Archive for the ‘Refuations’ Category

Usamah bin Laden Does not Represent for the Real Muslim nor does his Death equate to a Loss of a Hero of Islaam   Leave a comment


 

 
http://www.al-sunan.org/vb/showthread.php?t=9302

I ask Allaah -azzaa wa Jaal- to make this article that is before us a complete and comprehensive one, and may it benefit the presenter and the readers, and make us of those who have insight in it, of those who speak from knowledge, not out of opinions and whims. And may Allaah -azzaa wa Jaal- extol and send the blessings of peace upon Muhammad, the Messenger of Allaah, and upon his Family, Companions and followers.

~ ~ ~
Atheists and tyrannies should know that killing Ben Laden -if they truly did- is not a victory for Islaam
Sheikh Maher Ben Dhafer Al-Qahtani

In the Name of Allaah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

All praise is due to Allaah, as He deserves, and may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon his last prophet Muhammed.

To proceed,

Christians, Jews and atheistic people in the west were happy due the announcement of the USA president, Barak Obama, about the murder of Usama Ben Laden, the one of innovated jihad. They thought that is a victory for them against Islaam and Muslims, but they were misleaded about Al-haaq (the truth) because of that. And if they declared it publicly and people believed it, they would therefore deceive lots of confused people about the truth of Islaam. They did not know that for us (i.e. Muslim nation) Usama Ben Laden does not represent the real muslim because a real muslim should worship Allaah because Allaah is the creator of mankind, and should follow what the prophet Muhammad -salla Allaah ‘aleyhi wassallam- has commanded him to do, and seek knowledge on the basis of the Sunnah of the prophet Muhammad -salla Allaah ‘aleyhi wassallam- and his companions, and not to follow the innovators who have been astrayed like what Ath-Dhawaheri, Ben Laden, Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimeen, At-Tablighiyeen, As-Sufiyya, Al-Qadyaniyya, and other takfiriyeen have happened to them.

The ones who represent Islaam are the prophet Muhammad’s companions like Abu Baker Asseddeeq, Omar Al-Farooq, Othman, Ali, Ibn Mas’ood, Ibn Abbaas, Aisha and others, radiyallaahu ‘anhum ajma’een (may Allaah be pleased with all of them). Also their followers like ‘Ata’, Tawoos, Sa’eed Ibin Al-Musayyeb, Omar Ibin Abd Al-Azeez, Waheb Iben Mandah radiyallaahu ‘anhum ajma’een; and later scholars like Imam Malek IBen Anas, Al-Imam As-Shafe’ee, Ahmad IBen Hanbal, and Al-Owza’ee and whom followed them upon the righteous salafee Manhaj (ancestor’s methodology), rahimahum-ullaah ajma’een (may Allaah’s blessings be upon all of them); Allaah says: [And the foremost to embrace Islâm of the Muhâjirûn (those who migrated from Makkah to Al-Madinah) and the Ansâr (the citizens of Al-Madinah who helped and gave aid to the Muhâjirûn) and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allâh is well-pleased with them as they are well-pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success.] (At-Taubah (The Repentance): 100).

Those mentioned above and the ones who followed them upon the righteous Manhaj represent Islaam because they knew it so well. But Ben Laden did not follow them exactly (in Faith), he was not on the right path, he was either ignorant about their methodology in Jihaad or a man who speaks of (his own) desire (sahib hawa). He did not seek knowledge from the scholars nor he has shown that he was knowledgeable. He just sent threats and excommunicate the rulers without a proof; and he was obsessed with exploding and hijacking. Usama Ben Laden did not get the strength to fear the enemies, neither he got the righteous methodology to convince the people. And certainly he had not got the correct way to talk properly with the rulers and the nation, like the prophet did while he was in Makkah, the one who Allaah said about him inSûratAl-Qalam (also called Sûrat Nûn)/(The Pen): [And Verily, you (O Muhammad salla Allaah ‘aleyhi wassallam) are on an exalted (standard of) character.]. Allaah commanded his prophet Muhammad -salla Allaah ‘aleyhi wasallam- to be gentle and wise while preaching, he said in the Qur’aan: [Invite (mankind, O Muhammad salla Allaah ‘aleyhi wassallam) to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islâm) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Revelation and the Qur’ân) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better.] (An-Nahl (The Bees): 125). And Allaah also says in the Qur’aan: [And argue not with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islâmic Monotheism with His Verses)(Al-‘Ankabût (The Spider): 46).

Muslims who have some nonfeasance and negligence are not worse than Pharaoh who tortured his people, yet Allaah said for Moses: [“And speak to him mildly, perhaps he may accept admonition or fear (Allâh).”] (Tâ-Hâ: 44) even though Pharaoh was saying “I am your lord, most high” and he persecuted Children of Israel, enslaved them, he was afflicting them with a horrible torment, killing their sons and sparing their women, his crimes and cruelty were a great calamity to them. One day, while the prophet Muhammad -salla Allaah ‘aleyhi wa sallam- was in Makkah, he gathered the people on As-Safa and asked them if they would believe him if he said that a herd of horses are coming toward them behind the valley. They answered that they have not found him except an honest man. So he told them that He is only a warner to them in face of a severe torment. He wanted to warn them from Allaah’s punishment and that they have to worship the only god- Allaah; because they did know that He -alone by himself- has created them, provided them from the sky and earth, the one who disposes the affairs of the skies and earth by himself. He (i.e. The prophet -salla Allaah ‘aleyhi wa sallam-) did not hurt them, he talked to them wisely. He wanted them to testify that there is none who has the right to be worshiped but Allaah -azzaa wa Jaal-, he just asked them to say «Lâ ilâha illa Allaah» (there is none who has the right to be worshiped but Allaah) so that they can be saved from Hell. His main concern was calling for monotheism (tawheed Allaah).

