Anwar al-Awlaki – The Dust Will Never Settle Down

There has been recently an increase of unacceptable behavior from the kuffar towards our beloved Prophet. So what is the ruling of sharia on such incidents and how did the Sahaba deal with such people and what do our scholars say about them. About this and more Imam Anwar will deliver a talk titled: “The Dust will Never Settle Down”. Allah will suffice His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) against the criminals who mock him. He says (interpretation of the meaning): “For he who hates you (O Muhammad), he will be cut off (from posterity and every good thing in this world and in the Hereafter)” [al-Kawthar 108:3] i.e., he is scorned and humiliated and cut off from all that is good. When the Muslims besieged a stronghold and its people resisted, then they heard them mocking and reviling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), they would sense that victory was at hand, and it would only be a short time before Allaah granted them victory, to avenge His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Al-Sarim al-Maslool (p. 116-117).


Advertise on Halal Tube Report ad

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

57 Responses to “ Anwar al-Awlaki – The Dust Will Never Settle Down ”

  1. samieh says:

    the imam spoke the truth, and most of the people including muslims wont like it, but one thing is for sure they dont to put him in prison again,im sure they like him alot better before. may allah preserve him and increase him. and here is the purist test . freedom of speach? for those who say you have the freedom to say horriable things about the prophet sallallahu aleyhe wassallam, then why doesnt the imam have the right to say what he did? i am just predicting the response of the kaffirs and it will be pure hypocracy, this is not a halwa imam…

  2. usama says:

    The honour of our prophet is at stake and we would be the worst creatures if we dont protect it. I highly recommened this lecture to everybody, since lotsa people are a prey to the idiotical fatawa of the so called ulemas today. Also, my brothers and sisters you can visit http://www.everymuslim.net, to hear about the seerah of our prophet in a detailed way by Imam Anwar Awlaki. Lets ask ALLAH to put the love of his messengers in our hearts.

  3. usama says:

    Brothers and sisters, please let us know if that you have joined the Imam in his views after hearing this lecture. Let us atleast unite through halaltube

  4. usama says:

    Hard to swallow the points since we have no honour. May Allah protect us for he has promised to protect us

  5. not my name says:

    hey.. but all this events happened in Madinah after the prophets migration. To pass a capital punishment, an Islamic state is essential.. what this guy is talking about

  6. what did you say says:

    The religion is from Allaah, agreed. We take this religion as it was revealed with the understanding it was revealed. Meaning we take from those whom the Messenger of Allaah said are ((The best of this Ummah is My generation and then those who follow them and then those who follow them))

    Now about this particular talk, I’m not speaking about it. What I am speaking about is the man in general. And I am referring to how he’s gone against the Ulemaa in many affairs such as his mocking remarks towards the Ulemaa who have said that the time now is the time for Tasfiyyah and Tarbiyyah. This was the statement of the Muhaddith of our era, without mentioning his name Awlaki spoke against this Kalaam which is actually from Imaam Dar al Hijrah, Maalik bin Anas.

    He has also gone against the Ulemaa of Ahlus Sunnah in his understanding of Jihaad, as he has openly taken from Yusuf al Uyayree, the blood thirsty Khaarijee Jaahil who wrote about Jihaad. These aren’t hidden matters, they’re wide open.

    But before continuing… Answer this question: ((Where did Anwar Awlaki take his knowledge from? Who are his teachers? Who from amongst the Ulemaa has given him any form of Tazkiyyah or permission to teach such intricate issues such as Jihaad and Seerah?))

    InshaAllaah answer that and we can establish some Haqq regarding him.

  7. usama says:

    I agree that this has to take place in an islamic state. not randomly

  8. call me khallal says:

    Who was it that revived the science of Hadeeth in our Era? The very same one who Awlaki opposes by saying “Tasfiyyah wat Tarbiyyah is not needed in our times”. Who was it that revived the Sunnah in Yemen when the Zaydiyyah spread their beliefs? Not Awlaki, he was no where to be found. Nor was his mentor Az-Zindaanee. Who was it that checked and verified thousands of Ahaadeeth from the books of Sunan? Who was it that explained the books of Tawheed and Sunnah to the people and taught them what is correct? These are all the Ulemaa.

  9. Mateen says:

    Khallal,

    When did Awlaki say “Tasfiyyah wat Tarbiyyah is not needed in our times”? Secondly, what is the point in saying where was the Imam when the Shias were spreading their beliefs? What does that have to do with his knowledge?, and remember he only spent his first 11 years in Yemen.

