian organisations)."
In reply, Shaikh Al Qaradawi said: that the Palestinians were
defenceless in confronting an enemy with a sophisticated military
arsenal and that the kind of attacks launched by Hamas "were their
only weapon."
"The Palestinians are fighting a people who invaded their homeland and
they have every right to defend themselves with any means at their
disposal." He added that the Palestinians were in a "state of war,"
and claimed that what many Arabs and Muslims consider as "martyrdom
attacks" were "effective because they frighten Israelis."
El-Qaradawi also said that terrorism was essential to the founding of
the Israeli state, and that the country was created through
"butchering and displacing them [Palestinians] to settle Jews from
different parts of the world."
El-Qaradawi vehemently opposed Tantawi's assertion that the Hamas
operations were launched against innocent civilians. "By their own
admission, Israelis are a 'nation in arms.' In Israel, all men and
women are soldiers. They are all occupying troops," El-Qaradawi said,
referring to compulsory military service for all Israelis upon
reaching the age of 18 and reserve duty for men through age 55. " -
full article can be read at:
http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/564/eg5.htm and in Arabic at
Al-Jazeera website.
--------------------------
In contrast to Shaikh Al Qaradawi's position, here is a statement by
Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen against Suicide Bombings, in his explanation of
Riyaadus-Saaliheen (1/165-166) he says:
"That Allaah¹s Messenger, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, said, "There
used to be a king amongst those who came before you, and he had a
sorcerer. So when he grew old he said to the king, I have become old
so send a boy to me so that I can teach him sorcery" the hadeeth.
(Riyaadhus-Saaliheen, no. 30)
Fourthly: That it is permissible for a person to expose himself to
danger for a matter of general benefit to the Muslims, because the boy
indicated to the king the way in which he would be able to kill him,
and which would lead to his demise, which was that he should take an
arrow from his quiver etc.
Shaikhul-Islaam (Ibn Taymiyyah) said, "Because this was a Jihaad in
Allaah¹s cause, which caused a whole nation to truly believe, and he
did not really lose anything, since although he died he would have to
die anyway, sooner or later."
But as for what some people do regarding activities of suicide, tying
explosives to themselves and then approaching Unbelievers and
detonating them amongst them, then this is a case of suicide and
Allaah¹s refuge is sought. So whoever commits suicide then he will be
consigned eternally to Hell-Fire, remaining there forever, as occurs
in the hadeeth of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam. (i.e.,
his, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, saying, " and whoever kills himself
with an iron weapon, then the iron weapon will remain in his hand, and
he will continuously stab himself in his belly with it in the Fire of
Hell eternally, forever and ever." Reported by al-Bukhaaree, no. 5778
and Muslim, no. 109, in the Book of Eemaan.)
Because this person has killed himself and has not benefited Islaam.
So if he kills himself along with ten, or a hundred, or two hundred
other people, then Islaam will not benefit by that, since the people
will not accept Islaam, contrary to the story of the boy. Rather it
will probably just make the enemy more determined, and this action
will provoke malice and bitterness in his heart to such an extent that
he may seek to wreak havoc upon the Muslims.
This is what is found from the practice of the Jews with the people of
Palestine so when one of the Palestinian blows himself up and kills
six or seven people, then in retaliation they take sixty or more. So
this does not produce any benefit for the Muslims, and does not
benefit those amongst whose ranks explosives are detonated.
So what we hold is that those people who perform these suicide
(bombings) have wrongfully committed suicide, and that this
necessitates entry into Hell-Fire, and Allaah¹s refuge is sought and
that this person is not a martyr (shaheed). However if a person has
done this based upon misinterpretation, thinking that it is
permissible, then we hope that he will be saved from sin, but as for
martyrdom being written for him, then no, since he has not taken the
path of martyrdom. But whoever performs ijtihaad and errs will receive
a single reward (if he is a person qualified to make ijtihaad)."
----------------End of the Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen's
statement-----------------
An Observation:
What is the status of a Palestinian boy who is shot and killed while
throwing stone at Zionist soldiers. Do the west, the fifth column
among Muslims and
the Muslim apologist consider him a "Suicide Stone thrower", a Martyr
or a "Terrorist". During the first Intifada, when the palestinians
where fighting using stones, the Zionist occupiers used to label them
as terrorists and kill them. No Western nation dared to raise the
issue of terrorism then. Notice how the hands off position of Bush
administration has changed when the palestinians strated to create a
sense of fear in the hearts of the Zionists. Even the King of Morrocco
who is known to be close to the zionist entity, asked the US secratary
of state, Powel why he was not in Al Quds (Jerusalem) where the
killing is happening - alluding to the point that he was buying time
for Sharon to do as much damage as he can until Friday - his expected
arrival. Powel's main concern was the stopping of "Suicide bombing"
which has created fear among the zionist occupiers. His mission was to
try convincing the so called Arab moderates to put pressure on the
palestinians to stop the Martyrdom operations -Note that Powel and his
government where never moved when the worst treatments were directed
at the Palestinians, for the last several decades. How many brain
damaged and crippled toddlers, young boys and girls ... what about the
daily humuliations and torture of the adults of this forbearing, brave
palestinian population. If the role was reversed and the Zionist
occupiers were the victims, imagine how the west and the Zionists
would react.
