> Sunni Response Disecting Kharijite Thought on Jihad and Geo-Politics

[al-boriqee]

The following is a deciphering of a reply which I believe is by the Saudi Shaykh Hamood bin Uqla ash-Shu'aybee, may Allah guide him to the right path.

Dear Tawfique,
as-Salaam ‘Alaykum.
I hope my message reaches you in strong Iman and health.
I understand the points you made in the article, however, there are some points that need to be reconsidered from the side of those who wish to tackle terrorism. I hope you consider some thought to my points and respond likewise, In Sha’ Allah:
1. Who exactly are you referring to when you use the word ‘terrorist?’ What groups are you referring to? And are all Jihad groups today, terrorists? Are there any Jihad groups which are not terrorists/Is there a legitimate Jihad in our world today? I believe an honest researched answer only produces honest results.

Firstly, before continuing, I hereby explicitly state that my response is not in defence of Tawfiq for a number of reasons, mainly because I do not know the individual, do I consider myself to be the replica of these questions by which they somehoe pertain to my beliefs or way of thinking simply because Im not a modernist, Im a "salafist".

1. I dislike the use of the word "terrorist" as it is a plot and a term invented by the kuffar to label anyone who has or initiated a struggle against foreign occupation. That is the first plot of the kuffar is to label their opponents titles that willl dupe the people who are neutral to be in "agreement" and side with the war mongering kuffar. The use of the term "terrorist" in the language of the Sunni world are those who have brought forth havoc in the name of jihad and practiced what was nothing but tyranny in the name of Jihad. Hence this is one fundamental reason why our father, the "salafist" Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbadd has written a book with the title "with what rationale are explosions and destruction, jihad"
In other words, Jihad is ine one valley, and havoc makers are in another field.
2. No, not all who partake in jihad are to be called terrorists.
3. the first blunder is the idea of something called "jihad groups". NO, rather there are armed groups who happen to claim the banner of Jihad.

Jihaad may be divided into two sections:
A) The First: Jihaad of Conquest (Jihad at-Talib). Its following conditions from the sharee‘ah must be fulfilled [for it to be valid]:
i. The Imaam
ii. The State
iii. The Banner
B) The Second: Defensive Jihaad (Jihad ad-Daf). It is an individual obligation (fard ‘aynee) on all citizens of the country invadedby the attacking enemy [to repel them]. If they are unable, those neighboring them must help them from among the people where [the Muslim lines] are breached, and so on and so forth.

4. Is there any legitimate jihad today. Yes. the jihad of our brother in Philasteen and our brothers in Iraq who happen to be fighting both the occupiers and the disbelieving shia, may Allah rip them apart. Likewise our brothers in Chechnya

2. The majority of terrorists today follow well-known and well-established rulings from the classical and contemporary ‘Ulema

That is blatently satanic fabrication. They "DONT" follow the classical scholars and they definately do not follow contemporary ulema. Secondly, the rulings that they do follow have been warped or were slanted from their actual overall views and this is one of the main characteristics of the khawaarij is that they misconstrue issues making general what is in reality purely specific.

If you study their works - such as productions from As-Sahab Media, Magazines such as Sawt al-Jihad, publication groups such as At-Tibyan Publications - it becomes clear, very quickly, that these Muslims are well-grounded in knowledge from the ‘Ulema.

another bold face lie. i have seen some issues on sawtul-jihad and have mainly been aquinted with the writings of Tibyaan publications.

Ash'aris and modernist can quite classical scholars who have stated quotes that seem to favor their corrupt opinions as well. What tibyan mainly does is to purport a specific view of a scholar to the exclusion of their entire views on the subject.

So I hope there is no agenda here to say that the terrorists of our world have turned their backs on the ‘Ulema because they themselves preach to each other and all Muslims to follow the Salaf as-Saalih, and all the Imam’s and Scholars of Guidance.

lets see who they are and who they erroneously follow

In classical scholarship, they follow a plethora of Scholars - too many to list here -, but just to name a few whom they are big on are as follows:
a. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah
b. Imam Ibn al-Qayyim
c. Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab
d. Ibn Katheer

thats funny because their actions nor their understanding do not seem to match the fahm of these scholars, rather those who these qa'eda sympathizers deem as munafiqeen and "madkhalis" are those who mirror the very fundamentals of these scholars and their views.