On the contrary, Ben Laden was killing and exploding without preaching and without explaining for people what Islaam really calls for. The prophet Muhammad -salla Allaah ‘aleyhi wa sallam- made a treaty with the non-Muslims which is known by “Solh Al-Hodaybiya”. There were no fights nor violence, just negotiations and talking peacefully. Therefore, because of that treaty, many people entered Allaah’s religion (Islaam) in crowds, and after that the conquest of Makkah, and Muslims occupied lots of countries throughout the eastern and western areas, and so many other victories afterwards. All of that because they were applying the reality of monotheism (tawheed) and the prophet’s way (Sunnah). They preached people using evidences and reciting Qur’aan and explaining its verses by the Sunnah and what the righteous salafee ancestors were upon . They won because they spread Islaam by words and actions not by sword and blood, and Allaah said in the Qur’aan: [O you who believe! If you help (in the cause of) Allâh, He will help you, and make your foothold firm.] (Muhammad also called Sûrat Al-Qitâl (Muhammad) or (The Fighting):7).

Because of that Ben Laden did not win (he did not help in the cause of Allaah), he did not learn the methodology. And Scholars of Islaam denied his noxious way of Jihad, killing, destruction, and expelling muslim rulers, and his disobedience without a proof and evidence. The Scholar Al-Imaam Abdel Azeez Ibn Baaz -rahimahullaah- said «Ben Laden has to repent from his noxious behavior», and so did other scholars of Sunnah. Except the ones of innovation, they encouraged him and portrayed him as a hero! And they forgot that heroism is guided with wisdom and what was stated in the Qur’aan, ahaadeeth and the understanding of the Salaf. Ben Laden was on the way of Al-Khawarej by expelling them from Islaam (tekfeer al-hukaam). He revolted against the ruler of his own country (i.e. the King of Saudi Arabia) and went to Afghanistan, and organized a team for bombing, takfeer (expelling people and rulers from Islaam), and for destruction, in the name of Al-jihad!! BUT, it is just corruption that Lord of Mankind doesn’t not authorize. The prophet -salla Allaah ‘aleyhi wa sallam- worn from Al-Khawarej because they are ruthless with Ahl Al-Islaam, how come with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)!!

Advertisements

Posted July 11, 2011 by thesunnahway in Refuations

Warning Against Omar Bakri   Leave a comment


http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/assets/docs/cardiff-cult-of-omar-bakri.pdf

Posted January 3, 2011 by thesunnahway in Refuations

Bin Ladin Is A Calamity Upon the Muslim Nation   Leave a comment


Bin Ladin Is A Calamity Upon the Muslim Nation and Praising Him Is A Deficiency In Understanding Islam

Mail to a FriendPrinter friendly

Shaikh Muqbil bin Hadi al-Wadi’i, the Salafi Scholar of Yemen stated, as was published in the Kuwaiti magazine “ar-Ra’i, dated 19/12/1998:

I absolve and exonerate myself (in front of Allah) from Bin Ladin, for he is a misfortune and a calamity upon the ummah (Muslim nation), and his actions are evil.

Shaikh Salih Aal ash-Shaikh, the Minister of Islamic Affairs, Saudi Arabia, stated in a lecture on the subject of deviations in the understanding of Islam,

… until in these times, perhaps you have heard some teachers praising Usama Bin Ladin, and this is a deficiency in understanding Islam.

Originally published in the newspaper, ar-Riyadh 8/11/2001. Refer to the book, “The Ideology of terrorism and Violence in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Its Origin, Causes, Spreading and Cure” of Abdus-Salam bin Salim bin Rajaa as-Sihimi.

 

Shaykh Ahmad an-Najmee: Osama bin Ladin is a Filthy Devil

 

The late Shaykh Ahmad bin Yahyaa an-Najmee (rahimahullaah) was asked: 
Some people claim that Bin Ladin is the awaited mahdee (leader) and they grant him the title “Chief of the Believers”. So what is your advice in this [matter]?

The Shaykh responded:

These (ones) are the devils (shayaateen). They are the devils. Bin Ladin is a Shaytaan Khabeeth (a filthy devil), a Kharijite (a renegade revolter). It is not permissible for anyone to praise him. Anyone who praises him, then this is evidence that he is a Kharijite just like him … anyone who praises him, then this is evidence that he is a Kharijite just like him.

Download MP3 File.

The view of orthodox Muslim scholars is that the contemporary groups characterized with extremism in takfir and jihad are “brethren of the devil” – they are those who have adopted the end result of the distillation of the ideologies of Vladimir Lenin, Alexis Carrell and Mawdudi taking place in the mind of Sayyid Qutb, subsequently expressed in his books, and then trying to justify these evil ideologies by drawing upon texts from the Qur’aan and the Sunnah.