One can get a hint from what has already happened: Europe victimized
the Jews and made the palestinians pay the price. When the agreement
was made, the zionists promissed the West that they would be a bulwark
against the barbarians of the middle east, and were given a free hand
to achieve their goal. This was achieved under the guise of the United
nations resolution which the west used to achieve wrong and step over
its authority when required to correct the wrong. The Zionist entity
was created because of the UN but the zionists and the US do not want
the UN to play a role concerning the palstinian issue - it is
considerd biased against the Zionist entity. Here is an example of
what was committed by the Zionists:
In his book A Study of History, famous British historian Arnold
Teonbey said "Slaughtering men, women and children in Deir Yassin at
the hands of Zionist Jews is one of the evil actions committed against
the Arabs of Palestine, which stands equal to those committed against
the Jews at the hands of the Nazi. This is in addition to the
following coercive expulsion of the Arabs from the areas Jewish armed
forces occupied during the period from May 10, 1948 to the end of the
year. Irgun is to be held responsible for the blood shed in Deir
Yassin while all Israel is responsible for the expulsion processes of
the Arabs after May 15, 1948".
Talk about terrorism or ethnic cleansing:
"I have heard with my own ears the Haganah men calling by loudspeakers
in Jerusalem in the aftermath of Deir Yassin massacre, with the road
to Jericho still open, You Arabs, choose between this way [namely
escape] or the same destiny of Deir Yassin," - General Globe said in
his book A Soldier with the Arabs.
Could the Zionists blame the Nazis after what they have committed in
palestine?
> > wa-llaahu 3alim
>
> Indeed, only God knows best!
>
> Wassalamu alaikum, `akhee.
>
> MENJ
> me...@maxis.net.my
> http://www.bismikaallahuma.org
Wa alaikum Asselaam Wa Ruhmetullah,
Saifu.
Shuaib
> shua...@yahoo.com (Shuaib) wrote:
>
> > Actually, I've read that Wahhabis tend to dismiss everyone they
> > disagree with as "Sufis".
>
> Just as anyone opposing the thinking of some "sufi" groups
> is conveniently dismissed as wahhabi or salafi.
That would be ridiculous. As well as the Wahhabis, some others who
are anti-Sufism are certain orientalists. It is interesting that in
their criticisms of Sufism, many Wahhabis follow word-for-word the
writings of Christian criticizers. Historically, Wahhabis have often
had closer ties to many Christians (like the British and US
Governments during the 20th Century) than they have had to other
Muslims.
In reality, Wahhabis consider anyone apart from themselves to be
polytheists, including other Muslims. This is why they prefer to call
themselves "Muwahhidun" - unitarians - which reflects their own
beliefs that everyone else, apart from themselves, are polytheists.
However, you only addressed a small, minor part of my post. The more
important part was showing how Wahhabis are in fact "polytheists"
according to their own teachings, and the element of anthropomorphism
(likening Allah to a human being) which is present in their beliefs.
Shuaib
saifu
Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, wasselaatu wassalamu 'alaa Resulillah,
> > Martyrdom operations are legitimate
>
> SV
> Suicide bombings are illegitimate and the work of those who have no
> understanding of Islam.
>
> > "The martyrdom operations executed by Mujahideen against the Zionist
> > enemy are legitimate operations based on the Book of Allah and the
> > Sunna of His prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and they are the
> > highest form of martyrdom and a path to Allah's satisfaction and paradise.
>
> SV
> This is the sort of thinking that has helped to weaken Muslims and
> turn the
> community away from the path of God.
>
> > From the Closing statement issued by Muslim Ulama, following
> > their Conference in Beirut during 25-26 Shawwal 1422 AH
>
> SV
> Then these Muslim Ulama are the worst of beasts.
To understand Saqib's objection one has to consider his background -
he is an Ahmadi - here is what he replied to my post, sometime ago:
"However, I am an Ahmadi Muslim. What exactly do you imagine we
believe? If I
understand you correctly, I suggest you reject your false and ignorant
notions of Islam in favor of something more enlightened. It is exactly
your
sort of medieval mindset that has brought the Islamic world to the
poor
state we find it in today.
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk"
He will not accept the ruling of Ahlussunnah Ullema. You are dealing
with a member of the fifth column in Islam. The fact that Ahmadis
(Qadyanis) believe that there a is a Prophet after the Messenger of
Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) in contradiction to the
irrefutable word of Allah(Subhanehu wa ta'alaa) and numerous Ahadith,
and what the Muslims believed since the time of Sahaba (ridwanullahi
'alaihim). According to this well established belief, anyone claiming
to be a Prophet of Allah is an impostor whose claim is contrary to the
teachings of Islam. Allah (Subhanehu wa ta'alaa) said:
"O people! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily, he is the
Apostle of God and the last in the line of Prophets. And God is Aware
of everything.
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the
Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full
knowledge of all things. " - Surah Al-Ahzab 40.
There will arise thirty impostors in my Ummah and each one of them
will pronounce to the world that he is a prophet, but I am the last in
the line of the Prophets of God and no Prophet will come after me.
(Abu Dawood, Tirmizi)
After a person has denied the words of Allah(Subhanehu wa ta'alaa) and
believed an "impsoter" - considered outside the pale of Islam -
discussing a Fiqh Issue with him would be a waste of time. Ahlussunnah
do not consider Ahmadis as Muslims and Ahmadis do not recognize
Ahlussunah Ullema rulings.
