> Refuting the opinion of Shaykh Hamud Ibn Uqla Ash-Shu'aybi?

[salamfromrom]

I found the following written by a brother on Muslimmatters.com he does make some good points

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.
2. The majority of terrorists today follow well-known and well-established rulings from the classical and contemporary ‘Ulema. 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. 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. 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
etc.
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
b. Shaykh ‘Ali ibn Khudhayr Al-Khudhayr
c. Shaykh ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Azzam
d. Shaykh Hamud ibn ‘Uqla ash-Shu’aybi
e. Imam Anwar al-’Awlaki
That reminds me. Since Imam Anwar is one of the very few Du’aat from the West, I think it’s best you engage a person like him since he’s a major source for some of the terrorists.
3. There is a huge discrepancy between what the terrorists report in their media and what the non-Muslims report in theirs. 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. So, do we totally reject what the terrorists have to say just because we believe they are terrorists? If so, on what basis and on what evidence (from Kitab & Sunnah)? So I believe this needs to be addressed whilst keeping in mind the ayah:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِن جَاءكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَأٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا أَن تُصِيبُوا قَوْماً بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصْبِحُوا عَلَى مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نَادِمِينَ
O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with a news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done. [49:6]
If Allah is addressing the Fusaaq here, then for sure, taking news from the Kuffaar is something we have to be even more careful of!
4. I don’t think the term Khawaarij would be the appropriate label for them in our lexicon. I say this from studying their works; they simply don’t have the ‘Aqeedah of the Khawaarij. You’ll have to be extremely specific on this. 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. They attack the Kuffaar in Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Western Countries etc. (wherever they have fighters) and they help in the protection of the believers. 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. 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). Sometimes, we don’t consider the size of the bomb explosions as being a factor that mistakenly killed more than what was intended. 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.
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. There is no shred of evidence that they hold that belief or have acted upon that heretic belief. However, they do make Takfeer on the Rulers in the Muslim lands due the following factors:
a. None of them establish Shari’ah in its totality.
b. The majority of them, if not all, take the disbelievers as Awliya’ against the Muslims.
We can discuss those two points later if you wish.
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. 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. 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. And of course, his arguments are wrapped in classical scholarship. So how would you address this? Would you argue that it’s fard kiffayah?
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.
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. 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.
I actually have a lot more points to make, but this will suffice for now.
I would love to continue this discussion with you by discussing some of the issues I brought up.

and his followup , after nobody adressed his issues:

Abu Muslim February 10, 2009 • 1:41 am

Harun -
I think you misunderstood my post. The terrorists are not blind followers of all the Scholars, in every issue. They practice “take what is good and leave off that which is not”, which is a practice of the Salaf as-Saalih, technically speaking.
My mention of Ibn Baz and ‘Uthayameen was in a specific reference to Shaykh ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam. Ibn Baz and ‘Uthayameen supported ‘Azzam’s fatwa that Jihad is fard ‘ayn. That was my point. As for suicide bombings and the like, the terrorists follow other Scholars.
As for Imam Anwar, then it seems to me that you aren’t aware of what he’s been up to lately. In that Ramadan quote you supplied, this was an old interview in which now his views have totally changed. Now he supports the terrorists worldwide (i.e., global Jihad), he supports suicide bombings, and many other things which would be considered ‘beliefs of the terrorists.’ I refer you to a few of his works:
a. The story of Ibn al-Akwa (16hr series on Ibn an-Nuhas’ classical text on Jihad)
b. The constants on the path of Jihad (6hr series on a Jihadi book that was written by al-Qaa’idah operative who happened to be a Shaykh)
c. His blog
You can google these items and easily find them widely available.
You wrote,

“Clearly these names are just excuses for violent behavior that really has nothing to do with religion but rather arises geopolitical and socioeconomic grievances that are merely expressed using religion as a common language.”

The admins of MM have blocked a part of my original comment where I provided website links that showed what the terrorists believe in, religiously speaking. The point is, they are well-grounded in Islamic knowledge and are only fighting for two reasons
a. Bring back Shari’ah in the Muslim lands (by fighting the governments and occupiers).
b. Free al-Quds and establish Shari’ah
I also refer you to the former CIA official and leader of the Ibn Ladin unit, Michael Scheuer. He was in the CIA force for 22 years; this man certainly has experience and when you see his works, it is clear that he understands his enemy very well. He has quite a few books such as “Imperial Hubris” and quite a few interviews that you can find on youtube. Again, a simple google search will do the trick.