    And his opinions on Jihad, what specifically do you disagree with?

  10. Aaisha says:

    what did you say,We dont know what you mean this ((Where did Anwar Awlaki take his knowledge from? Who are his teachers?DO we need teachers if we need to read the Book of Allah(SWT)?Don’t to you see his knowledg is from the Book of Allah(SWT)I see were you caming from you are a NEW Salafi and they dont like JIHAD !!!

  11. Muhammad says:

    Tasfiyyah tarbiyyah lol man that is such a idiotic statment. This just shows whoever said that has no clue to what is going on to the Ummah and they want the Muslims to be sheep for wolves. May Allah humiliate these low lives.

    Prophet clearly told us what the problem will be, so this “muhaddith” must’ve missed all these hadiths or had his own personal agenda that went against the Prophet.

  12. Muhammad says:

    There is no proof that it has to take place in a islamic state, this is just another new belief being passed around.

  13. Abu Irsaad says:

    as-Salaam ‘Alaykum,

    I usually don’t post on these message boards but since there are some questions here, I will attempt to answer them.

    1. “To pass a capital punishment, an Islamic state is essential..”

    What is the evidence for this?

    In fiqh, it is understood that if you are going to make a condition, you must have evidence supporting it. Just because the events happened after the establishment of Islaam in Madinah doesn’t mean that the rulings are nullified for us until we have a Khilaafah. If this was so, then alcohol would still be Halaal today as well as many other things.

    So the answer to your question is that we take Islaam as a whole as we are instructed in the Qur’aan.

    2. “And I am referring to how he’s gone against the Ulemaa in many affairs such as his mocking remarks towards the Ulemaa who have said that the time now is the time for Tasfiyyah and Tarbiyyah.”

    You are most probably referring to Imaam Anwar’s talk on the Mashaari’ book by Shaykh ibn an-Nuhaas; I cannot think of any other place you would be referring to. If this is the case, then you are wrong my brother. The Imaam did not negate Tarbiyyah and Tasfiyyah; rather the Imaam was using this saying of some of the ‘Ulema, “this is not the time for Jihaad; rather, this is the time for Tasfiyyah and Tarbiyyah,” and using it against them and he had his dalaa’il. He proved that Jihaad is fard ‘ayn today and thus, nobody can use this excuse of Tasfiyyah wa Tarbiyyah to sit back from Jihaad when Jihaad itself is Tasfiyyah wa Tarbiyyah and the time it takes one to realize the importance of Jihaad, then the Tasfiyyah wa Tarbiyyah is a must upon him until he reaches his grave. Please re-listen to what the Shaykh said in that talk and do not assume evil.

    3. “He has also gone against the Ulemaa of Ahlus Sunnah in his understanding of Jihaad,”

    How? Please explain.

    4. “as he has openly taken from Yusuf al Uyayree, the blood thirsty Khaarijee Jaahil who wrote about Jihaad.”

    How is Shaykh Yusuf bin Saalih al-‘Uyayree, rahimahullah, a Kharijee? Which type of sins has he made Takfeer on? Where has he shown his love for the disbelievers and hatred for the believers? Where has he made the blood of the Muslims halaal and the blood of the disbelievers Haraam?

    On the contrary, I see your King (of Saudi) making sins equal to Apostasy such as killing the Mujaahideen whom even if they are guilty of a crime, the most they would be are Bughaat (rebels) and even the Bughaat are not treated as Khawaarij.

    I see your King kissing and holding the hand of the disbelieving women in order to please her and her nation and hugging the Kaafir men in order to please him and his nation. I see your King giving millions, if not billions of dollars to the Kuffaar. I see your King protecting the Kaafir Army bases in Saudi Arabia whilst the Kuffaar are launching their aggressions, oppression and wars upon the Muslims from those bases.

    I see your King has made Jihaad in ‘Iraaq a crime and has called for the arrest of the sons of Tawheed who wish to go fe Sabeelillaah.

    So tell me dear brother. Who is the Kharijee here?

    I advise you to read this:

    http://revolution.muslimpad.com/2008/05/29/to-those-who-call-us-khawaarij-2/

    5. “Where did Anwar Awlaki take his knowledge from? Who are his teachers? Who from amongst the Ulemaa has given him any form of Tazkiyyah or permission to teach such intricate issues such as Jihaad and Seerah?”