>
> The Holy Prophet was so insistent on the rules of war that he declared
> whoever did not observe them would fight not for God but for his own
> mean self. (Abu Duwad) I have posted an explanation detailing the
> Quranic injunctions concerning warfare, as I understand them, here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a8kdmm%24hrc%241%40samba.rahul.net
>
> >From the Quran we may derive the following:
>
> 1. War is to be resorted to only for the sake of God and not for
> selfish
> motives, not for agrandizement or for the advancement of any other
> interests.
It is to be expected from one who denied the finality of the Messenger
of Allah (sallalahu 'alahi wasallam). In the context of the
palestinian issue what happened to the Ayah - except if you are
claiming the palestinians to be the aggressors:
Here is an example from the Qur'an that relates the retaliation taken
againsts the Jews for their trachery againts the Islamic state in
Madina. What if they did what they are doing to the palestinians
today...
"And those of the people of the Scripture (Jews) who backed them (the
disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror
into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group
(of them) you made captives.
And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their
riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is
Able to do all things. " - Surah Al Ahzab 26 - 27.
"And fight in the Way of Allâh those who fight you, but transgress
not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors.
And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where
they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. " -
Surah al Baqara.
> 9. No disfigurement of face is permitted. (Bukhari and Muslim)
> 10. The least possible losses should be inflicted on the enemy. (Abu
> Duwad)
> 11. When prisoners of war are put under guard the closely related
> should be
> put together. (Abu Duwad)
> 12. Prisoners should live in comfort. Muslim should care less for
> their own
> comfort than the comfort of the prisoners. (Tirmidhi)
> 13. Emissaries and delegates from other countries should be held in
> great
> respect. Any mistakes or discourtesies they commit should be ignored.
> (Abu
> Duwad)
> 14. If a Muslim commits the sin of ill-treating a prisoner of war,
> atonement
> is to be made by releasing the prisoner without any form or ransom.
Why do use the same Authority that you and your leaders reject:
Why do the Ahmad/Qadyani ignore the Authority of the Ahadith
confirming the finality of the the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu
'alaihi wasallam):
The following Ahadith of Prophet Muhammad(Sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam)
deal with the issue of Finality of Prophethood:
"My position in relation to the prophets who came before me can be
explained by the following example: A man erected a building and
adorned this edifice with great beauty, but he left an empty niche, in
the corner where just one brick was missing. People looked around the
building and marveled at its beauty, but wondered why a brick was
missing from that niche? I am like unto that one missing brick and I
am the last in the line of the Prophets."
(Bukhari, Muslim,Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad, Tirmizi, Babu
Khatimin-Nabiyyin, Musnad Abu Dawud Tayalisi)
Allah has bestowed upon me six favors which the former Prophets did
not enjoy:
"I have been endowed with the gift of pithy and perfect speech.
I was granted victory owing to my awe.
The spoils of war were made lawful unto me.
The whole earth has been made the place of worship for me and it has
become the means of purification for me also. In other words, in my
religion, offering of prayers is not confined to certain specified
places of worship. Prayers can be offered at any place over the earth.
And in case water is not available, it is lawful for my people to
perform ablutions with earth (Tayammum) and to cleanse themselves with
the soil, if water for bathing is scarce.
I have been sent by Allah to carry His Divine message to the whole
world.
And the line of prophets has come to its final end in me.
(Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah)
I am Muhammad, I am Ahmad, I am the effacer and infidelity shall be
erased through me; I am the assembler. People shall be assembled on
Doomsday after my time. And I am the last in the sense that no prophet
shall succeed me."
(Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Muatta')
You (Hazrat Ali) are related to me as Aaron was related to Moses
(pbuh). But no Apostle will come after me. (Bukhari, Muslim Musnad
recorded a similar hadith ending in 'Behold there is no prophethood
after me.')
The tribe of Israel was guided by prophets. When a prophet passed
away, another prophet succeeded him. But no prophet will come after
me; only caliphs will succeed me. (Bukhari)
I am the last in line of the prophets of Allah and my Masjid is the
last Masjid.
(Muslim)
The chain of Messengers and Prophets has come to an end. There shall
be no Messenger nor Prophet after me. (Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad, Anas
bin Malik)
There will arise thirty impostors in my Ummah and each one of them
will pronounce to the world that he is a prophet, but I am the last in
the line of the Prophets of God and no Prophet will come after me.
(Abu Dawood, Tirmizi)
Allah will send no Apostle after me, but only Mubashshirat (Good
vision or pious vision). (Musnad Ahmad, Abu Tufail, Nasa'i, Abu Dawud)
No Prophet will come after me and there will, therefore, be no other
community of followers of any new Prophet. (Baihaqi, Tabarani)
Allah Almighty hath sent unto the world no apostle who did not warn
his people about the appearance of Dajjal (Anti-Christ, but Dajjal did
not appear in their time). I am the last in the line of Prophets and
you are the last community of believers. Without doubt, then, Dajjal
shall appear from amongst you.
(Ibn Majah)
I am Muhammad, the unlettered prophet of Allah. I am Muhammad, the
unlettered prophet of Allah. I am Muhammad, the unlettered prophet of
Allah. There will be no prophet after me. (Musnad Ahmad)
Saifu,
saifu
Bismillah, Walhamdulillah, Wassalatu Wassalaam 'alaa resulillah,
> This shows you don't really know what's happening. "Wahhabi" and
> "Wahhabism" are widely used and accepted terms.