As for the contemporary Scholars that they are big on - and again, this list is too big to put here - some of them are as follows:
a. Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi

since when did Maqdisi qualify as an alim.

b. Shaykh ‘Ali ibn Khudhayr Al-Khudhayr

a shaykh who opposes the millah of the senior rabbani scholars

c. Shaykh ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Azzam

is nothing like the qaeda types and who has even mentioned the difference between the actual mujahideen of Afghanistan and those who came later with OBL.

d. Shaykh Hamud ibn ‘Uqla ash-Shu’aybi

a shaykh who has left the millah in this very issue and has adopted khariji thought at the expense of sunni thought.

e. Imam Anwar al-’Awlaki

who has absolutely no islamic educaion except for the books he has read.

3. There is a huge discrepancy between what the terrorists report in their media and what the non-Muslims report in theirs

that is definately agreed.

. Since we live in a globalized world, it is very easy to believe everything the media tells us about the terrorists. For example, the bombings we see happening all the time in the market places of Iraq; all of the major Jihadi groups (even the one affiliated with al-Qaa’idah) have condemned these bombings and have repeatedly asked, ‘Why would our soldiers travel thousands of miles from their families and homes to kill other Muslim families? It is outrageous and is undoubtedly Haram in the Shari’ah’ etc. There have been even some Western Journalists, such as Robert Fisk, who have a feeling that it is the Americans/British that are behind the false-flag operations.

that is fine and understood. not all that happens is to be believed it is from qa'eda. that does not entertain the fact of those operations which qa'eda did perform which resulted in the very same damage. Secondly, those of the sunni word who commnt on the terrosim of qa'eda are mainly restricted within the realm of performing operations wtihin a muslim state targerting governments and their places of operation when it has not been established that the government has made absolute kufr al-bawah that Alaamah Ibn Jibren commented upon.

So, do we totally reject what the terrorists have to say just because we believe they are terrorists?

so, that is what the kuffar do and those who wish to follow them. Our way is to hear what they say, and then blast it into the pits of inacceptence with pure unadulterated sunnism.

4. I don’t think the term Khawaarij would be the appropriate label for them in our lexicon

Yes, it is and I will demonstrate it below within the replies to the rest.

I say this from studying their works; they simply don’t have the ‘Aqeedah of the Khawaarij.

we'll see

You’ll have to be extremely specific on this.

of course

For instance, if we are talking about al-Qaa’idah, they do not kill the believers and leave off the Kuffaar; in fact, we see the opposite.

We have suspicion of this because when our sunni brothers were in Afghanistan figthing off the soviets even before the existence of Qa'eda, then why once the qa'eda members came into afghanistan, the actual mujahideen had to fend themselvs from both the communist russians and Bin Ladens thugs (qa'eda). It has even reached me from those who partook in the jihad that Osama bin Laden was responsible (his crew) for killing one of the leaders of the Afghani jihad against the soviets. So when we had our men of the sunnah fighting against the disbelieving communists, you had qa'eda under OBL fighting the mujahideen of Afghanistan. it has even reached me (of course unofficially) that OBL used to say to his followers "to kill a wahhabi is more pleasing to Allah than killing a communist"

Likewise the mujahideen before their time never used to make takfir of muslims who did not make takfeer of governemnts, but once OBL's crew came along, they spread kharijite thought like wildfire (since they took over the jihad after their successful assasination of a pivitol leader of the mujahideen of Afghanistan.

They attack the Kuffaar in Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Western Countries etc

we beg to differ. attacking the kufar and attacking "kafir embassies" in muslim lands are two different ball parks and the methodology of equating the two is nothing more than satanism dressed as Islam. Even Abdullah Azzam has stated in his explanations on jihad that inspiute of our fight with them, we during the time of jihad uphold our treaties and obligations that have been madeto certain communities of the kufar even if we are at war with these very communities. This is somehting rarely voiced by those who attempt to voice the thoughts of Abdullah Azzam by the modern pseudo groups who claim the path of jihad.

Somalia is the worst of examples, each of the jihad groups have labeld the other as kuffar and have made jihad againt themselves. You may fool the average ignorant, but some of us are much more aquinted with what is happening on the ground.

(wherever they have fighters) and they help in the protection of the believers.

making matter worse for the believers by forcing already tyranical governments by becoming more tyrannical in their oppression is not called "helping and protecting the believers". We have now seen the Morrocan government to have allowed the dawah of the sunnah to be taught in the masjids once again and if another "qa'ed" attack from another group who claims jihad happenes again, then I fear the government will take ultra tyranical actions to suppress all remnants of sunnism and the dawah of kufr of sufis and heretics will reign in those lands. So what you call "aiding the believrs" then the believers call "killing them" both in body and in their 'itiqaad.