It is obligatory upon all Muslims to warn from their evil and to banish them and their evil from the society, following the

Posted January 3, 2011 by thesunnahway in Refuations

A warning Against Anwar Al-Awalaki


Anwar Al-Awalaki

A Warning Against Anwar Al-Awalaki

This is a translated transcription of a phone call with our shayk Dr. Abdullaah bin Abdur- Rahmaan al-Jarboo, Professor from the College of Dawah “Usool ud-Deen” – Former head of Dept. of Aqeedah at Medinah

The call was placed by Br.Saeed Rhana al-Maghribee and the questions were put to the shaykh by Br. Muwahhid Aaadil al-Michiganee.Now to the text of the call.The Translator: Our Shaykh, we would like to present to you some of the mistakes of a man called Anwar Awlaki who is Yemeni and is currently residing in Yemen, but he used to be in the U.S. He has a lot of affect on the youth all over the west and they raise him to the level of the scholars. Awlaki has served as an Imam in Colorado, California, and most recently in the Washington, D.C. area where he headed the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Centre and was the Muslim Chaplain at George Washington University [2]. He studied under Sheikh Uthaymeen for a short while (few months) as well as Salman Oadah. He received a general ijaza in Quran, Sciences of Quran, Hadith, Sciences of Hadith, Tafsir , Fiqh, Usool Fiqh and Arabic from: Hassan Maqbooli al Ahdal, Hussein bin Mahfoodh, AbdulRahman Shumailah al Ahdal, Hamud Shumailah al Ahdal.. Anwar al-Awlaki currently resides in Yemen, and is associated with Iman University. (In Yemen, where Zindani is)

This is some background information on him then?

 Translator: Yes. The first of the observances against him is his saying; University. This took place on Saturday, March 28, 2009(2/4/1430). This call was placed to the Shaykh in order to gain clarification about a man called Anwar al-Awlakee. ”Brothers and sisters whether you agree or not with martyrdom operations let’s leave our differences behind us, and let us support our Muslim brothers who are in the frontlines. Just like we disagree on many other issues, we should not let our disagreements stand in the way of our solidarity in the face of our adversaries.” (This can be found on his website on the article called Suicide or martyrdom).

 The Shaykh:

In the name of Allaah the Kind Bestower of kindness. All praise is due to Allaah the Lord of all creation. In addition, may Allaah mention in the highest company and secure our prophet Muhammad, his family and his companions; to proceed.

From the standpoint of what I heard of his background, his “shaykhs’, and his ideas in general, is it clear that this individual is affiliated with the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon (muslim brotherhood). Especially one of their branches called the “Suroorees”.

The muslim brotherhood group has a distinct orientation, and their concerns revolve around certain contemporary issues in which they oppose those firmly rooted in knowledge. They oppose the scholars in their speech and verdicts. Therefore if this man builds his orientation upon this thinking and ideology of those groups affiliated with, and derived from the likes of the Islaamic Group of Pakistan, at whose head was al-Mawdoodee; the Muslim Brotherhood group of Egypt , and Hamaas of Palestine, (then know) that all of these groups have a specific ideology for themselves. Thus, the awareness of this man’s background his ideological affiliation is very important in knowing his orientation, and making a ruling concerning him and his statements.

As far as the issue of suicide bombings- they call them martyrdom operations-and the scholars have labeled them as suicide, then these acts are most of what the opposers, endorsers of takfeer (i.e. those who expel muslims from the fold of al-Islaam without right) from the Muslim Brotherhood group promote on the internet, in their writings, books, CD’s, and lectures. They authorize these acts of violence for which they attempt to assemble proofs to validate them.These proofs and evidences that they seek to substantiate their position by have already been declared by the people of knowledge as invalid for their use as evidence in the supporting of these acts.The most important premise in their process of presenting the legitimacy of their stance is their use of al-Qiyas (i.e. analogy or comparative deduction).

They conclude that these acts are the same as al-Iqtihaam (attacking the enemy ranks individually) or at-Tatarrus (making one’s self or the use of one as a human shield in a face-to-face battle with the enemy).Because of this, and pay close attention to the following, there exists neither one explicit text, nor any historical account from the companions, Allaah be pleased with them, nor in the history of jihad that can be used to prove the validity their ideology having a basis in the religion.There is no precedent in history (i.e. Islamic) of anyone committing suicide in jihad! Rather, there was one who committed suicide during a battle in the era of the messenger, but the prophet condemned him for that.

On the account of there not being any clear text to support them, they resort to analogical deduction by comparing suicide bombings to al-Iqtihaam(attacking the enemy ranks individually), exposing one’s self to the possibility of being killed; or they compare these bombings with the permissibility of at-Tatarrus( making one’s self or the use of one as a human shield in a face-to-face battle with the enemy). The al-mutatarras bihi (soldier used as a human shield) who is killed to create an advantage for the muslim forces, is not to be compared to one who kills himself!All of their proofs return to their comparing suicide attacks with al-Iqtihaam or at-Tatarrus. Consequently, the response to this is that they oppose the verdict passed by those firmly rooted in legislated knowledge, which is the outlawing of killing of one’s self. The people of knowledge, the scholars, have explained that there are definitive texts showing that the one who kills himself with anything will be punished with the self-same object and method from his death until resurrection day.In addition to this, whoever killed himself deliberately, then he is considered as a suicide, and is included among those threatened with the fire of hell.The scholars have clarified that the approved warfare mentioned in Allaah’s statement,