>
> For example, check the Merriam Webster Dictionary at
> http://www.m-w.com . If you look up "Wahhabi", you will read:
>
> Wahhabi
> a member of a puritanical Muslim sect founded in Arabia in the 18th
> century by Muhammad ibn-Abdul Wahhab and revived by ibn-Saud in the
> 20th century
>
Do you take your religion from Dictionary, and a Non-Muslim one at
that. Would you accept the western description of Islam and Muslims
as "Muhammadan"? The objection was about the application of the lebel
"Wahabi" and not where it is found. Shaitan has his ways of misleading
people and one of his ways is to beautify evil deeds for them. How
else can a name that is drived from the name of Al-Wahhab "The Giver
of All", be used to spread falshood.
> You will also find the term "Wahhabi" and "Wahhabism" in many other
> dictionaries.
>
Sufi claimers joining the Kuffar is not a good evidence of the
validity of a lebel.
> According to Omar's argument, the compilers of these dictionaries must
> be "Sufis" - which sounds like a pretty ludicrous argument to me,
> stemming more from ignorance than from knowledge.
>
We may be talking about the type of "Sufis" who compete for followers
(or souls) to guide them to the worship of other than Allah. Let us
not dwell on what Imam Abdulwahab may have said or done. Let us turn
the scrutiny elsewhere. Why don't you tell us what you think of a
"Sufi" claimer who says:
" Many people will suffer in their graves, on the Day of resurrection
and in the fires of Hell. Absolute Justice will reprieve both body and
soul from punishment, and forgiveness will be granted; but from those
dirty actions which have come out of the interaction of body and soul,
Allah will create shapes in the exact likeness of the sinners to
represent them in Hell. This likeness or effigy will be just as dirty
as those actions were, and it will stay in Hell until it is cleaned.
In the face of this punishment, one will suffer intensely - this shame
will be so great, and at that time so difficult to bear, that he will
wish for the Earth to swallow him" - Mercy Oceans' Hidden Treasures,
Teachings of Sheikh Abdullah Ad-Daghistani, by our Master Sheikh Nazim
Al-Qubrusi Page 138.
Would you have something to say to Nazim Al Qubrusi when he says that
it is the likness or effigy that would burn in hell fire. Since Nazim
al qubrusi claims to be a Sufi let us see how harsh or lenient your
critisism would be - assuming you have the inclination to do so. Would
you excuse him like another Nazim Al Qubrusi follower (Dr. GF Haddad)
did in defence of Ibn Al Arabi:
"Ibn Arabi
Dr. GF Haddad
>Ibn 'Arabi says in Dhakhaairul-A'laaq (p.93):
>"Before today, I used to criticise my companion if my religion was
not the one
>which he followed. But my heart changed to accept every image, so
pastures for
>the carefree lovers and convents for the monks. A house of idols and
the idol
>house at Taa'if, the tablets of the Torah and the mushaf of the
Qur'aan. I
>follow the religion of love wherever it takes me, so all religion is
my
>religion and belief."
The above is an adaptation from lines of poetry from Ibn `Arabi's work
Tarjuman al-Ashwaq ("The Translator of Yearnings"). Its style is
highly lyrical and meaning evidently metaphorical. It would be very
unfair or rather strange for this slim book to be adduced as precise
evidence of a particular belief or used as a proof against Ibn
`Arabi's own statement of doctrine in his massive Futuhat
al-Makkiyya."
------------- end of Dr. GF Haddad's words -----------
What is your view of what Ibn Arabi said?
Here is what the Scholars of Ahlusunnah said, about Ibn Arabi:
Shaykh al-Islam also said:
"When the faqeeh Abu Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam came to Cairo
and they asked him about Ibn ‘Arabi, he said: 'He is a vile and
evil shaykh who says that the world is eternal and does not see
anything haraam in any sexual relationship.' " - see Al Bidaya wa
annihaya, By Al Hafidh At Dhahabi.
Al Hafidh Ibn Hajar said:
"Some confusing words of Ibn ‘Arabi were mentioned to our master
Shaykh al-Islam Siraaj al-Deen al-Balqeeni, and he was asked about Ibn
‘Arabi. Our Shaykh al-Balqeeni said: he is a kaafir."
> Actually, I've read that Wahhabis tend to dismiss everyone they
> disagree with as "Sufis". Perhaps this is the real basis of Omar's
> ignorant comments here.
>
> > Salafi persists and most "salafis" are self-declared. You'll even hear
> > them saying, "He's not a salafi", like, he's just a poseur.
> >
> > While some people criticize salafis for being politically indifferent
> > and largely concerned with the length of their beards and especially
> > those of others, the minimum legal hight of trouser legs, and whether
> > to use miswak in the mornings or in the afternoons in Ramadan, others
> > declare that they are political extremists who fly planes into tall
> > buildings, so go figure.
>
> These two are not mutually exclusive. A person can conceivably both
> be obsessed with the "minimum legal height of trouser legs" as well as
> "fly planes into tall buildings".
>
> So Omar's puzzlement here just seems irrational.
>From what I understand of Omar's point, that there many groups which
are labeled as "Wahhabi" or "Salafi" and they do not have the same
characterstics which brings us to the point: "used almost exclusively
by Sufis as an
invective that they spew at virtually anyone they happen to dislike.".
I would add the Russians who label the Chechen Mujahideen as "Wahabi".