    I will ask him inshaa’Allaah, but what does this have to do with the actual topic? Character Assassinating people is not the Sunnah; if they speak the Haqq, then acknowledge it and refrain from attacking their character in order to make the Haqq look like Baatil.

    6. “Who was it that revived the science of Hadeeth in our Era? The very same one who Awlaki opposes by saying “Tasfiyyah wat Tarbiyyah is not needed in our times”.”

    And Shaykh ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Azzam is the one who revived Jihaad in our era. He too says – quoting from Ibn Taymiyyah regarding Jihaad ad-Dafi’ – that tarbiyyah wa tasfiyyah should never become an obstacle to Jihaad fe Sabeelillaah when Jihaad is fard ‘ayn.

    7. “Who was it that revived the Sunnah in Yemen when the Zaydiyyah spread their beliefs? Not Awlaki, he was no where to be found. Nor was his mentor Az-Zindaanee.”

    Brother, I can play this game too. Who was it that stopped the Kaafir Soviet Empire to a halt in Afghanistan when they were killing and raping Muslims? Not the hadeeth reviver of this century; he was nowhere to be found! Nor was his Shaykh!

    Don’t be foolish. Before assuming evil about another Muslim, you need to do your own research and see what he actually was doing and where he was during that time. Imaam Anwar was in America for quite some time giving Da’wah here.

    By the way, I respect Shaykh al-Albaanee; I was only using it as an example to show your irrationality.

    8. “Who was it that checked and verified thousands of Ahaadeeth from the books of Sunan? Who was it that explained the books of Tawheed and Sunnah to the people and taught them what is correct? These are all the Ulemaa.”

    Who was it that saved hundreds of Muslim prisoners from the oppressive American-controlled prison of Abu Ghraib? Who was it that established the Shari’ah on the earth in Somalia, Afghanistan, ‘Iraaq, and Chechnya? These are all Mujaahideen.

    Again, all respect to the ‘Ulema, but your reasoning is horrible my brother.

    I noticed that the so-called Salafi’s here have not attacked anything from the speech itself of Imaam Anwar’s. If they agree with the speech, then they should say so. If they disagree, then they should bring their points with their evidences. But here we see them attack the Imaam with evil assumptions in order to make everyone else hate the Imaam and refrain from listening to the Haqq that he has to say. I warn everyone here to be careful of such people as they only create fitnah amongst the Muslims by not verifying their rumors.

    Finally, if anyone has a disagreement with Imaam Anwar, then come to my blog and ask politely showing proper Adab. I will respond likewise:

    revolution.muslimpad.com

  14. call me khallal says:

    Brothers, lets contemplate on this
    Allah says in the quran about Dawood (AS) When he was worshipping, there appeared before him two men who wanted their case case to b heard. One of them said” This man is my brother. he has nine and ninety ewes , and I have one : yet he says , commit her to my care’ and he overcame me in the argument
    AnD David said ‘he has undoubtedly wronged you… ‘The two men disappered. What was Davids fault.He did not heard from the other man before giving the verdict.
    So my brother, if u are very impressed with Awlaki and his views, Why dont u hear from the Ulama of Ahlus sunnah wal Jama. Because we can be manipulated in the name of Islam, lets hear from the people of knowledge. If we learn the Islamic history, we will come to know the attitude of the people of knowledge towards their rulers because to obey them is a part of our deen. If you are obsessed with Awlaki, and u dont have enough knowledge, get your questions answered from the ulama

  15. call me khallal says:

    My purpose here is that I see many of the youth are duped by the eloquent speakers without realizing their realities. So with this they are afflicted with the harms of people who should be silent rather than speak.

    My question still stands forth… who is Anwar ‘Awlaki to speak about the deen and talk about Ahkaam like he does? Who were his teachers? Where is his tazkiyyah?

    Anwar is no Imaam except that he just leads prayer. And the people who lead the Salaah are not known as Imaam fulaan. If you study the deen you’ll see that those who were given the title “Imaam” fulaan were given that due to their ‘Ilm. So how can you give Awlaki that title? How can he even accept it??

    I’m not necessarily speaking about this particular lecture, even though I heard a part of it and closed it due to the lack of benefit that this siyaasi fellow gives. Shaykh ‘Abdur-Rahmaan Naasir as-Sa’adee rahimahullaah warned against the likes of this speech. Those people who spend their time in Siyaasah rather than sitting with the Ulemaa.

    As for the Asaaghir, then look to what the Ulemaa have completely said about it. It’s not only that they are Ahlul Bid’ah, but they are those who speak about deen and they are not from the people of knowledge.