<يقاتلون في سبيل الله فيقتلون و يقتلون

they fight in Allaah’s path, wherein they kill the enemy or are killed by the enemy�”

There is not a third situation where it is mentioned that they kill them selves!This is what is connected with the definitive texts that prove the illegality of killing one’s self in any condition.As far as the verdicts of those firmly rooted in knowledge, then those such as

  • Shaykh Abdul-Azeez bin Baaz
  • The Permanent Committee for the issuance of verdicts in Saudi Arabia
  • Shaykh Muhammad ibn SAalih al-Uthaymeen
  • Imam al-Albaanee

And many others than these scholars, known for their knowledge, righteousness, and understanding, have agreed with the consensus, and following the example of those firmly established scholars before them, that killing of one’s self is forbidden!Now for those who oppose the scholars, then they do so from two approaches:

  1. Their opposition is the result of their lack of understanding of the religion (of al-Islaam).
  2. They seek to prove their position with arguments leveled by the takfiree groups, or from the splinter groups of the Muslim Brotherhood, and use their methods of proof.

3. There are those from the people of knowledge who have issued verdicts (in favor of suicide bombings), but the reality of their proof do not extend beyond the previously mentioned arguments, or they are ambiguous evidences. However, the explicit and detailed proofs point to the illegality of such activities. Secondly, from the angle of Qiyaas (comparative deduction), in their use of comparing suicide bombing with al-Iqtihaam and at-Tatarrus, to what they call “martyrdom operations”, this is an invalid conclusion involving two errors:

  1. First of all, it is the use of deduction in the presence of explicit texts regarding the forbidden nature of killing one’s self, and in that case, there is no basis for the use of comparative deduction. This type of deduction is called “al-Qiyas Iblisee” (satanic reasoning). This satanic reasoning happens when one seeks to employ analogy in a matter where there exists a clear text, and a conclusion is drawn by this reasoning. This is similar as what occurred when Iblis (satan) was ordered by Allaah to prostrate to Aadam, and he refused to do so in the face of an explicit text, or order. He resorted to analogy by saying that fire is superior to mud, so how could he prostrate to Aadam? How could the superior one prostrate to the inferior?

2.Thus, they seek to prove their position while there are explicit texts to the contrary of what they promote. The evidence for the forbiddance of suicide is clear and definite. If we accept that analogy in this matter is permitted, when in fact it is not, but if we did so for the sake of argument, this analogy would be false. The false analogy is one wherein there exists disparity between the situations comparedThe primary disparity is the analogy of suicide bombings to at-Tatarrus( making one’s self or the use of one as a human shield in a face-to-face battle with the enemy) and the Mutatarras bihi ( soldier used as a human shield) or al-Iqtihaam (attacking the enemy ranks individually). This person does not kill himself; others only kill him. Thus, the enemy kills the one who attacks the enemy lines by himself. He does not kill himself. He does not commit suicide; rather, the one who kills him is the enemy. Furthermore, the soldier employed as a shield by the Muslim army is killed by the Muslims, because they crush him in the rush of the swollen ranks towards the enemy, with the aim of killing the unbelievers. They (the Muslims) may trample him and he dies. The Muslims do not kill him intentionally; he dies in the course of the battle. You will not find any of them killing themselves

  1. The second disparity is that the scholars have stipulated that there has to be a horde of soldiers at the battle, and that is an important condition. The condition that this person’s death is the result of the throng of soldiers pushing forward in a face-to-face battle with the unbelievers has been stipulated. In this case, he is allowed to penetrate the enemy ranks individually, distracting the enemy, and inspiring bravery in the Muslim ranks. Just as the jurists require that the soldier employed as a shield is not killed except out of extreme necessity. This occurs when no other option is present. Consequently, comparing suicide attacks to al-Iqtihaam or at-Tatarrus is impermissible, and is considered a satanic analogy when made in contradiction to definitive texts

If we accept that for the sake of argument that suicide is lawful, then it is an invalid analogy because of existing disparities that in both cases, this person is killed by other than himself.Similarly, the jurists have explained that there exists the condition of the battle taking place amongst a crowd of combatants, and of there being a dire necessity.It has become clear to us that the Takfeerees’ dependence upon these proofs is futile. As a result of this, they contradict and oppose those scholars deeply rooted in knowledge, and muddle up the issue by resorting to analogy to prove their stance, which is not allowed, and is considered a satanic analogy.None of their methods of proof goes beyond what we have stated, and all praise is due to Allaah. Sa’eed Rhana: possessor of excellence, they also seek to prove their position by using the story of the Boy and the King, and the story of Baraa ibn Maalik Sh. Al-Jarboo: their means of using these stories as proof is well known. I myself have researched this issue, and all who seek proof by their methods, this is their condition.In so far as using the proof of the narration about Baraa ibn Maalik is concerned, then this story is a proof for al-Iqtihaam (attacking the enemy ranks individually), because Maalik attacked the enemy lines by himself. This is their seeking proof by comparing suicide attacks with alIiqtihaam.Now as far as the Boy is concerned, then:

  1. The boy did not kill himself: he was killed by the king.

(The call was interrupted at this point))We say that the story of Baraa ibn Maalik falls under the category of al-Iqtihaam. The Takfeerees/Jihaadees use this as proof when actually it is a proof for al-Iqtihaam.Furthermore, we say that Maalik did not kill himself, and he was not killed in this instance. For if he was killed, it would have been the enemy that had done so; he did not at all commit suicide! This was a situation where the ranks were extremely tight and crowded. What he did was advantageous for The Muslim army in a throng of soldiers; it does not compare to these suicide attacks.For them, the Takfeeree/Jihaadees, there is a comparison with existing disparities, and they are not at all permitted to make analogy in this case.They make analogies upon analogies. They compare the texts with what they call “martyrdom operations”; these bombings. They compare this with al-Iqtihaam; so we say that this analogy is exceedingly impermissible, and it is satanic when there is a found explicit text regarding this issue. We also say that this analogy is futile as it is a comparison with obvious disparities.

The reason for this is that Baraa ibn Maalik advanced on the enemy ranks by himself, during a face-to-face battle. None who do this in en-masse, and are killed, is considered to have committed suicide; they were killed by the enemy. This is contrary to what one who blows himself does.The jurists have stipulated that there is a crush and jam of combatants for this type of strategy to be valid. The attacks that they carry out do not include this condition; rather they carry them out in a sneaky fashion.Regarding the story of the Boy and the King, first, the Boy did not kill himself; the misguided King killed him. Secondly, the boy’s situation is from the category of extraordinary phenomena and miracles are manifest among people in accord with a wisdom that Allaah desires.Allaah prevented the killing of the boy by the king by any method except for one. Allaah informed the boy of the method, and the boy, in turn, informed the king-thus achieving the wisdom that Allaah desired from the boy’s death.Thus, what happened was nothing other than from the category of miracles. What proves this is that the boy was thrown from a mountain; and lived-he was thrown into the sea, and did not drown; he came out.

In addition to what is mentioned in the narration is that the King said to the boy, “Your fame has reached the extent that is said that you can return sight to the blind and raise the dead, etc�” The boy was also thrown to a lion and killed it. This proves that he was given miracles. Miracles cannot be employed in the use of analogy; there is no comparison to be made with them. They are special incidents that cannot be used as a proof in legal matters.Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen said, “that this miracle has a benefit, and that this benefit is in accord with Allaah’s wisdom; meaning that Allaah is the one who desired that benefit and that he arranged the means by which the boy was not killed except in a certain manner.”Therefore, the seeking of proof for these suicide bombings by employing this story is not acceptable from two matters.

  • The boy did not kill himself, the boy did not kill himself; the unbelieving king killed him.
  • This story is from the category of miracles and extraordinary phenomena, and comparison is not allowed to be made them. This happening was specifically for the boy. This is because Allaah informed him of the manner by which he could be killed; and the boy said to the king, “You cannot kill me except by this and that”
  • There is also a third important perspective that the people of knowledge have explained; it is that the boy was under a legislation of those nations who came before us. If we accepted this and assessed the permissibility of using this as a proof, then this is from a legislation of those who came before us; and it is not permissible to use as a proof for ourselves in a case where we find that is in contradiction to and/or abrogated by our legislation. We have in our legislation that the clear forbiddance of suicide.

From these three perspectives, it is clear that is not allowed to use the story of the Boy and the King as a proof supporting suicide attacks- and Allaah knows best.

Audio: Shaykh ’Ubayd al-Jaabiree Warns Against Anwar al-Awlaki

Monday, 23 November 2009

By the Noble Scholar of Madeenah, Shaykh ‘Ubayd Ibn ‘Abdullaah al-Jaabiree

Questions posed concerning the corrupt statements of Anwar al-Awlaki and his incetement towards violence and civil unrest.

  1. Review:

[Q]: The praise is for Allaah, and may the peace and salutations of Allaah be upon the Messenger of Allaah and upon his Family and his Companions and upon those who follow the guidance. To proceed:

So these are some of the statements of one of the du’aat (callers), his name is Anwar al-Awlaki. You will find these statements on his official website. We present them to the noble Shaykh ‘Ubayd Ibn ‘Abdillaah al-Jaabiree – (may Allaah preserve him) – so that he may comment upon them so we can then spread the answers and the comments among the brothers here in America and in Britian and throughout the West in general.

The first statement: “The rulers in the Arabian Peninsula are playing a central role in the fight against Islam especially the al Saud family. The al Saud of today is the Abdullah bin Ubay of yesterday.”

And he says in the second statement: “May this be the beginning of the greatest Jihad, the Jihad of the Arabian Peninsula that would free the heart of the Islamic world from the tyrants who are deceiving the ummah and standing between us and victory.” Should I – O Shaykh – mention the third statement as well or can I suffice with this?

A]: Present the third statement.

[Q]: And the third is that this man says: “The Jihad in Somalia should carry on until the last AU soldier leaves the country and any forces that side with the AU -including the Sharif government -and Sharif is the president who won the recent election – become legitimate targets.”

So what is your comment upon these statements, may Allaah bless you?

[A]: With the name of Allaah. The praise is for Allaah and may peace and salutations be upon his servant and Messenger Muhammad and upon his Family and all of his Companions.