As Omar pointed out that the "Salafi" who is "largely concerned with
the length of their beards " do oppose the "extremists who fly planes
into tall buildings", I believe the latter to be the forein Mujahideen
and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
You seem to be obsessed with the "Wahhabi" and "salafi" although you
do not know who they are. I recall your post where you express your
surprise how the Arab Mujahideen and the Taliban were able to
cooperate. Then and now, your concern was about something that you
have no thorough understanding although the burning issue of out time
is that Muslims are being massacred everywhere, Palestine,
Afghanistan, Chechnya, etc. Here is an excerpt from your previous
post:
--------------- start Shuaib's words --------------
"It seems to me that there was a significant difference between the
Taliban and al-Qaeda, though as time went by it seems Mullah Omar was
influenced more and more by Osama bin Laden in his thinking. What I'm
thinking of specifically here is the destruction by the Taliban of
those large Buddha-statues in Afghanistan. There are articles
published a few years ago which quote Mullah Omar saying that the
Taliban would not destroy these statues. However by 2001 he had
obviously changed his mind, and I am speculating that this change of
mind of his may be due to Osama bin Laden / Wahhabi-influence in his
train of thought.
Anyhow, it seems to me that there are significant differences between
Deobandi thought and Wahhabi thought, yet over time the Taliban were
moving closer to Wahhabi thought, perhaps under the influence of Osama
bin Laden and his al-Qaeda advisors.
What are the differences between Deobandi Islam and Wahhabi Islam?
------------------------------ End Shaib's words --------
To the above, I replied - hoping that you benifit from it and gain
understanding to learn how to verify teachings that are in accordance
with Islam and not because the "Wahhabi" or the "deobandi" said it:
" The source of influence comes from Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa) and
his Messenger (sallalahu 'alahi Wa sallam). And the ayah that confirms
this principle is found in the Qur'an:
"...(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to
Allaah and His Messenger (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam), if you believe
in Allaah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for
final determination. " Surah aN-Nis'a 59.
>
> One of Ibn abd al-Wahhab's more interesting innovations in religion
> >from "Kitab al-Tawhid" is:
>
> - Mentioning the "two hands of Allah" - something which is not
> supported by Qur'an or hadiths (chapter 67).
>
> Neither the Qur'an nor the hadiths gives Allah s.w.t. a specific
> number of "hands" the way Ibn abd al-Wahhab does.
>
Do you read the Qur'an? I do not know how you interpret the word
yadayy in the verse lima khalaktu bi yadayy which is literally "for
what I created with My two Hands". In your understanding of the Arabic
language, what does Yadayy signify.
> According to Wahhabis, taqlid [which some call "blind following"] is a
> form of shirk [polytheism].
Could you provide reference to the book where we can find the alleged,
"taqlid [which some call "blind following"] is a form of shirk
[polytheism]."
Here is an example from the saying of a Shaikh that you would consider
a "Wahhabi" - Shaykh Saalih al Fawzaan, said:
"As for the permissible form of blind-following (at-taqleedul-mubaah),
then it is for the common person ('Aamee) who, if he does not follow
the people of knowledge, then he will stray from the path. Allaah, the
Mighty and Majestic, said:
Ask the people of knowledge if you do not know. [an-Nahl 16:43]
And taqleed is not done to just anyone. Rather, it is done to one who
is acredited with knowledge and piety and is known to the people for
this. "
I provided one clear statement that shows the people that you label,
"Wahabi" do not support your allegation. And this pending that you
provide the evidence which you fail to post.
A remote association of Shirk and Taqlid could be implied from what
Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimahullaah) said:
"How strange it is that a people who know the chain of narratiuon of a
hadeeth and its authenticity, yet still they follow the opinion of
Sufyaan [ath-Thawree] (one of the Imam of his time); even though
Allaah, the Exalted, said:
Let those beware, who oppose the command of the Messenger, lest some
trial (fitnah) befalls them, or a painful punishment is inflicted upon
them." - Surah anNur 63.
Fitnah in the above Ayah could be understood to be shirk!
> On this basis, those who accept this
> statement by Ibn abd al-Wahhab, that Allah has "two hands", are by
> their own criteria worshipping Ibn abd al-Wahhab and are polytheists,
> since such a statement does not occur in the Qur'an or hadiths but is
> his own innovation.
>
You need to use tricks to interpret the Ayah, "lima khalaktu bi yadayy
which is literally " to mean other than what Imama Ibn Abdulwahab said
- Allah Subhanehu wa Ta'alaa says: "for what I created with My two
Hands".
> So, from their own arguments, we see that Ibn abd al-Wahhab is himself
> an innovator in religion, and any who follow him is a polytheist.
>
Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) said that one should not speak to people what
they are unable to understand. Do not discuss with them things which
are beyond their intellectual capacities. " and he also added: "Do
you wish them to refute Allah and His Rasool?" Some people will not
hesitate to reject such Deeni narrations which they are unable to
comprehend.
Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud (radhiyallahu anhu said): "When you mention to
people such things which are beyond their intellectual capacities,
then such talks will most certainly become a cause for the corruption
of some people."
No evidence provided to support your conclusion. Your accusation is a
serious one and you need to be able to support your allegation with
some evidence that can stand scrutiny. The Qur'an says "Two Hands" and
I do not know how you can read it diffrently. I do not believe the
"salafi" or "Wahabi" say " Taqlid is a form of shirk [polytheism]".
Provide evidence.