    Ibn ‘Abdul Barr ALSO said in his Jaami’ Bayaan al ‘Ilm wa Fadhlihi in the chapter “Haal al ‘ilm” and it’s the narration right before the one which you pasted:

    قال نعيم قيل لابن المبارك من الأصاغر قال الذين يقولون برأيهم فأما صغير يروي عن كبير فليس بصغير

    That Ibn al Mubaarak said that the Asaaghir are those who speak with their opinions and the ones who are small and narrate from the older ones then they are not the Sagheer.

    So you see it’s not just Ahlul Bid’ah, but it’s those like Anwar Awlaki who put themselves in place to speak about the deen without knowledge. And if you claim he has knowledge then what’s your proof? Where did he study? from whom?

    Rather he’s taken his knowledge directly from Yusuf al Uyayree, the Khaarijee from “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” The one who Awlaki calls his Shaykh. A well known murderer who used to plan attacks against MUSLIMS in Saudia.

    So who am I to speak? I’m no one, Im not calling to myself, I’m calling to the Ulemaa. Those whom Awlaki do not call to but rather he takes his subtle attacks towards in his Speech. Alhamdulillaah Allaah has clarified the Haqq. We know the Haqq from the Baatil, it’s clear. And when the Juhaal start to speak they try confuse it. This is why Awlaki took pot shots at Shaykh Al-Albaanee talking about his position on Tasfiyyah wat Tarbiyyah. And this is why Awlaki took petty attacks towards the Ulemaa al Kibaar such as Ibn Uthaymeen and Shaykh ‘Abdul Muhsin for their statements about Muslims not having Quwwah and much like the Makkan period it is upon us to practice Tasfiyyah wat Tarbiyyah.

    Lest you know you will not know how to tell from the statements of these Juhaal. The time Awlaki spent in Yemen, he preferred to take from Az-Zindaanee, the one who Shaykh Muqbil called “the pharmacist” and nothing more. Never went to the Ulemaa of Ahlus Sunnah in Yemen such as Shaykh Muhammad al-Imaam or Shaykh al-’Adanee or Shaykh Muqbil when he was alive or Shaykh Yahya al Haajooree or the many Ulemaa of Sunnah… why? Because they oppose his Manhaj.

  16. call me khallal says:

    Here’s something a brother wrote concerning Awlaki’s taking from the Khawaarij:

    5) His translation of the book of the blood-thirsty Khaarijee, Yusuf bin Saaleh al-’Uyayree, also known as Aboo Qutaybah al Makkee.

    Here states the people who have uploaded and transcribed his lecture:

    ||Constants on the Path of Jihad (10/10)
    Author: Shaykh Yusuf al ‘Uyayree; transcribed & edited by Mujahid fe Sabeelillah
    Description: Imam Anwar al Awlaki gave a six hour lecture on the original book in Arabic titled, “Thawaabit ‘ala darb al Jihad” in English. This book available for download is the transcription of that lecture with additional input by the editor. There are variables and constants in the Deen; in this book, the constants of Jihad are discussed. These are things which will always continue until the Day of Judgment. Some of the subjects discussed include preparation, the meaning of victory and defeat, and dependence on people and lands for Jihad. This book is very straightforward; this book easily points out the cowardness and the hypocrisy of the majority of Muslims today in their actions and words.

    Thawaabit ‘ala darb al Jihad is one of the best contemporary books on the subject of Jihad. It was written by Shaykh Yusuf al ‘Uyayree. Shaykh Yusuf had left at an early age to fight in Afghanistan against the Russians. People who knew him described him as a very intelligent individual who was well-versed in all of the weaponry in all fields and was able to train with them very well. Later, he returned to the Arabian Peninsula where he continued serving the Mujahideen in Chechnya and fundraised for them. As time passed, he was arrested and put in jail for a few years. In jail he memorized al Bukhari and Muslim. When he came out, he wrote a few books; each one of them is a masterpiece. One can see the depth of his textual references to Qur’an and Sunnah as well as references to present day occurences. He was later killed and died shaheed by the security forces in the Arabian Peninsula; we ask Allah for that to be the case.

    Imam Anwar al Awlaki brings this book back to life in his lecture series on the book. It is a very detailed lecture series which is extremely relevant to our time. In addition, the Shaykh goes into detail of a very important subject that has been neglected: The meaning of victory and defeat. Victory and defeat, in Islam, is not to be limited to the battlefield.||

    _____________

    It is key to note that the people who promote the ideology of the Khawaarij use the term “Arabian Peninsula” when referring to Saudi Arabia because they make Takfeer of Saudi Arabia, and do not consider it a legitimate Muslim Rulership.