The summary of what has become apparent to me from these three statements that you have quoted from a specific forum or a specific website for Anwar al-Awlaki, and the name Awlaki (‘Awlaqee) proves that the origin of this man is Yemeni. The essence of what is comprised within these statements – in that which is apparent to me – are two affairs:

The first affair: is his ignorance concerning the fiqh of Jihaad. And that he does not know anything about the Jihaad, which is from the well-planned obligations that Allaah has established up until Allaah causes the earth and whosoever is upon it to perish.

And I suspect that this man has become polluted by the ideas of Sayyid Qutb al-Misree and similar to him are Aboo Qataad, Aboo Muhammad al-Maqdisee and many others besides them. All of these individuals and the same applies to this man have been influenced by the likes of Sayyid Qutb; and Sayyid Qutb, according to the people of research and experience with examining statements, is the flag bearer of takfeer in this time. His book, Ma’aalim fit-Tareeq (Milestones) proves this clearly as Sayyid erroneously and falsely declared the entire Ummah to be disbelievers, the rulers and their subjects.

And Jihaad according to Ahlis-Sunnah, who have inherited from Muhammad (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) the correct understanding of the religion, the correct understanding of worship and the correct understanding of social dealings, this Jihaad is of two categories:

Jihaadut-Talab (the offensive Jihaad) and Jihaadud-Daf’ (the defensive Jihaad). Jihaadut-Talab is to mobilize the troops and to dispatch the armies and to prepare sufficient equipment in order to fight whosoever is surrounding them from the disbelievers to make the word of Allaah uppermost. <span>And this is the responsibility and special role of the Muslim ruler</span>. He is the one who can call to such an act, he is the one who establishes this and he himself is the one who leads it or he appoints someone to lead a military detachment.

<So whosoever calls to Jihaad in a general manner (without consideration of the legislated prerequisites or guidelines), then he is one of two men, <span>either he is ignorant concerning the fiqh of Jihaad or he is a person of desires who is misguided and misguiding others, an innovator. And regardless of whether he is the former or the latter, it is obligatory upon the Ummah to be cautious of him and to have hatred for him. And it is obligatory upon the Scholars to refute him and to warn against him.

The second is Jihaadud-Daf’, and this is to defend against the assailant and the transgressor. So when an assailant and a transgressor from the disbelievers attacks and transgresses against a Muslim country, then it is permissible for the people of that country to defend themselves and to resist the attack in order to stop its evil and to challenge its deception. It is a required condition that they must have the ability and the strength to do this. So if they have the ability and the strength, they can mobilize themselves to defend against the subjugation of the transgressing party and to defeat its endeavour and to reject its tyranny.

If they do not have the ability and the strength for that, then they have two choices: they can either flee with their Religion and their honour to wherever they will be safe, or they can seek a treaty of peace with this tyrannical enemy and they can make contracts and agreements with him to preserve and safeguard the territory of the people of al-Islaam.

Therefore, it can be concluded from this that the required condition for Jihaadut-Talab (the offensive Jihaad) is the ruler, since it is from his special functions. And the required condition for Jihaadud-Daf’ (the defensive Jihaad) is the strength and ability to carry it out. And strength and ability are necessary for both of these acts in order to defeat the endeavour of the enemies of Allaah.

The second matter that has become apparent from the first two statements is that this man harbours resentment against the Arabian Peninsula and he harbours resentment against the rulers from al-Saud. And due to this, he has described them with kufr (disbelief) or nifaaq (hypocrisy) or both of them. The crime of al-Saud according to him and his likes from the people of desires, splitting and the Khawaarij is that their nation is a nation of Tawheed and the Sunnah – every person of Sunnah testifies to this. And their nation has been the flag bearer of Tawheed and the Sunnah since its inception at the hand of al-Imaam Muhammad Ibn Sa’ood – may Allaah have mercy upon him; and verily it gives victory to Tawheed and the Sunnah.

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab called to Tawheed and the Sunnah and the Imaam, the Ameer Muhammad Ibn Sa’ood used to aid him and defend him and he used to defend his call. And the fruit of that effort was that Allaah made this righteous Imaam, al-Mujaahid strong and influential due to his raising the flag of Tawheed and the Sunnah- I deem him as such and Allaah is his Reckoner. From the fruits of this da’wah was the establishment of a mighty nation. It has taken on the burden of establishing the Religion. And there is no person of Sunnah, except that his heart is with this nation. Likewise, it has taken on the political and economic burden. So these are all fruits of aiding Tawheed and the Sunnah.

The Khawaarij in every time and place have always had enmity towards Ahlus-Sunnah, the rulers and their subjects, because Ahlus-Sunnah are the farthest of the people from takfeer (wrongfully labelling a Muslim a disbeliever), let alone tabdee’ (declaring someone an innovator) and tafseeq (declaring someone a disobedient sinner), except with a proof that obligates takfeer, or tabdee’ or tafseeq of the individual. And this is known to those who are familiar with the history of Ahlus-Sunnah and their written works. However, the one who has been overwhelmed by malice and desire has become deep-rooted within him, then he opposes Ahlus-Sunnah and displays enmity towards them.