> For this post, I've referred to the translation "Kitab At-Tawhid",
> translated and published by Dar-us-Salam Publications, Riyadh, Saudi
> Arabia (published in 1996/1416).
>
I have read the book which is alos available on line at:
http://www.islamworld.net/ketab.html#II but you need to quote some
text so that one can verify your allegation.
> Shuaib
Saifu,
Saqib Virk
>
>> SV
>> Suicide bombings are illegitimate and the work of those who have no
>> understanding of Islam.
>
> now :) - differs.
>
>>> their Conference in Beirut during 25-26 Shawwal 1422 AH
>>
>> SV
>> Then these Muslim Ulama are the worst of beasts.
>
> "The believers are nothing else than brothers. So make reconciliation
> between your brothers, and fear Allâh, that you may receive mercy." [
> 49:10 Interpretation of Meaning]
SV
"And yet satan has led astray of you a great multitude. Did you not
then apply your reason? This is the Hell with which you were
threatened." [Quran 36:62-63]
"Surely, the worst of beasts in the sight of ALLAH are the deaf and
the dumb, who have no reason." [Quran 8:22]
--
Waslaaam,
Saqib Virk
vmi...@yahoo.com
> However, you only addressed a small, minor part of my post. The more
> important part was showing how Wahhabis are in fact "polytheists"
> according to their own teachings, and the element of anthropomorphism
> (likening Allah to a human being) which is present in their beliefs.
I am sorry. But wahabbis are not my obsession anymore than sufis, salafis,
sunnis, shiis, neo-salafis, or whatever else. And if they, indeed, are
polytheists, I am sure they are not the only group, among the so-called
muslims, tainted with this abomination.
wasSalam
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Saqib Virk"
>
> He will not accept the ruling of Ahlussunnah Ullema. You are dealing
> with a member of the fifth column in Islam. The fact that Ahmadis
> (Qadyanis) believe that there a is a Prophet after the Messenger of
> Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) in contradiction to the
> irrefutable word of Allah(Subhanehu wa ta'alaa) and numerous Ahadith,
> and what the Muslims believed since the time of Sahaba (ridwanullahi
> 'alaihim). According to this well established belief, anyone claiming
> to be a Prophet of Allah is an impostor whose claim is contrary to the
> teachings of Islam. Allah (Subhanehu wa ta'alaa) said:
>
Wa salaam
Actually, this is an example of the ignorance of saifu. There
originated two separate movements within the community of Ghulam Mirza
of Qadian. The Ahmadiyya branched off from the Qadianis because the
Qadianis proclaimed Mirza Ghulam a Prophet. The split by the Ahmadis
was lead by the learned scholar, Muhammad Ali (R), whose monumental
works on Islam are recognized with the circle of 'ahlus-sunnah' and
outside the circle. He wrote a monumental defense on the finality of
Prophethood, and it probably one of the best written, even better than
Maulana Maududi's (R) defense in my opinion, because it deals heavily
with the linguistical aspects. His best works include The Religion of
Islam and His monumental tafseer on the Quran. He also claimed that
Mirza Ghulam never claimed he was the Last Prophet, and the view is
that Ghulam Ahmed was the Mahdi. It is not strange than many sufi
movements have claimed similar things with respect to their leaders,
and to claim ahmedis as being kaffir on this fact is not even
justified and would be turning a blind eye to Islamic history in
general.
>From my understanding, even Maulana Maududi recognized the division
between the two groups and considered the Qadianis only as being
non-Muslim. Is it not time that people learn to take the good from
what people say. Undoubtedly people will lose out if they choose not
to learn from a man like Muhammad Ali, despite disagreeing with him in
some respects. Picktall priased him, and even the great Islamic poet,
Iqbal (R) praised him for his work The Religion of Islam as being
almost indispensable.
Wa salaam
asimm...@yahoo.com
> vmi...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<a90p1i$fqt$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> > shua...@yahoo.com (Shuaib) wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, I've read that Wahhabis tend to dismiss everyone they
> > > disagree with as "Sufis".
> >
> > Just as anyone opposing the thinking of some "sufi" groups
> > is conveniently dismissed as wahhabi or salafi.
>
> That would be ridiculous. As well as the Wahhabis, some others who
> are anti-Sufism are certain orientalists. It is interesting that in
> their criticisms of Sufism, many Wahhabis follow word-for-word the
> writings of Christian criticizers. Historically, Wahhabis have often
> had closer ties to many Christians (like the British and US
> Governments during the 20th Century) than they have had to other
> Muslims.
If one reads the history of the British in India, it is
well-acknowledged that the term wahhabi was introudced by the British
for anyone that opposed their rule. Many of the staunchest opponents
to the British rule were Deobandis and 'well-qualified' in sufiism,
and they were labelled wahhabi. It really depends on the context in
which the statement is used. In the subcontinent, it is NOT used for
followers of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, but is used by Brelvis against
Deobandis, and by the Deobandis against ahl-hadeeth. Deobandis
consider Brelvis as people of bidah, and ahl-hadeeth consider both as
people of bidah. But the ahl-hadeeth acknowledge the Deobandis as
strict unitarians, i.e. muwahids.
But what is clear here is that this dishing out of titles is on both
sides, and that is the point the brother was making. There is nothing
one-sided about the issues. I have personally witnessed Brelvis call
Deobandis as wahhabis, yet the Deobandis follow sufiism and are strict
muqallids, followers of Abu Hanifa.
Albert B. Bach
proud of the actions of His chosen people.