It seems we're making a half-hearted attempt to explain away extremism as just another 'khawarij'' group but it seems true that we shouldn't call all of them that. Some have legitimate goals....

Salam a leikum

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salamfromrom

P.S. (sorry bro boriqee I tried to stai away from that site but I went back there again.... )












EDIT* I found the following written by a brother on Muslimmatters.com he does make some good points




and his followup , after nobody adressed his issues:




It seems we're making a half-hearted attempt to explain away extremism as just another 'khawarij'' group but it seems true that we shouldn't call all of them that. Some have legitimate goals....

Salam a leikum

people who fall into the attributes of khawarijism do not necessarily mean that they are khawaarij. that is the first principle

extremism is from the khawaarij. Now there are extremists but not all are khawaarij.

thirdly, there are a number of factual errors on the part of the one who liquified what was going on from the qaeda side. i'll try to clarify them inshallah

[salamfromrom]

Salam a leikum bro boriqee. Don't bother yourself too much about this, I was just curious is anyone knows a site/article where the non-extremists/extremists are discussing this issue, like Awlaki versus a non-extremist sheikh. You don't have to waste your time clarifying , I just thought you might point me in the right direction with a link to a discussion between the 2 camps or something.

Peace and take care.

[salman]

wa'alaykum as-salam

I'm sorry for coming out like this but what garbage gibrish this guys has written.

btw brother salamfrom, you should spend more time learning about other important aspects of deen since you are a new Muslim. Unless you are well grounded in basics, you won't be able to take the middle road.

[salamfromrom]

Salam a leikum

You're probably right, but I think this issue has been and continues to be an important topic for all people, muslims and non-muslims. We can see the way this so called ''war on terror'' has shaped everybody's lives and still does.

And this sort of stuff is kind of in my back alley so to speak, I studied International Relations at University.

I already know what the western world approach to war is (meaning that anything goes in order to preserve the balance of power) , and I would like to be clear about what our own limitations during conflict should be. It's just that this topic seems to be very complicated, with a lot of ins, a lot of outs.

sorry if I sometimes ask complex questions, I don't want to be a burden on anyone, so if anyone knows the answers and has the time to write a reply it would be great, but if not no harm done.

Take care brothers!

*edit: there's also a dawah dimension to this, sometimes people ask me about islam and one of the first things they mention or is on their mind is the terrorism issue. If I knew 100% sure that there's not even a reliable minority opinion which upholds this actions as legitimate, I would fell much safer saying yeah that's BS it's not real islam those people are bad. But if shariah allows such actions as part of war, I would be very sinful if I slander the muslims doing that.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salamfromrom

Salam a leikum bro boriqee. Don't bother yourself too much about this, I was just curious is anyone knows a site/article where the non-extremists/extremists are discussing this issue, like Awlaki versus a non-extremist sheikh. You don't have to waste your time clarifying , I just thought you might point me in the right direction with a link to a discussion between the 2 camps or something.

Peace and take care.

I don't think you understand. we, this site, like others IS the voice of those OPPOSITE of the tibyaan publications site. The main people leading the onslought against terrorism is salafimanhaj.com and they are called "governmentmanhaj.com" by the munafiqeen at the Unislamicawakening forum.

It is mainly salafimanhaj in one field, me and my site in another field in the campaign to deconstruct kharijite thought that has struck the ummah as murji thought has. Allow me to make it simple. This forum, part of its mission, is to tackle ALL inaccuracies mistakenly understood about Islam, both foreign (kuffar) and domestic (Muslims). We are not merely in the business to refute kaafirs, we are in the business to destroy every single dawah that is not the dawah of the first few generations of muslims, their thought, their practiceis, their ways, their beliefs, their stances, etc, etc. IN modern terms, we are sort of a think tank and my site "islamthought" is geared towards the marketing the thought of ultra puritanical conservative "salafist" Islam thereby disallowing any microscopic form of watering down of our religion.

you can consider it a "waste of time" if you would like, however, my response would most definately be within the realm of fixing what was wrong with the above quote you brought. Since it was posted on hear, it is now a mandation that it be clarified in light of unadulterated sunnism.

Salam a leikum

You're probably right, but I think this issue has been and continues to be an important topic for all people, muslims and non-muslims.