In the case of Afghanistan, they work side-by-side with the Taliban - who is the governing force that is re-emerging - and they don’t only help in matters related to warfare, but also civil matters. The son of Usama bin Ladin is a testimony to this also; he left al-Qaa’idah, and Usama allowed him to leave and didn’t tell his fighters to kill him or fetch him.

OH, what a shock. Has it ever occured that the reason why is because he is his son.

The point is, they don’t go around killing ordinary Muslims and if any Muslims are killed in an operation, it was clearly not intended for them (but for the allies or disbelievers themselves).

understood, but the level of wara that these peole have cannot be compared to the wara of actual mujahideen. very rarely would mujahideen leaders consider to partake in such an operation and the operation MUST be a CRUCIAL and DECISIVE matter where its outcome of benefit greatly outweighs the harms. That, does not happen with qa'edan type of operatins.

Sometimes, we don’t consider the size of the bomb explosions as being a factor that mistakenly killed more than what was intended.

that same satanic deception is the very arguement both us sunnis and the khawaarij use against the americans when they comment on the "errors" of their "smart bombs". You have the nerve and audacity to complain about the "smart bombs" being used in Iraq in both conflicts yet, condone this very same act when it is those who claim jihad who do it.

This is why the Taliban, for example, continuously warn the Afghan public with fliers, speakers etc. to stay away from the foreign forces and the national alliance.

reassuring indeed. that those who cause fitnah will warn their victims that that they plan to cause fitnah. And yes, blowing up places where non combatant kufar reside in is not called jihad, it is called "fitnah" and loonacy.

Again, if we are talking about al-Qaa’idah being al-Khawaarij of our time, it’s not correct from another perspective: they do not make Takfeer on the ones who commit al-Kabaa’ir such as those who commit Zina.

NO, but they do make takfir of those who do not rule by the rule of Allah, which is a major sin and only becomes a nullfier of Islam based on the condition of the ruler, hence they are khawaarij.

There is no shred of evidence that they hold that belief or have acted upon that heretic belief

yes, it is evidenced in the fact that they hold anyone who holds the rule as kuffar outright. that is 100 percent pure unadulterated kharijism and the sunni Imaams of Islam have blatently stated so.

. However, they do make Takfeer on the Rulers in the Muslim lands due the following factors:

hence khawaarij

a. None of them establish Shari’ah in its totality.

that is not a nullifier of Islam and no alim on earth in the entire 14 centuries of Islam believed that this was a nullifer of Islam.

b. The majority of them, if not all, take the disbelievers as Awliya’ against the Muslims.

yes, maybe the majority of them. However, even with some who do, this has been commented upon even by the "wahhabi" najdis like Bdur-Rahman Bin Hasan aali-Shaykh and others that the issue is not a simple black and white where it "appears" as if they take them as their awliyyah. This issue in and of itself, its ignorance has caused some of the greatest calamities of our time.

We can discuss those two points later if you wish.

No, but I will discuss it here on this forum as a proof for all others who wish to understand the nature of this topic inshallah

5. One issue the terrorists constantly repeat with nothing but the backing of classical & contemporary scholarship is that Jihad is fard al-’ayn today as opposed to it being fard kiffayah.

exactly, which is a heresy of our fiqh and shariah because contrary to what they say, the Imaams of ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah have statd that Jihad is always fard kifaaya and here is what the stated

The Concise islamic Views of Jihad as fard Kifayah and the Error of those Who say it is Fard Ayn

The first argument is brought in the Quraan

1. “Leave for Jihaad whether you are few or many”

As proof for it to mean in the absolute sense

Imaam al-Qurtubee in his tafseer and Abu Bakr al-Jassas both said that this ayaah is abrogated and using it as a proof is like someone who uses the ayaah in the quraan to say that “One should face the Baytul-Maqdis while standing in prayer”

However there is ikhtilaaf to its being abrogated. So even if one does not believe this ayaah to be abrogated then even then it should be understood as to how Ibn Hajr understood it.
He, Haafidh Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani said
“It should be known these ayaah are not abrogated, but these ayaah indicate as to when an Imaam should be appointed, and this in itself is dependent upon the cirumstances of any given time” (Fathul-Baaree)