Just today 5 Jews were killed, 90 wounded, at Jerusalem's Mahane
Yehuda open-air market.
The Qur'an says
2.111 And they say: "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a
Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof
if ye are truthful."
2.112 Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to Allah and is a doer of
good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear,
nor shall they grieve.
This woman who martyred herself today in Jerusalem, paradise is her
destination.
56.35-37 We have created (their Companions) of special creation. And
made them virgin - pure (and undefiled), - Beloved (by nature), equal
in age,- For the Companions of the Right Hand.
abdulb...@hotmail.com (Abdul Aziz) wrote in message news:<a90rub$gc5$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> sv...@hotmail.com (Saqib Virk) wrote in message news:<a8tlod$qsk$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>
> > Suicide bombings are illegitimate and the work of those who have no
> > understanding of Islam.
> >
>
> Assalam Aliakum.
>
> The above is your opinion. My own view - which should be well known by
> now :) - differs.
>
> Another scholar - The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ahmed al-Tayyeb - has
> recently affirmed the validity of fidayee attacks as used by groups
> such as Hamas, calling them "the highest form of martyrdom."
>
<snip>
hook
> sv...@hotmail.com (Saqib Virk) wrote in message news:<a8tlod$qsk$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> > "Abdul Aziz" <abdulb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a80j2i$jn3$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> he is an Ahmadi
Anyone who would refer to (the alleged "prophet") Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
as a "reformer of Islam" is obviously an Ahmadi. I am sure that Abdul
Aziz worked that out after reading this post by Saqib:
Moin Ahmed
> shua...@yahoo.com (Shuaib) wrote:
>
> > However, you only addressed a small, minor part of my post. The more
> > important part was showing how Wahhabis are in fact "polytheists"
> > according to their own teachings, and the element of anthropomorphism
> > (likening Allah to a human being) which is present in their beliefs.
Why is it important on your (or our) part to show that Wahabis are
polytheists?
Since you yourself have not elaborated on this issue I can only make a
reasonable conjecture on how you presumably might proceed to "show"
anthropomorphism is present in Wahabi beliefs. Your logic might be
something like this: 1) Wahabis are literalists 2) Certain sentences
in the Quran mention about "hands" or "face" of God; e.g. Verse 2:15
says: "To God belongs the east and the west. Whichever way you turn
there is the face of God. He is omnipresent and omniscient." 3)
Therefore, Wahabis, because they are literalists, take this verse at
its face value and really think that God has a face like a human
being.
But the above "reasoning" is just a forcible attempt on your part to
superimpose anthropomorphism in Wahabi beliefs. Are you privy to the
ACTUAL beliefs of each and every Wahabi? Then how do you know a
Wahabi must necessarily be guilty of anthropomorphism just because he
is literalist. BTW, Wahabis usually regard medieval "development" of
kalaam (theology) nothing more than a sophistry. Therefore, it is
highly unlikely a Wahabi would make any possible gesture about the
nature of God, anthromorphic or whatever.
By using a logic similar to the one that I have employed above, it can
similarly be claimed that certain sufi practices are polytheism, e.g.
visiting the graves of the dead as a religious duty or "fanaafillah"
stage in the meditation where the meditator integrates with God.
Certainly there can always be some souls who can be guilty of
anthromorphism. But there is no need to "show" that all Wahabis are as
such. Similarly no need to abominate every sufi people either.
> I am sorry. But wahabbis are not my obsession anymore than sufis, salafis,
> sunnis, shiis, neo-salafis, or whatever else. And if they, indeed, are
> polytheists, I am sure they are not the only group, among the so-called
> muslims, tainted with this abomination.
Well said Viqar Ahmed.
Wassalam,
Moin Ahmed.
surayya
>To talk about sin as a state-of-being is not at all the same as the
>idea of original sin, or sin being an ontological part of the human
>condition.
Absolutely. I'm amazed you were picked up on it.
There was nothing wrong Islamically in your statement.
The idea that humans are perfect and born in such 'perfectedness' is
something which has been grossly exaggerated and distorted by muslims
out of sheer ego and vanity. When we hear muslims cite that, we know
that certain character failures are present, its one of the indications.
Its led to certain erroneous cultures surrounding child-rearing, and
many other related problems.
thebit
Abdul Aziz wrote:
> I believe the requirements have been given by Sheikh Abdullah Azzam
> (shaheed) in Ilhaq bil-qawafilah (Join the Caravan) and Al-Difa` `an
> Aradi al-Muslimeen (Defence of Muslim Lands).
Yes. I too can give an opinion of a scholar. I believe the requirements are given by people like Ameen
Ahsan Islahi. But what good would that do? We would end going round in circles. In that instance I look
at the reality of things. The reality of Jihad led without an organised collective is chaos. Bosnia,
Kashmir, Palestine etc. have, unfortunately, been failures. Before that we had Afganistan, which failed
too. In each of these instances, Muslims never really gained any victories. Either the land was carved
up, or the persecution against the Muslims was increased. A war under one leader, under a person who has
legitimacy over a piece of land removes the chaos brought about by warfare.
> > Another point is that
> > not one Palestinian group, to my knowledge, has called for an "Islamic" society. Can you tell me of
> > anyone who has?
>
> Hamas. See their founding charter.
<snipped Hamas charter for brevity>
I stand corrected then.