I agree with you. That is one main pivotal reason why I launched my site. Im in the process of recruiting people who have developed some rudimentary knowledge of the religion so that they can be able to tackle the onslought of the kuffar against our thought with no holds bar. I want to annialate (intellectually of course) all the think tanks, radical islamaphobes, and wackos who hypocritically speak of Islam in such negative light. If you had gotton an outstanding amount of this rudimentary knowledge, I would be proud to use you in the project. everyone can become a part of it based on two main requisites
1. that to be a part of blasting the contentions of the kuffar, one must PURELY and wholly speak from the realm of sunnism. the more that someone does not fall in line or in accord to the beliefs, actions, or understanding of the salaf, the harder it would be for such a person to be thorouhgly effective in their argument. This is because a salafi vs a non salafi is like night and day. salafis speak from the realm of knowledge base whereas non salafis speak and operate from desires and whatever little kernals of substantiated source references they provide, they do so at the expense of other substantiated source references, and they do so because they do not know how to weigh the textual sources and hence they quote proofs that do not apply to the situation or they take something that is only specific, and then apply it to all cases (general) and vice versa.
2. to gain rudimentary and some intermediate knowledge of the religion. the pros for this and the cons because of the lack there of are too many for me to cite here

We can see the way this so called ''war on terror'' has shaped everybody's lives and still does.

yes, we know the ramifications of this event.

And this sort of stuff is kind of in my back alley so to speak, I studied International Relations at University.

good. It would be a blessing to learn the religion. your utmost importance is to learn the authentic sunnah. Your learning of it automatically kills every question you will have because you alreay have their answers and it is a weapon for you for those who do not know it and then make lies against it, both kuffar and muslims.

I already know what the western world approach to war is (meaning that anything goes in order to preserve the balance of power)

exactly, we are both seeing eye to eye. I know these kuffar more than i know my own hands. I know political posturing, maneuvering, expediency, and their geo-political agenda. I may have to pm you with some information inshallah

, and I would like to be clear about what our own limitations during conflict should be

this is a big grand subject right here. I will make an entire post on this inshalah for better understanding. So far, certain members are in confusion regarding the realm of taking the kuffar as awliyyah and this very issue of jihad warefare. In short,, well, I will explain it through my explanation of the original content you posted in this thread inshallah

. It's just that this topic seems to be very complicated, with a lot of ins, a lot of outs.

yes, your right. In my years of dealing and analysing this mater, I have concluded that there are two extremes, and each extreme of its own has a variety of methodologies some more extreme than the others. Hoever, with knowledge, these ins and outs inflate and the issues become more narrow simply because your knowledge has paved the path to clarity for you thereby narrowing your vision down to a level where you will know what you HAVE to do. Your obligations become clear and you will know who to please and you will know where to bend and where bending is not allowed. without knowledge, that does not happen and everything will remain complex.

sorry if I sometimes ask complex questions, I don't want to be a burden on anyone, so if anyone knows the answers and has the time to write a reply it would be great, but if not no harm done.

*edit: there's also a dawah dimension to this, sometimes people ask me about islam and one of the first things they mention or is on their mind is the terrorism issue.

you tell them straight up, terrorism is not a part of Islam and the one who thinks that terror is a part of Islam is he who is a kaafir apostate who needs to be executed in front of the masses. That should be your reply. Of cuourse, we are not saying that on the basis of appeasing or helping the kuffar or making us look good in their eyes, we just simply hold this belief simply because it is the belief of the messenger that the one who intends to alter and change the religion of Allah can only be an enemy of Allah, and thus we hate for the sake of Allah those who try to alter the religion of Allah.

If I knew 100% sure that there's not even a reliable minority opinion which upholds this actions as legitimate, I would fell much safer saying yeah that's BS it's not real islam those people are bad. But if shariah allows such actions as part of war, I would be very sinful if I slander the muslims doing that.

when i get a chance, i'll be bale to prvide a detailed breakdown of the topic, inshallah

asalamu alaikum

[salamfromrom]

Salam bro boriqee.

Indeed you and the rest of the good brothers at salafimanhaj and other sites have a monumental task ahead of you. May Allah(swt) Bless you for the tireless way you work for the benefit of islam and humanity.

you know what they say ''In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'' :-)


take care!

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salamfromrom

Salam bro boriqee.

Indeed you and the rest of the good brothers at salafimanhaj and other sites have a monumental task ahead of you. May Allah(swt) Bless you for the tireless way you work for the benefit of islam and humanity.

you know what they say ''In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'' :-)


take care!

my dear brother salamfromrom

I have concluded a response to the above, refer to this link

Disecting Kharijite Thought on Jihad and Geo-Politics