    Yusuf al-’Uyayree was a well known khaarijee Takfeeree who was a member of the group of ‘Abdul-’Azeez al-Muqrin known as “al-Qaa’idah fee Jazeeratul ‘Arab”.

    al-’Uyayree’s death on May 31st of 2003 was marked by his fighting and attempt to kill the Muslim security forces in Saudi Arabia.

    Allaah has prohibited the blood of the Muslims but this vile Khaarijee had made it Halaal due to his vicious takfeer of the Saudi Government and anyone who supports them or works for them, hence the security forces.

    He had completed Middle school and had not completed High school, when he was 18 years old, Yusuf bin Saaleh al-’Uyayree went to Afghaanistaan to fight in the war against the Soviets in the early 90’s. It was not known from him that he sought any ‘ilm ash-Shar’ee from the hands of any of the ‘Ulemaa in Saudia whilst he was there growing up. Yusuf al-’Uyayree had mentioned that all of the knowledge he had attained was in Afghaanistaan. In Afghaanistaan he had taken his knowledge from the group of Arab fighters surrounding the Khaarijee Usaamah bin Laaden and Ayman az-Zawaahiree, this manifested itself in his trip to Sudan as was mentioned by Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi the Khaarijee on his website. He had adopted the mentality and the ideology of the Al-Qaa’idah group and brought it back to Saudi Arabia. He began to spread this ideology of unrestricted Takfeer amongst the Youth in Saudi Arabia.

    He was jailed for being a part of the al-Khobar bombings in which killed many innocent Muslims. After his release from prison he began spreading more dangerous activities of the “Al-Qaa’idah in the Arabian Peninsula” group in Saudi Arabia and was killed in a shoot out with the security forces in Saudi Arabia.

    Yusuf al-’Uyayree admitted to taking his knowledge from a few of the well-known khawaarij of our times, amongst them the pillar of Al-Qaa’idah: Ayman az-Zhawaahiri. Al-’Uyayree mentioned this in a letter which he had written and is widely published on the internet and other sources. He also admits to taking knowledge from the well-known Khaarijee known as the “blind shaykh”, ‘Umar Abdur-Rahmaan al-Misree, who has been responsible for corrupting the minds of many of the youth with this ideology of Takfeer and bombing the Muslim lands.

    Yusuf al-’Uyayree’s takfeer of the rulers and of the Ulemaa and anyone who “aids” them, either by means of security or police or by praising them, is well-known.

    And this is the person whom Anwar al-’Awlaki has translated and spread the ideologies of to the west in his translation of ‘Uyayree’s book: “Thawaabit ‘ala Darb al Jihaad”. Al-’Awlaki rendered this book into an english lecture entitled: “Constants in the path of Jihaad” which has become widely available and spread on the internet.

    That’s Awlakis reference point for Jihaad.

  17. Al-Khallaal says:

    Firstly I will say that the user named: “what did you say” and “call me khallal” are not me but rather they’ve copy pasted my words without any prior permission and pasted it here.

    I remind them with the statement of the Prophet salallaahu alaihi wa salam: من غش لنا فليس منا ((Whoever deceives is not from us))

    So Fear Allaah and Know that Allaah Knows all that which you do.

    To Address the points:

    Akhee Mateen:

    1) I believe his statement on Tasfiyyah wat-Tarbiyyah was in his lecture: “Constants in the path of Jihaad”

    This is his statement:

    ||Many say before Jihad, there must be tarbiyah; they say tarbiyah is a prerequisite of jihad, so without tarbiyah there is no jihad. Others say that we are at the Makkah stage, therefore there should not be any fighting, is this justified? If someone starts practising Islam, or someone reverts to Islam, would we tell them that they have to have tarbiyah before they start fasting? Or, that we are now in the Makkah period so there is no need to fast? There is no difference in this matter and Jihad feesabilillah. The instruction for Siyaam and Jihad is no different, it came in the same form (surah baqarah). Fasting was prescribed after Jihad, it took longer. Why must we require tarbiyah, when our rasool (saw) did not?||

    With regards to the refutation of this then amongst those who state the refutation of this was Imaam Maalik.