Ibn Katheer mentions the following in his tafseer

When the ayah

﴿انْفِرُواْ خِفَافًا وَثِقَالاً﴾

“March forth, whether you are light or heavy”
Was revealeda man came forward, and he was fat, complained, and asked for permission to stay behind (from Jihad)﴾, but the Prophet refused. So Allah abrogated it with this Ayah,

﴿لَّيْسَ عَلَى الضُّعَفَآءِ وَلاَ عَلَى الْمَرْضَى وَلاَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ لاَ يَجِدُونَ مَا يُنفِقُونَ حَرَجٌ إِذَا نَصَحُواْ لِلَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ﴾

“There is no blame on those who are weak or ill or who find no resources to spend, if they are sincere and true (in duty) to Allah and His Messenger”

2. Again they use the argument that Allah says

“And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill treated and oppressed among men, women, and children whose cry is ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors”

Shaykh Taalibu-Rahman Shah has mentioned regarding this that

“According to Ibn Abbass, he and his mothers were the ones from the weak and the oppressed in Makkah while living here. If this verse made jihaad of kitaal fard ayn then tell us with which battalion did the prophet salallahu laihi wa salam dispatch to Makkah to aid Ibn Abbass (figure of speech meaning because there was no battalion then such people misunderstood and misapplied this verse). And so he quotes Ibn Battal to have said
“To help free those imprisoned is fardh kifaaya and this is what the majority of scholars have said”

3. Again if the proof in the quraan is used

“March forth, whether you are light or heavy” (9:122)

The reply to this is that Haafidh Ibn Katheer mentions that
“Ibn Abbass, Muhammad Bin kab, and Ataa al-Khuraasaanee and others have said this verse was abrogated with the ayaah of Allah
‘And it is not proper for the believers to go out to fight all together. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth” (Tafseer ibn katheer (2/474) ayaah (9:122)

Likewise Imaam ash-Shawkaani said
“Abu Dawood mentions in his Naasikh (book of abrogation), and Ibn Abi Haatim, and Ibn Mardawiyyah from Ibn Abbass that the ayaah ‘March forth whether you are light or heavy….” was abrogated by the ayaah “And it is not proper for the believers to go out to fight all together….”

Qurtubee, Tabari, Hasan al-Basri, Ikrimah and the majority of ulema held this opinion.

As for Ibn Hajr who did not view it to be abrogated, explained that this ayaah was specific with regards to whether a khalifa is in place by which if he commands all to go out to fight, then the fard ayn would be binding, but ONLY if the Khalifa of the Muslims commands so, thus this is the stance of Ibn Hajr.

If the hadeeth of the prophet is used in which it narrates “There will never cease to be a group from my ummah who will be manifest upon the truth”then this riwaya in its dirayaah (explanation) does not only entail “jihaad” as is or may be viewed by some of the people who have went into extremes or were exploited for their ignorance regarding the subject.

ash-Shaykh Abdullah Ibn Abdur-Rahman Abaabateen stated in explanation of this “they will never cease’ in this narration refers to a group who always speak with proof and sometimes (when required) fight the jihaad, and not to those who always fight with the sword” (ar_Rasaa’ilun-Najdiyyah 8/228)



As for the verse recorded in Suraatu Nisa (4:95) which states

﴿لاَّ يَسْتَوِى الْقَـعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِى الضَّرَرِ وَالْمُجَـهِدُونَ فِى سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ بِأَمْوَلِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ الْمُجَـهِدِينَ بِأَمْوَلِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ عَلَى الْقَـعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً وَكُـلاًّ وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الْحُسْنَى وَفَضَّلَ اللَّهُ الْمُجَـهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَـعِدِينَ أَجْراً عَظِيما﴾

“Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled, and those who strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home), by a huge reward. “


Ibnu-Qudamaah al-Maqdisee actually quotes the majority of scholars as saying,
“This ayaah is a proof to say that those who stay behind in the jihaad are not sinful. Allah has ordered that ‘all’ the people should not go out and fight together. Indeed the prophet salallahu alaihi wa salam and some companions would remain behind while others would go and fight

As for Jihaad being Fardh Kifayaah

Imaam al-Qurtubee explains the ayaah of 9:122 which states

﴿وَمَا كَانَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لِيَنفِرُواْ كَآفَّةً فَلَوْلاَ نَفَرَ مِن كُلِّ فِرْقَةٍ مِّنْهُمْ طَآئِفَةٌ لِّيَتَفَقَّهُواْ فِى الدِّينِ وَلِيُنذِرُواْ قَوْمَهُمْ إِذَا رَجَعُواْ إِلَيْهِمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَحْذَرُونَ ﴾

“And it is not (proper) for the believers to go out (to fight – Jihad) all together. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they may get instructions in religion, and that they may warn their people when they return to them, so that they may beware (of evil).”