So it is not strange that Awlaki should take this path, since he has a predecessor and he himself is from the later followerS. Consequently, I warn the Muslims firstly against this man and I call upon them to boycott him and to severe ties with him and to refute him with a knowledge based refutation that will expose his call and reveal his true condition and show that he is an enemy to the people of Islaam and the Sunnah. This individual and his likes are from those who have disfigured the image of Islaam and the image of the people of al-Islaam to the extent that they have driven those who do not possess intellect from the Jews and the Christians to attack the personality of the Messenger of Allaah and to degrade the Mushaf. This is because due to their lack of intellect and due to their lack of knowledge about Islaam and its people they think that him, his predecessors and his contemporaries represent the people of Islaam; and that this path of theirs is the true path of the people of Islaam and that transgressing against the honour, wealth and the lives of others, and that the nullifying of contracts and ratified treaties between our rulers and the rest of the non-Muslim nations of the world, such as those of Europe and America, then these feeble-minded fools and those who have been deprived of justice and fairness, they think that this is the Islaam that we practice.

So how astonishing it is that America let this man remain therein, yet it raises its voice to say that it opposes terrorism, and as for us then we say that they are Khawaarij. Indeed this man and his likes are the terrorists that the Europeans, Americans and the Western world in general refer to, and I think that even the non-Muslims from the people of the East like Russia have labelled them with this title. So these individuals in reality are the instruments of terrorism and they are the river from which the Khawaarij draw out what they draw out to support their transgression against the people of Islaam and the Sunnah, and for their transgression against those whom we have contracts and treaties with (i.e. the non Muslim states), since they do not recognize any contract or treaty. They only declare people disbelievers en masse.

This is what I liked to make note of and I ask Allaah, the Glorified and Most High to keep the people of al-Islaam away from every evil and detestable thing and to withhold from them the evil of the Khawaarij, <span>whether they are the Khawaarij who sit and incite others or whether they are the ones who physically participate themselves; and that He keeps the misery of the Khawaarij among their own selves and that He allows the Muslims to see a lesson in them; and that He seizes the Khawaarij with a mighty and strong seizure </span>and that He makes them a lesson for those who take heed.

And may the peace and salutations of Allaah be upon our Prophet Muhammad and his Family and all of his Companions. This was dictated by one in need of Allaah: ‘Ubayd Ibn ‘Abdullaah Ibn Sulaymaan al-Jaabiree, a former professor at the Islamic University of al-Madeenah. And the date of this discussion was Wednesday night, the 23rd of Dhul-Qa’dah, in the year 1430H, corresponding to the 11th of November in the year 2009. And success is with Allaah. And may the peace and salutations of Allaah be upon our Prophet Muhammad and his Family and all of his Companions.

Posted November 7, 2010 by thesunnahway in Refuations

Who was Sayyid Qutb?


Who was Sayyid Qutb? Part One

“Sayyid Qutb had no knowledge of the fundamental or subsidiary matters of Islam.”

– Shaykh Muhammad Naasir ad-Deen al-Albaanee

Sayyid Qutb (1906-66) was born in a small town in Upper Egypt and moved to Cairo as an adolescent in order to further his education.

Qutb began to write in the late 1920s as a poet and literary critic, writing about social and political matters from a secular standpoint. By 1948, Qutb changed his mode of writing, and began to write from a more Islamic perspective, according to the limited knowledge of Islam that he had. Social Justice, his first Islamic book, was published in 1949.

After his return from a two-year study tour in the United States that ended in 1950, Qutb joined al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun (the Muslim Brotherhood), becoming one of their leading spokesmen. After the movement openly opposed the government of Jamal Abdul Nasser, Qutb essentially spent the rest of his life in prison after 1954, except for a brief period in 1964-65. After being temporarily released, Qutb was re-apprehended, tried and executed for treason in 1966.

Qutb’s lack of knowledge in Islam coupled by his jailing led him to change his understanding of Islam according to the circumstances he was faced with. Consequently, his writings became more and more radical as time went by. Eventually, his revolutionary ideology of takfir (excommunication) and setting out against the authorities became ingrained in the minds and hearts of a new generation of youth who were looking for something greater than the failed way of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun. To this day, Qutb is considered to be the head of this ideology for all insurrectionary groups.

His new-fangled way of understanding Islam is evident in his attempt to write a tafsir (explanation) of the Quran called Fi Thilalil-Quran (In the Shade of the Quran). Qutb was not interested in following the traditional approach of explaining the Quran, which is to firstly refer to the Quran itself for other verses which clarify the meaning, then the Haadeeths of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) which deal with the meanings of specific verses, or if this does not exist, to refer to the explanations of his companions. Hence, it cannot be referred to as a tafsir in the conventional sense.

Referring to the explanations of the companions is a legislated matter in Islam, because they witnessed the revelation of the Quran and were taught its understanding and application by the one to whom it was revealed. Consequently, they were commissioned to transmit the texts of the Quran and Haadeeths that we read today and were also charged with the responsibility of retaining the explanations of the texts as well as their causes and occasions of revelation. Instead of referring to these important sources, Qutb used his own opinions to explain the Quran – over and above these sources. Consequently, this tafsir contains numerous errors which the Salafi scholars have already clarified for the people.

Because of his ignorance of the orthodox system of Islamic belief, Qutb came up with a hodgepodge of statements collected from all of the various Islamic sects which have sprung up since the earliest years of Islamic civilization. Far from being upon the creed of the “Wahhabis”, Qutb was influenced by the Mu’tazili/Sufi philosophical school of thought which prevails in that area of the Middle East. This system of belief runs completely contrary to the so-called “Wahhabi” creed.