    To also address what Muhammad said:

    Your statement contains nothing but utter ignorance and a loose mouth. Before you speak, think and then think and then think. The statement of Tasfiyyah wat Tarbiyyah was that of Imaam Maalik. So you say that Imaam Maalik made such an idiotic statement? And amongst those in our current times, the Muhaddith who was a Haafidh in Hadeeth was well aware of the Ahaadeeth pertaining to the circumstances we see now, in fact he was the one who made takhreej on these ahaadeeth where you would be lost not knowing who even reported it. But look at the scales, we have a Majhool kid named Muhammad coming on the internet spitting out words he will be accountable for against a Muhaddith, a Haafidh in Hadeeth, the one who revived Mustalah al Hadeeth in our era and excelled in the fields of Tahqeeq and Takhreej. Verily O Muhammad your statements are nothing worthy of consideration. Rather than open your mouth learn to stay silent for you will be held accountable for your speech as will every one else. So Fear Allaah O Muhammad.

    2) Akhee Mateen, my statement concerning what was Awlaki doing is concerning where did he take his knowledge from? From whom? He surely did not sit with the Ulemaa of Sunnah in Yemen for if he did then we can verify with them concerning his state. So I ask you and everyone else… how is Anwar Awlaki qualified to speak? Where is his Isnaad?

    3) As for his beliefs on Jihaad there are many points he fumbles in. In fact if you read the book he translated from the Khaarijee Yusuf al Uyayree, then you will see the contradictions if you read the books of ‘Aqeedah and Fiqh. I mentioned some books which you can refer to such as al-Mughnee (in completion on the topic, not snippets) or Dhawaabit al Jihaad fee Qur’aan was Sunnah.

    Now for Aaisha:

    Do we need teachers to read the Qur’aan… Actually you do. This is why we have Mufassiroon. Let me ask you a question concerning the Qur’aan… Do you know the Naasikh and Mansookh? Do you know the Asbaab an-Nuzool? Do you know the Qira’aat? Do you know the relevant Ahaadeeth and the Fahm of the Sahaabah? Anwar al Awlaki does not know, he is not a scholar of the Qur’aan nor of Hadeeth. And I hope he doesnt claim to be as such. If you knew the depth of the issues then you’d fear to speak of such. The legislation is not only built from the Qur’aan, it is also from the Sunnah and it is upon the Fahm of the Salaf as Saalih. So does ‘Awlaki know the Saheeh from the Dha’eef? No he’s not qualified in this field, if he is then PROVE it. Who were his teachers? How did he learn this? It cannot be learned from the books alone. In fact the Salaf were adamant on not taking from the books alone. They would say: ((The one who takes all his knowledge from the books will make more mistakes than he is correct)) and there are many examples of this, some of which have lead to death due to misunderstanding and misreading the books.

    And your statement: “Don’t you see where his knowledge is coming from?” Yes I do see it. It comes from people like Yusuf al Uyayree. Anyone can quote the Qur’aan. The Bahaa’iyyah quote from the Qur’aan. The Jahmiyyah Quoted the Qur’aan. The Mu’tazillah quoted the Qur’aan. The Ashaa’irah quoted the Qur’aan. Their knowledge came from the Qur’aan but was it correct? La Abadan! As for “New Salafee” that’s just a ridiculous comment with no Truth behind it. There’s no such thing as “New Salafiyyah” That’s a claim of the Khawaarij, the little internet keyboard warriors most of which never have seen a battle in their lives. As for Jihaad, saying “You dont like Jihaad” is really a weighty accusation. I hope you can face Allaah with that statement knowing that you just made a severe accusation. However the reality is that Jihaad has Ahkaam and Shuroot and Rukun. Just like the Salaah. Can you just run to Salaah without knowing the Shuroot? Let me ask you then… what are the Shuroot of the Salaah? What are the Shuroot of Wudhu and the Rukun? What is the difference between them? So now where do you stand O Aaishah? What are you seeking? If you seek the Truth then abandon the false accusations against those who follow the Salaf. Anwar Awlaki’s salaf is Yusuf al Uyayree who took from Ayman al Zawaahiree. If you didn’t know this then learn this principle laid out but Muhammad ibn Seereen:

    ((This is the knowledge of your religion, so look to whom you take your religion from))

    And Muhammad as for your statement on “there is no proof for the Islaamic state being required…” then the Establishment of the Huddood is only by the Wulaat al Umoor. Read some books of ‘Aqeedah.

  18. Maryam says:

    Al-KHALLAL

    Mashallah you seem to have a lot of knowlegde but i would love to know: Is there any difference or a lot of difference between sunni and salafi? if there is, what are the basic difference?
    Because a lot of close relatives and friends proclaim that salafi’s are NEW practising muslims, who are against jihad. And that ‘there’ mosque (salafi mosque in B’ham) never made dua for the mujahideens; during taraweeh prayer. And that they rarely recite quran which consist of ayah talking about jihad.
    I would love to hear and know your view point.
    And that statement of yours about Anwar Awlaki, wallahi i don’t know the truth and i haven’t got the knowlegde to speak out, the only thing i know is that my brother and teacher like him, so it’s better to be quiet.

    Assalamu Aleykum.
    and may you please answer my questions.
    Jazakulah keyr.

  19. Abu Irsaad says:

    Assalam Alaikum,

    Let’s go point by point.

    1. “So my brother, if u are very impressed with Awlaki and his views, Why dont u hear from the Ulama of Ahlus sunnah wal Jama.”

    How is Imaam Anwar outside the fold of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah? I’m still waiting on this.

    2. “Because we can be manipulated in the name of Islam, lets hear from the people of knowledge.”

    I agree, but when a Muslim speaks Haqq and has strong dalaa’il, then you accept it humbly. This is how the Salaf acted, yes?

    Even if you disagree with some of the other views of Imaam Anwar, we are not discussing that here. We are asking question: did what he say in this lecture fall under the Shari’ah or is it incorrect and outside of the Shari’ah?

    Mind you, he was quoting Ijmaa’. So please give some thought to this.

    3. “If we learn the Islamic history, we will come to know the attitude of the people of knowledge towards their rulers because to obey them is a part of our deen.”

    Yes, if the rulers are not Apostates who support the Harbi Kuffaar, protect them, give them money and allow them to kill the Muslims from their own Muslim land and in addition, not rule by the Shari’ah (such as allowing Riba).

    In addition, there are hundreds of quotes from the Salaf who said that they would stay away from the ruler and this is based off of the ahadeeth regarding staying close to the gates of the Ruler. Would you like some examples?

    4. “who is Anwar ‘Awlaki to speak about the deen and talk about Ahkaam like he does? Who were his teachers? Where is his tazkiyyah?”

    He quotes from Ijmaa’. Like I said, I will get you your information when he replies inshaa’Allaah, but again, we are talking about the speech here itself on the subject of killing the one that insults Allah and His Messenger.

    I find it disgusting that you attack him personally (without even knowing who he is) and not give an iota of credit for speaking the Haqq with strong dalaa’il. This is certainly not the way of the Salaf my brother.

    If you are against what this man says, then bring your evidences. Simple as that. Otherwise, stay quiet because your words cause unnecessary doubts and fitnah.

    5. “I’m not necessarily speaking about this particular lecture, even though I heard a part of it and closed it due to the lack of benefit that this siyaasi fellow gives.”

    Where was the lack of benefit? Please teach us.

    On the contrary, many now are clear regarding the hukm of the one who insults Allah and His Messenger (s).

    6. “That Ibn al Mubaarak said that the Asaaghir are those who speak with their opinions and the ones who are small and narrate from the older ones then they are not the Sagheer.”

    Imaam Anwar quoted strictly from Ibn Taymiyyah and Qadhi Iyaad and brought strong evidences from Qur’aan and Sunnah. How is this “speaking with their opinion?”

    7. “A well known murderer who used to plan attacks against MUSLIMS in Saudia.”

    Which Muslims did he plan to attack intentionally? Bring your evidences.

    8. “So who am I to speak? I’m no one, Im not calling to myself, I’m calling to the Ulemaa.”

    And Imaam Anwar is calling to Qur’aan and Sunnah according to the understanding of the Salaf.

    If you believe he didn’t, then prove that his dalaa’il is weak by bringing your dalaa’il.

    9. “Yusuf al-’Uyayree admitted to taking his knowledge from a few of the well-known khawaarij of our times, amongst them the pillar of Al-Qaa’idah: Ayman az-Zhawaahiri.”

    Prove that Zawahiri is a Khariji.

    I hope you know that in order to call someone a Khariji, he has to fulfill all the traits of the Khawaarij… one cannot call a Muslim a Kaafir if the Muslim has not nullified his Shahaadah. There are rules upon the labels and those who follow the Salaf follow these rules.

    10. “Alhamdulillaah Allaah has clarified the Haqq. We know the Haqq from the Baatil, it’s clear.”