So al-Qurtubee goes to explain by stating that
“Jihaad is not fardh ayn but kifaayah. If everyone were to go to jihaad there would be many problems for those left behind. Therefore, a group must remain to teach the people the religion. And when the troops return, those who stayed behind should teach them the religion also”

Imaam as-Sarkhasee states
“Jihaad is fardh Kifayah, when some people are performing it then the rest of the people are relieved of this obligation. The carrying out of jihaad is intending to attain the downfall of the splendor and glory of the mushrikeen, and to grant respect and honour to the religion (of Islam). If it was established to be obligatory everyone all the time, then a defect will arise in this matter.
[pay attention]
The intent of jihaad (meaning the highest level of jihaad with the sword) is that Muslims live in peace and tranquility in order to acquire superiority and advantage in the affairs of the religion of this world (meaning to defend their very existence and defend their right to establish their Islam openly without any oppression against them which is the right of every nation and is the very essence of what Americans “supposedly” are fighting for) and if the people were engaged in jihaad (continuously as the jihaadis say) then they will not finish (this duty) to deal with the issues of the worldly affairs (that they are obligated by Allah to handle)

So jihaad is not that people are forced to convert or their heads get chopped as is plastered all over the media haphazardly.

al-Jassass states
“Concerning the issue of Jihaad it was the opinion of Umar radhiyallahu anhu that it is fardh kifaayah and it was never fardh ayn in any given conditions or time” [Tafseer al-Jassas]

Ibn Atiyyah said
“There is consensuis (ijmaa) about Jihaad being fardh Kifaayah upon the ummah of Muhammad salallahu alaihi wa salam” [Tafseer Ibn Atiyyah]

Imaam al-Qurtubee mentions
“Jihaad is not fardh ayn but it is fardh kifaayah” [Tafseer al-Qurtubee 8/293]

In another pace in his tafseer he only said it becomes fardh ayn when the khalifa of a nation declares it fardh ayn and order the people with it, then it is not permissible for them to remain. He ends by stating
“The ruling of Fardh Ayn will be due to the obedience of the Khalifa’s command, and not because jihaad is fardh ayn in and of itself” [8/91]

Haafidh Ibnul-Qayyim said
“Jihaad with one’s life is fardh kifaaya” [Z'adul-M'ad]

Imaam al-Kasaanee proves jihaads is kifaayah with the reasoning that
“Allah has promised al-Husna” (reward in Paradise), to those who make jihaad and those who do not. Further if jihaad was fardh ayn all the time in every condition, then why would Allah promise al-Husna to those who do not perform jihaad because if it was fardh ayn then not doing so in this situation will be haraam (unlawful)” [Badaa'i ad-Dhaa'i)

Thus it would be accusing Allah of rewarding those who did haraam with a reward that does not befit the one who does haraam.

Ibn Hajr as well concluded that Jihaad is fardh Kifaaya and not fardh ayn unless the khalifa of a nation makes it so.

Likewise Imaam al-Baghawee concluded jihaad to be kifaaya as well, not fardh ayn

Imaam Bin Baz as well said
"Jihaad is fardh Kifaayah and if some people are ready and waiting for the time and condition for when it arises, then the obligation is dropped from others".

Imaam an-Nawawee concluded in explanation of a hadeeth (see faathul-Baree6/17) that
"This hadeeth contains proof that Jihaad is Fardh kifaayah and if it was fardh ayn then no individual would have stayed behind".

Imaam al-Bayhaqee establishes a chapter in his Sunan al-Kubra entitled "Chapter
of Nafeer" thus proves jihaad is fardh kifaayah.

Haafidh Ibn Katheer states
Jihaad is kifaayah" in explanation of ayaah 9:122

Imaam ash-Shafi'ee states
"Jihaad is fardh Kifaayah" [Fathul-Baaree]

Ibn Nuhaas ad-Dimashqee states

Is Jihad Fard Kifayah Or Fard Ayn?
Realize that attacking the non-believers in their territories is a collective duty (fardh kifayah) with the consensus (ijmaa) of the scholars. However ibn al Musayeb and ibn Shubrumah state that it is a duty (fardh ayn) on each and every individual.