> As regards other groups, Hamas says, for example of the PLO:
The PLO is not, and this I know for a fact, a "religious" group or organisation. It is secular. The same
can be said for the groups serving under it.
> Also, in regard to non-Muslims:
>
> "[...]The members of other religions must desist from struggling
> against Islam over sovereignty in this region."
I somehow doubt the PFLP see it that way.
> Allah (SWT) knows best.
>
> Abdul Aziz
asalaamu `alaykum
Abdul Aziz
> asalaamu `alaykum
Waliakum Salaam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatu
> at the reality of things. The reality of Jihad led without an organised collective is chaos. Bosnia,
> Kashmir, Palestine etc. have, unfortunately, been failures. Before that we had Afganistan, which failed
> too.
>
In terms of the ultimate victory - that of attaining Paradise - the
situation is, Insha'Allah, very different. Those who have undertaken
Jihad will, Insha'Allah, be rewarded.
I believe we should consider this perspective - of Jannah - as well as
that of temporal victories or defeats, which victories or defeats
occur not because of us but because of Allah (SWT).
What really matters for us is that we strive to do what Allah (SWT)
has commanded us to do. In situations like occupied Palestine and
Afghanistan, this means Jihad.
"And they who believe and do what has been commanded, will be in those
Gardens underneath which rivers flow. That is the greatest achievement
of all." [85:11 Interpretation of Meaning]
"Let those who would trade the life of this world for the life
Hereafter fight in the Cause of Allah. And those who do fight in the
Cause of Allah - whether they be killed or are victorious - will have
bestowed on them, by Us, a great reward." [4: 74 Interpretation of
Meaning.]
Saqib Virk
>> Suicide bombings are illegitimate and the work of those who have no
>> understanding of Islam.
>>
>>
>>> "The martyrdom operations executed by Mujahideen against the Zionist
>>> enemy are legitimate operations based on the Book of Allah and the
>>> Sunna of His prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and they are the
>>> highest form of martyrdom and a path to Allah's satisfaction and
>>> paradise.
>>
>>
>> SV
>> This is the sort of thinking that has helped to weaken Muslims and
>> turn the community away from the path of God.
>>
>>
>>> From the Closing statement issued by Muslim Ulama, following
>>> their Conference in Beirut during 25-26 Shawwal 1422 AH
>>
>>
>> SV
>> Then these Muslim Ulama are the worst of beasts.
>
>
> To understand Saqib's objection one has to consider his background -
> he is an Ahmadi - here is what he replied to my post, sometime ago:
SV
You mean your post that appeared to advocate aggression in the name of
Islam? When you appeared to equate peacefulness with Ahmadi Muslims?
**********
JEREMIAH
> Guns are not the face of The Compassionate.
> Bombs are not the way of salvation.
SAIFU
> This is not Islam, it is Penticostal Christian or Ahmadi (Qadyani)
> belief.
SV
> "However, I am an Ahmadi Muslim. What exactly do you imagine we
> believe? If I understand you correctly, I suggest you reject your false
> and ignorant notions of Islam in favor of something more enlightened.
> It is exactly your sort of medieval mindset that has brought the
> Islamic world to the poor state we find it in today.
**********
> He will not accept the ruling of Ahlussunnah Ullema.
SV
Do you consider yourself bound by their rulings?
> The fact that Ahmadis (Qadyanis) believe that there a is a
> Prophet after the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam)
> in contradiction to the irrefutable word of Allah(Subhanehu wa
> ta'alaa) and numerous Ahadith, and what the Muslims believed
> since the time of Sahaba (ridwanullahi 'alaihim). According to this
> well established belief, anyone claiming to be a Prophet of Allah
> is an impostor whose claim is contrary to the teachings of Islam.
SV
And yet you wait for a prophet to come. Correct? You wait for the Messiah,
do you not? Will the Messiah not be a prophet when he comes?
>> 1. War is to be resorted to only for the sake of God and not for
>> selfish motives, not for agrandizement or for the advancement of
>> any other interests.
>
> It is to be expected from one who denied the finality of the Messenger
> of Allah (sallalahu 'alahi wasallam). In the context of the
> palestinian issue what happened to the Ayah - except if you are
> claiming the palestinians to be the aggressors:
SV
I do not claim the Palestinians are aggressors. They are the clear victims
of oppression and they have the right to defend themselves. My argument was
against the indiscriminate killing of civilians and non-combatants, which
Islam forbids.
> Why do use the same Authority that you and your leaders reject:
>
> Why do the Ahmad/Qadyani ignore the Authority of the Ahadith
> confirming the finality of the the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu
> 'alaihi wasallam):
>
> The following Ahadith of Prophet Muhammad(Sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam)
> deal with the issue of Finality of Prophethood:
SV
Ahmadi Muslims do not reject the hadith. Whether any prophet will come after
Muhammad is not even an issue between us. We both believe that the Messiah,
a PROPHET, will indeed return AFTER Muhammad has passed away, so you
yourself contravene your own beliefs when you declare there will be no more
prophets. In essence, it is the identity of the Messiah which is the issue
between Ahmadi Muslims and non-Ahmadis. Otherwise, all Muslims believe that
no prophet can come who abolishes the creed and shariah of Muhammad, and
Ahmadi Muslims, as did many Muslims scholars of the past, believe that
Muhammad is the most exalted of all the prophets, whose prophethood was the
culmination and perfection of prophethood, and no prophet can ever come who
surpasses him in any form or type of excellence.
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk