Posted on 04/19/2002 4:57:14 PM PDT by knighthawk
by Sheikh Hammoud Al-Uqlaa Ash-Shuaybi (Arabian Peninsula)
In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy
Q: To proceed, Sheikh Hammoud ibn 'Abdullaah Ash-Shuaybi, there have been a lot of talks on what happened in America some supporting and blessing others opposing and condemning it. What is the correct stand in these two opinions according to your view? We similarly hope you will go into details in the issue because of the ambiguities in it.
A: Praise is due to Allah Lord of the Worlds, may the Salaat and Salaam be with the unlettered Prophet, his family, his companions and all who live according to his path till the Day of Judgment.
Before answering the question we should know that whatever decision the non- Muslim state, America, takes -especially critical decisions which involve war - it is taken based on opinion poll and/or voting within the house of representatives and senate, which represent directly, the exact opinion of the people they represent - the people of America - through their representatives in the Parliament. Based on this, any American who voted for war is a like a fighter, or at least a supporter, as we will explain later.
Let it also be understood that the guide and final decision on the interactions of Muslims with the Unbelievers are the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet may the Salat and Salam be with him; And not politics or personal benefits. And the Qur'an has explicitly explained this issue and clarified it because of its importance and danger. When we refer to the Qur'an we realize that it has left no one in doubt nor did it leave any gay areas on this issue.
And all the various verses which discuss this issue emphasize two things, namely Al-Walaa' (love and alliance) and Al-Baraa'ah (hate and opposition), which confirms the fact that Al-Walaa' and Al-Baraa'ah are strong pillars in the Islamic Shari'ah, an issue on which the scholars - both the past and contemporary - have consensus. Allah says warning against Loving the unbelievers, taking sides with them and leaning towards them:
"O believers! Take not Jews and Christians as your (protecting) friends, they are allies of one another. Whosoever allies with them, amongst you, then he is one of them..."
"O Believers! Do not take My enemy and your enemy, as friends, giving them your affection..."
And Allah said: "O Believers! Take not private friends from among your enemies expressing open love to them.."
And He said on the necessity of rejecting the unbelievers "certainly you had an excellent example in Ibrahim and those with him, when they said to their people we are free from you and from whatever ye worship other than Allah, we have rejected you hostility has stated between us and you till the Day of Judgment..." And the Exalted said: "Never will you find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day making friendships with those oppose Allah and His messenger even though they were their parents or their sons.."
And the Exalted and praised said: "Say: if your parents, your children, your brothers, your wives, your kindred, the weath you have acquired, the commerce in which you fear decline, or the dwellins you are pleased with, are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger and striving hard and fighting in His cause, then wait until Allah brings His Decision. And Allah guides not the Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient)"
These verses and tens of others are clear statements on the obligation and necessity of opposing unbelievers and hating them, as well as rejecting them. And I don't think any person with the slightest level of knowledge is ignorant of this.
Having said this, you should know that America is a Kufr State that is totally against Islam and Muslims. In fact it has reached the peak of that arrogance in the form of open attacks on several Muslim Nations as it did in Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philistine, Libya and others, where it - America - allied with the forces of Kufr such as Britain, Russia and others in attacking and trying to exterminate them. Similarly, America expelled the Palestinians from their homes and housed the 'brothers of Pigs and Apes' in them; and stood firmly in support of the criminal Zionist State of the Jews, giving them all they need in the form of wealth, weapons and training. How then can America after all these things not be considered an enemy of the Muslim Nations and at war with them?
But, because they have reached the peak of tyranny and arrogance; because they have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union in the hands of the Muslims in Afghanistan, they thought that they are the Ultimate Power above which there is no power. Unfortunately, they forgot that Allah, the Exalted and Mighty, is Stronger than them and can humble and destroy them.
On the other hand, it is unfortunate and disturbing to see that a lot of fellow scholars have preferred the side of mercy and emotion and forgotten or ignored what that Kufr Nation (America) is doing such as killing, destroying and spoiling most of the Muslim Lands, and showing no mercy or kindness in that.
Consequently, I find it incumbent upon me to refute some false claims and misconceptions that some fellow scholars are relying upon in trying to support their positions.
MISCONCEPTION No. 1
One of them is what I heard from some of them, "that we have agreements and pacts between us and America and hence it is binding on us to fulfil them."
My response to this is from two points of view:
1. The person saying this has already concluded that it is Muslims who committed the act, and up to now, no proof of law has been established to the effect that Muslims are behind the attack, or that they participated in it, in which case it may be said that they have broken the covenant. So, since, it is yet to be established that we committed the act, nor that we did partake in its execution, how then can it be said that we have broken the 'Pact'?
Of course expressing our hatred for those unbelievers and rejecting them has nothing to do with breaking covenants or pacts. It is just something Allah has compelled upon us in clear texts of His Glorious Book.
2. Even if we accept that there are covenants and pacts between Muslims and America, why then did America not fulfill its side of the agreement?
Why has it not stopped its aggression and harming a lot of Muslims? Is it not an established fact that: all pacts are binding on both parties; and that whenever they do not fulfill their roles, the pact becomes invalid and the covenant broken? Allah the Exalted said:
"But if they break their covenants after its solemnizing it, and attack your religion, then, fight ye the leaders of Kufr, for they (deserve) no covenant..."
MISCONCEPTION No. 2
They say that: "among the victims were some, innocent and sinless"
Response to this is from several points of view:
1. Sa'ab bin Jathamah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported from that the Prophet was asked about the people in the homes of Mushrikun (Polytheist) when they are attacked at night and their women and children are affected, he said: "they are part of them".
So, this Hadith shows that women, children and all those the killing of whom is forbidden, when they are separate, it is permissible to kill them when they are mixed up with the fighters and it is not possible to separate. This is because they had asked the Prophet about the case which is "attacking at night", in which case it is not possible to differentiate, and he permitted them because "things may be allowed when they occur along the way but be forbidden when separate".
2. Also, Muslim commanders have always used Catapult when fighting the Kuffar (a kind of weapon that was used in the past when trying to break into an enemy camp which is fully fortressed - it destroys whatever it meets by its weight, i.e. something like a catapult - translator), and it is obvious that a Catapult when applied in a war does not differentiate between a fighter and others, hence it may afflict some those so-called 'innocent souls', but that not withstanding this is an established practice among Muslims in their wars.
Ibn Qudamah may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And it is permissible to use Catapult because the Prophet may the Salaat and Salaam be with him used Catapult on the people of Ta'if; and Amr bin al-As did the same to the people of Alexandria (Al-Mughniy, vol. 10, p503).
And Ibn al-Qasim said "it is permissible to use Catapult against Kuffar even if children, women and old men and monks are killed inadvertently, because 'Nikayah' (doing what will weaken the enemy) is allowed according to the consensus of Ulama. Ibn Rushd said: "'Nikayah' is permissible according to Ijama' and on any type of polytheists" (Al-Hashiyah ala' Ar-Raudh, vol. 4, p 271)
Here, there is a question we will like to ask those who use the word "Terrorism" on what happened in America, and I want their reply.
The question is: When America attacked a Pharmaceutical firm in Sudan, using its planes and bombs, destroying it and killing everybody in it, staff and laborers, what was this called? Shouldn't the action of America in the Sudanese firm be considered as an act of terrorism? Else how can what those people did in America be treatest as an act of terrorism? Why is everybody condemning and rejecting what was done to those buildings in America and yet we did not hear any such condemnations on the destruction caused by America in the Sudanese firm?
I certainly don't see any difference between the two acts, except that the money that was used in building the firm is Muslims' and the workers and staff killed by destroying the firm were Muslims; Whereas, the buildings destroyed by those hijackers was built with the money of non-Muslims and the victims of the explosion were non-Muslims.
So, is this the difference that made some fellow brothers to call what happened in America 'Terrorism'!! While at the same time they neither condemned what happened in Sudan, nor called it TERRORISM?
Similarly, what happened to the Libyans of deliberate and imposed 'starvation'; 'starvation' of the Iraqis plus almost daily attacks; the sanctions and attacks launched against Afghanistan, a Muslim Nation: all these, why are they not termed "terrorism"? What else can we term them if not terrorism?
In addition, we should ask those people, what do you mean by "innocent and sinless"?
Those are one of three categories/groups:
The first category:
They may be among those who neither fought, nor supported their country by their persons, wealth or opinion and suggestions or anything else. It is not permissible to kill this category, on condition that they can be differentiated from the rest, but if they are mixed up such that they can't be separated, then it is allowed to kill them along with the others and by extension, like old men, women, children, the sick and the disabled or devoted monks.
Ibn Qudamah said: "It is allowed to kill women and children in night attacks and in demolished buildings or ditches, so far as the intention is not to kill them in particular; And it is allowed to kill their (the enemies') animals as a means for killing and subduing them; there is no difference of opinion on this." (Al-Mughniy, with the Sharh -commentary, 10/503)
Similarly he said: "It is permissible to attack enemies at night. Ahmad bin Hanbal said: 'there is no problem with night attacks, were the Romans not attacked at night?' And he said: 'we don't know anybody who disliked night attacks" (Al-Mughniy 10/503)
The second category: Or, they (the victims) may be part of those who did not participate directly in the war but helped with their wealth or opinions, these cannot be called "innocent", nay they are among the fighters and part of the strength of the enemy.
Ibn Abdil Barr may Allah has mercy on him, said in Al-Istizkar: "There is no dispute among the scholars that whoever fights among women or old men, killing him is allowed, similarly, any child capable of fighting , if he does may be killed." (Al-Istizkar vol. 14, p 74). Similarly, Ibn Qudamah reported the Ijamaa' on killing women, children and old men if they help their people; Ibn Abdil Barr said: "They have a concensus on the fact that the Prophet killed Duraid bin on the Day of the Battle of Hunayn because he was an experienced in war and contributed his opinions. Thus whoever is like that among old men deserves to be killed according to all (scholars). (At-Tamheed, vol. 16 p 142)
And an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him related the Ijama' (in Sharh Muslim in "the Book of Jihad") that elderly men among the non-Muslims should be killed if they have knowledge of war strategies.
Ibn Qasim also quoted in Al-Hashiyat that: "they had Ijmaa' that the ruling concerning any strategist is that of any fighter in Jihad. This Ijmaa' was reported from Ibn Taimiyyah. Similarly, he related from Ibn Taimiyyah that "those who assist a group and their helpers are (to be considered) part of them, in whatever is for or against them"
The third Category:
Or they may be Muslims, and it is not permissible for these to be killed separately; But when they are mixed up with others in such a way that they have to be killed with them, then it is allowed, and these is the case known as 'Mas'alatut Tatarrus' (when non-Muslims hold Muslims as shield against attack), which was discussed earlier.
Thus, what many are babbling and repeating on the case of the "innocent victims", is nothing but the effect of the West and its media, to the extent that many an unwary person repeats the words and expressions of our enemies, which are in direct contradiction with the expressions of Shari'ah.
Let us not, also, forget that it is permissible for us to treat non-Muslims similar to the way they treated us; and in this there is a reply and clear proof to all those who repeat the words "innocent victims", because Allah the Exalted has made that. Among the texts on that:
"Thus, if you retaliate, retaliate with what equals the aggression afflicted upon you" and He said:
"...and those whom, when an aggression afflicts them, they revenge, but the reward of an evil is an evil equal to it".
Also among the sayings of scholars on the permissibility of taking revenge:
Ibn Taimiyyah said: "it is their right to mutilate. So it is their right to do it in revenge and payback in the same coins, OR they may waive it, but patience is better. This is in a case where the mutilation does not lead to a gain in the Jihad, and it is not for an equal treatment from them (the enemies); But when Mutilating them will lead to their accepting the faith or warn them against another aggression, then, it is - in this case - part of recommended Jihad and retribution." (This was quoted by Ibn Muflih in Alfuru' vol.6 p.218)
Else, whoever says that there are "innocent victims" without any differentiation between their categories, must accept that he is accusing the Prophet and the Companions and those after them that they killed "innocent victims", according to them! Because the Prophet used Catapult in his war against Ta'if, and it is the nature of Catapult that it does not differentiate.
Similarly, the Prophet (saw) killed all whom those who had attained puberty among the Jews of Bani Quraidah without differentiating between them.
Ibn Hazm, commenting on the Hadith that "Banu Quraidah were paraded before the Prophet, and he ordered the killing of all those who had attained puberty", said: "this is a general ruling from the Prophet, since he did not leave out an old man, a merchant, a farmer or any other person; this was related from him with genuine Ijmaa' (Al-Muhallaa vol. 6 p. 299)
Ibn al-Qayyim said in 'Zaadul Ma'aad': "it is part of his guidance (i.e. the Prophet's) that whenever he made a pact with some people and they broke the covenant, or some of them broke the agreement, and the rest supported them on that , and accepted it; he fights all of them and considers all as having broken the covenant. As he did to Banu Quraizah and Banun Nadheer and Banu Qainuqa', and as he treated the people of Mecca. So this is Sunnah (method or approach to those who betray their covenants.
Similarly, he said: "Ibn Taimiyyah has certainly ruled that the Christians of Mashriq should be fought when they assisted the enemies of the Muslims against them, and helped them with their wealth and weapons, despite the fact that they did not did not fight us. He considered them to have broken the covenant as Quraish did during the time of the Prophet by helping Banu Bakr bin Wa'il in fighting those in alliance with the prophet"
In conclusion, we all know that the non Muslim west, especially America will definitely seize this opportunity and utilize that in its favor and through fresh injustice to the Muslims in Afghanistan and Palestine, Chechnya and other areas, whoever the perpetrators may be. And they will try to eradicate Jihad and those who engage in it and it will never succeed; and they will do that in the name of fighting Terrorism; and they will go ahead and fight our brothers in faith, in the Taliban ruled, Muslim Nation of Afghanistan, the only nation that has given a cover for genuine Mujahiddin and assists them at a time when everybody has forsaken them, and who never bowed down to the Non-Muslim Western nations.
Thus, it is compulsory to assist this Islamic Nation in Jihad, with whatever we can Allah the Exalted says:
"The Believers, men and women, are helpers of one another"
And He said "Help each other in righteousness and obedience"
Thus, it is compulsory to assist them with wealth and persons and opinions and advices and through the Media by defending them and their honor and their public image; and through prayers for them that they vanquish the enemy and have steadfastness.
And like we said, it is compulsory upon all Muslims to help the Taliban Government it is also equally compulsory upon the Muslim Governments especially the neighboring countries to assist them against the Kufr of the West.
And let those know that that failing to assist Taliban that is being fought for its religion and because of the help it gives to Mujahideen and, assisting the kuffar against them is the kind of friendship and support of the kuffar that Allaah warned against when He said:
"Believers, take not my enemy and your enemy as friends in whom you put love"
And He said "Believers take not my enemy and yours as Protecting friends."
Certainly it will go down in history that these countries betrayed their brothers and it will remain as a kind of bad record on them and their people that will remain forever!!
Similarly let those neighboring and nearby countries be ware that if they refuse to help the brothers and allowed the enemy to attack them, that Allah may face them with His Natural Disasters and terrible situations as a punishment and chastisement on them. The Prophet said a Muslim is a brother of a Muslim, he does not forsake or betray him.. and he also said in a Hadith Qudsi: "Allah said "Whoever fights my Friend should get ready for war with Me And He said "Whoever allowed a Muslim to be humiliated while he could assist him, Allah will humiliate him in front of the entire creation on the Day of Judgment (reported by Ahmad). And we wish to remind the Pakistan Government that allowing the Americans, the enemies of Muslims, to use their land is not informed by wisdom nor borne out of experience politics at all because it will lead to giving the opportunity for America to discover their secrets of their country and know the location of its nuclear power with all precision and something that has terrified the West, and that may lead to the Americans giving the Jews the chance to attack the Nuclear Plants in Pakistan as they did those of Iraq earlier. And how come does Pakistan trust America is enemy that has been warning and warning them! I really think that the reasonable personalities in Pakistan will not allow it, not to mention their Good Muslims will ever accept this nor will they just fold their arms and watch surrender to their enemies of yesterday.
We pray to Allah that He helps His Religion and raises His Word and exalts Islam and the Muslims and the Mujahideen and to destroy America and its followers and those who assist them. Verily He has that Power and is Able to do so.
Wa-sallaahu wa-sallam 'alaa Muhammad wa aalihi wa sahbihi was-sallam.
Quranic Verse
"Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It Is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success." (al-Quraan, 9:111).
Exactly. I was thinking the same thing. They scream and moan when the Israelis target the lunatic bloodthirsty killer terrorists yet they justify their own actions by this insane position. Let's Roll!
LOL: I didn't count the words, but I knew it'd be a lot.
Oh, and thanks for the ping, even if you DID beat me to the punch(line) :- )
Yep. I mentioned in a thread about Yasser a few weeks ago that this is the only way Yasser could reconcile not being of Norse origin, while still embracing Nazi propaganda to justify his ethnic cleansing of Jews.
Although I do not if the author of the fatwa on this thread was highly placed, he certainly reflected the thinking of a lot Muslim immans.
The following little gem was "preached" at the Grand Mosque in Mecca on April 19, 2002. You can't get more high profile than that. It would not have happened without the tacit approval of the government of Saudi Arabia.
April 20, 2002 -- WASHINGTON - A top Saudi Arabian religious leader yesterday used inflammatory anti-Semitic rhetoric as he prayed for Allah to "terminate Jews" and urged all Muslims to shun peace with Israel. The hate-filled sermon at the Grand Mosque in Mecca - Islam's holiest shrine - by Sheik Abdul-Rahman al-Sudais was not endorsed by the Saudi government, but it was carried live by several Arabic TV and radio networks.
It came at a time when the conservative kingdom, long considered a voice of moderation in the Middle East, is playing a more radical role, with government-sponsored telethons for Palestinian "martyrs" and a top diplomat writing a passionate ode to homicide bombers.
Sudais, one of the top imams in Saudi Arabia, called on Muslims to "say farewell to peace initiatives with these people [Jews]." He prayed to the Muslim God to "terminate" the Jews, whom he called "the scum of humanity, the rats of the world, prophet killers, pigs and monkeys."
Garbage like this makes war with Saudi Arabia look more and more likely. Given the current world over capacity in oil production, we do not need their oil (they need to sell it, however). That makes NOW a good time for a break with the House of Saud.
The only card the Saudis have is Mecca and Medina, the two most "holy" places in the world. They would try to spin any war with us into a threat to these "holy" places. If they succeeded, we would find ourselves at war with most (or all) of Islam.
We have a way to beat the Mecca card. Although Mecca and Medina are currently in Saudia Arabia, that boundary is relatively recent. They could just as easily be in Jordan. If Saudi Arabia takes us on, but the rest of Islam does not, then that is likely to be the result.
Of course, if all of Islam takes us on instead (which could happen), then it will not matter which country Mecca is in. At that point it is certain that weapons of mass destruction would be used against us. We would lose millions of people, after which Mecca would glow in the dark.
We in the West do not seek this result, but many Muslim clerics, some at very high levels, apparently do. It only takes one side to start a war. If that is what they want, bring it on.
Fundamental to Islam is the notion that it is NEVER permissible for a non-Muslim to attack a Muslim, even in retaliation for a Muslim attack
Perhaps you would like to round out your education.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.