One of the pillars of this principle in our age is Shaykh ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam. He has written (ex: “الدفاع عن أراضي المسلمين أهم فروض الأعيان“) and spoken in length on this issue and has had the support of many famous Scholars around the world, including Shaykh bin Baz and Shaykh ‘Uthayameen.

wrong, while we love and admire our shaykh Abdllah Azzam, he was wrong on the topic and Both Imaams of the Ummah Bin Baz or Ibn Uthaymeen agreed to that as they kept within the legal opinions of the orthodox classical jurists who stated it is fard kifayah in terms of offense.

Shaykh ‘Azzam didn’t just argue that Jihad was fard ‘ayn against the Soviet Union, but it was fard ‘ayn until all the Muslim lands are freed from their pseudo-Governments that fail to implement Shari’ah in its totality

again, an erroneous opinion of Shaykh ABdullah Azzam rahimahullah

. And of course, his arguments are wrapped in classical scholarship

not accoridng to the classical scholarship that we have seen stated above. either you are ignorant of such classical scholarship, or you view error as part of classical scholarship

So how would you address this? Would you argue that it’s fard kiffayah?

of course, it is almost an ijmaa.

6. Finally, the thing that makes the terrorists appear as Khawaarij is their application of certain Ahkam al-Jihad in modern warfare. For instance, the issue of at-Tattarus, the issue of ‘Ahd (Covenant of Security), the issue of al-Muharibeen, the issue of Dar al-Kufr, and so on. They don’t exactly re-interpret certain principles, but they don’t exactly limit themselves to some general principles. For example, when the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) laid siege to at-Taa’if, the Muslim army used Minjaneek (Mangonel ballista) which didn’t distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. So the terrorists look at what the Scholars have said regarding this incident and the rulings that are derived from this - which is obviously not taught to us in the West - and apply the rulings. The same goes for the hadeeth: “The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was asked about attacking the Mushrikeen at night time, where women and children get hit (un-intentionally). He (صلى الله عليه وسلم) replied: “They are from them. (i.e. the attack should not be stopped because of the presence of women and children.)” [Narrated by Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, At Tirmidhee etc.] Again, the terrorists look at what the Scholars have said regarding this, and apply the rulings that were derived from the hadeeth.

thats all fine and dandy, but the main problem is that the difference between the prthodox jihad as stated by these narrations is that it had an Imaam, a leader to lead the jihad. When todays "jihad" is performed by illegitimate routes, these very practices do not come into play as something islamically legal. It is one thing if muslims are doing so in their country against an occupier and they are doing so in some place that wil be a military success and it happens to have some women and children VS just showing up at a government palce in a muslim land with a bomb strapped on yourself with sometimes hundreds of muslims around.

This is where pure scholastic fiwh comes into play, something that tibyaan publications and others are completely deprived of.

So the point is to go back to the Scholars they are looking at and the classical texts which they act upon, and start addressing them from that level. As long as you address them with labels, they will turn a deaf ear and continue their efforts recruiting more Muslims.

exactly, and that is what I and we here on this forum plan to do inshallah throughout our defense of Islam from both kuffar, and from muslims who distort the religion.

As it is, after September 11th, we saw a gigantic influx of Muslim fighters joining the ranks of the terrorists, even from America; and it’s only increasing, especially now that the West is on the verge of collapsing.
I feel that getting yourself familiar with their works will help you understand their arguments much better, thus leading to a better outcome, In Sha’ Allah.

this is agreed, but you and whoever reads this will find that I am unlike tawfique. I actually know where they are coming from. I used to have the same methodology as them.

[al-boriqee]

what I will do is initiate another thread on al-Albanee's thought on modern contemporary jihad nad provide an overview of his words as this single paragraph of his is worthy of an entire book due to the ramifications of his speech, and I believe that Imaam al-Albanee's views on modern day jihad are the most crucial and the most straight forward and simply the most full of wisdom than anyone else on earth who ever spoke on the topi of jihad.