Since he abandoned the methodology of returning to the understanding of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) and his companions when approaching the texts of the Quran and Sunnah, Qutb became engrossed in the faults and sins of those around him, particularly those of the rulers.

As the Islamic groups such as al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun sought to usurp the authority of the Egyptian rulers, the government responded by clamping down on them, sometimes in brutal ways. This environment caused Qutb to form a particular outlook of the world, and his absence of proper grounding in the methodology of the early rightly-guided Muslims caused him to fall into the dangerous orientation of expelling people from the fold of Islam due to their sins…

abridged from the book, The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

Who was Sayyid Qutb? (part 2)

Sayyid Qutb’s ignorance of the fundamentals of Islam led him to utter the following statements of perilous excess, “Today, we are in jahiliyah (the days of ignorance), like that which was prevalent at the dawn of Islam, in fact more severe. Everything around us is jahiliyah…”

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, one of the great scholars of this time, was asked whether it is permissible to use the term jahiliyah in an unrestricted manner upon the present-day Islamic societies, to which he answered:

The general jahiliyah went away when the Messenger of Allah (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) was sent. So it is not permissible to employ it upon the Islamic societies in a general sense. As for applying something from its affairs upon individuals or upon some groups and societies, then this is permissible and allowed. Indeed, the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) said to one of his companions, “Verily you are a man who has jahiliyah in him.”

And he (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) said, “My nation will not leave off four affairs of jahiliyah: Pride in noble descent, cursing the lineage, seeking rain through the stars, and wailing over the dead.”

Elsewhere, Qutb said, “The time has reverted back to its original form on the very day this religion came to mankind with the phrase ‘There is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah.’ For mankind has apostatized and gone to the worship of the servants…”

This extreme belief led Qutb to conclude that “the (Islamic) Nation has ceased to be in existence and has not been perceivable for a very long time.”

In fact, Qutb went to such lengths of extremism that he refused to pray the obligatory Friday congregational prayer, believing that its obligation was no longer binding due to the fact that there was no Caliph ruling over the Muslim lands. In his book “The Secret History of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, Ali Ashmawi said, “And the time for the obligatory Friday congregational prayer arrived so I said to him (Qutb), ‘Let us leave and pray,’ and it was a surprise that I came to know – and for the first time – that he did not use to pray the Friday prayer.”

Even the heads of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, such as Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, bear witness to the menace of Qutb and his followers:

“And it was in this period that the books of the martyr, Sayyid Qutb appeared, the books that represented his final thoughts (in ideology, before his death). Those which justified the takfir (excommunication) of (whole) societies… the breaking of all sentimental attachments to society, breaking off ties with others, and the announcement of a destructive jihad against the whole of mankind. And showing contempt against the inviters who call for lenience and softness, accusing them of idiocy, and being defeatist… He made this manifest, in the most clear manner in the tafsir (explanation of the Quran), Fi Thilalil-Quran, in the 2nd edition and in Ma’alim fit-Tariq (Milestones), and the bulk of it is taken from Thilal and Al-Islam wa Mushkilatil-Hadharah and others.”

The senior Salafi scholars have clearly alerted the Muslims to these mistakes, which are far from limited to issues of takfir (excommunication). When asked for his opinion about whether or not it was correct for people to keep a copy of Qutb’s commentary of the Quran in their houses, Shaykh Muqbil Ibn Haadee al-Waadi’ee, the great Yemeni scholar replied:

“As for the book ath-Thilal and the writings of Sayyid Qutb – may Allah have mercy upon him – then we advise that they not be read at all, because some people from Jamaa’atut-Takfir and some of the youth who were conceived by Jamaa’atut-Takfir were a direct product of the writings of Sayyid Qutb, may Allah have mercy upon him. And Sayyid Qutb was merely considered a writer, he was not considered a mufassir (explainer of the Quran).”

The late Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-’Uthaymin, one of the leading scholars of this century, was asked about the books of Sayyid Qutb, particularly Fi Thilalil-Quran (In the Shade of the Quran) and Ma’alim fit-Tariq (Milestones), wherein he replied:

“My statement – may Allah bless you – is that whoever is sincere to Allah, His Messenger, and his brother Muslims, then he should encourage the people to read the books of those who have preceded us, from the books of tafsir (explanation of the Quran) and other than (the books of) tafsir. These books contain more blessings, are more beneficial and are much better than the books of the later ones. As for the tafsir of Sayyid Qutb – may Allah have mercy upon him – then it contains great calamities, however we hope that Allah pardons him. It contains great calamities…”

Evidently, the senior Salafi scholars have clarified the overabundance of calamitous errors which are contained within Sayyid Qutb’s books. They have spoken about the subjects which have been mentioned in this book, and they have spoken about other areas of creed which Qutb fell into error in, which have not been mentioned in this book. Anyone who still insists on hanging on to certain personalities from amongst the Islamic “thinkers” such as Sayyid Qutb, Abu Alaa Maududi, and Hasan al-Banna, and refuses to reject the deviation of the contemporary groups and movements, has removed themselves from the methodology of Salafism, even if they attempt to ascribe themselves to it.

– abridged from the book, The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

Posted November 7, 2010 by thesunnahway in Refuations