[salamfromrom]

Salam a leikum

wow bro boriqee, what a great and in-depth analysis. May Allah(swt) bless you!

what I will do is initiate another thread on al-Albanee's thought on modern contemporary jihad nad provide an overview of his words as this single paragraph of his is worthy of an entire book due to the ramifications of his speech, and I believe that Imaam al-Albanee's views on modern day jihad are the most crucial and the most straight forward and simply the most full of wisdom than anyone else on earth who ever spoke on the topi of jihad.

Delightful! I never knew that Sh. Albanee was renowned on the topic of jihad, I just thought he was just proficient in hadith.

[al-boriqee]

al-Albanee was a man whose mastery of Islamic knowledge was to the level of untouchability. He is truely a scholar who cannot be substatituted.

His "specialty" is hadeeth and he is the one who is responsible for reviving the sunnah of Islam in this century. This is why both Shaykhul-Islam Bin Baz and Shaykhul-Islam Ibn Uthaymeen refer to al-Albanee as the Shaykhul-Islam.

al-Albanee's fiqh was to the point of those before him among ahlul-hadeeth. He does not need to follow a madhaab whihc is why he was staunch in propagating that we do not mandate following a madhaab.

[al-boriqee]

refer to this link for al-Albanee's thought on jihad

Imaam al-Albanee's Thought on Jihad and Geo-Political Realities of Our Time

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


akh boriqee, how come u call the people of the 'kharijite thought' 'munafiqeen' in some of your posts..?


[its a sincere question]

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Qatada

asalaam alaikum


akh boriqee, how come u call the people of the 'kharijite thought' 'munafiqeen' in some of your posts..?


[its a sincere question]

Because I'm of the opinion that the khawaarij are kuffar.

Asalamu alaiku

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


can u elaborate.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Qatada

asalaam alaikum


can u elaborate.

firstly
some of the salaf were of the view that they were kuffar and I find this more weightier in spite of it being opposed to the preponderant view

secondly
Imaam al-Bukharee in the chapter of how to deal with apostates has placed many hadeeth about the khawaarij in such a chapter.

thirdly
The argument of Ali radhiyallahu anhu that they did not use to perform takfir of them if we read it with due care, posits that the only reason why they did not make takfir is because of their ibaada that outstripped the companions. Todays khawarij doesn;t even match the average worshipper.

fourthly
The khawaarij became the khawaarij because they use to make takfir for people who sin (sinners). Todays khawaarij make takfir for people's Islam. In other words, our implementation of Islamic principles that they are either
a. ignorant about or
b. they deceived themselves that it is appeasing the enemies
is what causes them to make takfir. In other words , not only do they make takfir of sins, but the bulk of their takfir is the implementation of Islam. In other words, if it is from Islam that our obedience to the rulers even if they rule with tyranny and even have some kufr with them (as the earlier rulers had kufr with them in the time of the 3rd and fourth centuries and throughout the middle ages) is what is legislated by the shariah then that means they are making takfir for people who act upon Islam which makes them worse than the khawaarij who preceeded because their takfir was only centralized on the concept of sinning and not on the concept of someone's implementation of Islam.

fifthly
the class or type of people that they are is that the messenger of Allah salallahu alaihi wa sallam stated
"they are the worst of those that are killed under the sky". In other words they are worse than mushriks.

sixthly
their ruling is that they are to die. The messenger of Allah stated in that long hadeeth near the end "if I were to meet them I would slaughter them"

in other words, being a kharijite by default means that you forfeit your right to live.

sevently
Fawzaan and some of the other major scholars believe that the khawaarij are kuffar.

eightly
here is a good expose on the topic
I'll have to repost it because I have to install pdf first

ninthly
the messengers words are very clear about the khawaarij

Ali's words radhiyallahu anhu are neutralized due to the fact of their ibaada. However, if we also take into account the reaction of Umar and the method of the prophet's disapproval, it becomes more clear

When the munaafiq Dhul Quwaisrah questioned the prophet, Umar's reaction to that moment was "shall I slice off his head" because Umar understood his apostasy. The prophet agreed to the principle but disapproved of actually killing him on the basis that he was fearing what people would say that "the prophet kills his companion" otherwise that munafiq would have gotton what he deserved.

[Ibn Ilyas]

Assalamu Aleykum ww

Akhee al-boriqee I have one question though, How do we distinguish between khawarij, Jihadi and Takfeeri? Or do they mean pretty much the same thing? also do they come out of the fold of Islaam (Jihadi and Takfeeris) if it isn't the same thing that is.

Also who are the real mujahideen, could you please clarify insha'allah, I am getting a bit confused.

Jazakumollahu khayran