    Really? Share with us where Imaam Anwar was wrong in his lecture here. Show us where the Ijmaa’ is wrong.

    11. “And this is why Awlaki took petty attacks towards the Ulemaa al Kibaar such as Ibn Uthaymeen and Shaykh ‘Abdul Muhsin for their statements about Muslims not having Quwwah and much like the Makkan period it is upon us to practice Tasfiyyah wat Tarbiyyah.”

    It seems that you are a man who likes to speak without dalaa’il for whatever evil motives you have. Imaam Anwar gave his dalaa’il and his dalaa’il happens to be stronger than those ‘Ulema who believe in the Quwwa before Jihaad. So speak about the content and not the individual if you disagree.

    I hope you realize that the ‘Ulema are not Prophets. A Scholar can be wrong. There are hundreds of cases like that throughout our history. If you believe the ‘Ulema are infallible, then you have some serious ‘Aqeedah issues brother.

    12. “because they make Takfeer of Saudi Arabia, and do not consider it a legitimate Muslim Rulership.”

    Yes, they are Apostates. Only the blind cannot see that.

    Please refer to Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhaab’s book on Nawaaqid al-Islaam and the various Sharh’s of this book (specifically, from the Classical Shuyookh) and look to what he says about taking the Kuffaar as Awliya against the Muslims and then ask yourself, “Is the Saudi regime doing this?”

    13. “Allaah has prohibited the blood of the Muslims but this vile Khaarijee had made it Halaal due to his vicious takfeer of the Saudi Government and anyone who supports them or works for them, hence the security forces.”

    Yes, Allah has made the blood of Muslims Haraam but He, Ta’aaalaa, has made the blood of the Apostates Halaal.

    14. I’m not going to comment on your pathetic attacks on Shaykh Yusuf because your Nifaaq is open to everyone to see. You attack a man’s history and never the content of his evidences. I wouldn’t be surprised if you are a high school drop out or an ex-con.

    A great percentage of the Salafi’s in America are. Strange huh?

    15. “With regards to the refutation of this then amongst those who state the refutation of this was Imaam Maalik.”

    Did Imaam Maalik discuss this in the context of when Jihaad ad-Dafi’ is fard ‘ayn upon the entire Ummah from East to West?

    I doubt it.

    16. “Read some books of ‘Aqeedah.”

    What an arrogant reply of yours! Is this how the Salaf replied to their brothers? If someone was wrong on an issue, did they say, “read some books of ‘Aqeedah?”

    Obviously, you need to read some books on Adab first. This is horrendous.

    Secondly, you need to read some books on Fiqh al-Jihaad; even something like al-Mughni goes against your words because ibn Qudaamah states:

    قال ابن قدامة في المغني: فإن عدم الإمام لم يؤخر الجهاد لأن مصلحته تفوت بتأخيره
    Ibn Qudaamah said in Al-Mughni 8/253: “The absence of an Imam does not postpone the jihad because much is lost in its postponement”.

    So according to your logic, Ibn Qudaaamah needs to “read some books on ‘Aqeedah.” Right?

    17. “So does ‘Awlaki know the Saheeh from the Dha’eef? No he’s not qualified in this field, if he is then PROVE it.”

    Silly man, the burden of proof is upon you for making such claims that he’s ignorant of this and that.

    18. “the little internet keyboard warriors most of which never have seen a battle in their lives.”

    Oh and you have?

    Tell that to yourself, keyboard warrior.

    Come to my blog and bring your dalaa’il brother.

    One Salafi came and tried to debate us and he was torn apart. After that, no Salafi’s came.

    So come, I invite you.

    The topic will be: was the words of Imaam Anwar in his latest lecture wrong according to Qur’aan and Sunnah?

    And obviously, you don’t have much to say except to attack his character since you don’t have evidences to attack his evidences.

    So who should I believe in?

    Al-Khallaal or the Shari’ah?

    Walaahi, even if a Faasiq says that the Kalimah Shahaadah is correct, then I will accept that statement simply because he is correct! I’m not going to say – like the Jews say – “who are you?! I saw you committing adultery the other night!! Therefore, your words are Baatil!!”

    Haqq is Haqq.

  20. Al-Khallaal says:

    Maryam,

    Salam alaikum.

    Firstly I would like to say that I do not have even a grain of sand worth of knowledge. All I have I just narrate it from the Ulemaa.

    Secondly,

    A sunni is one who “Follows the Sunnah” and a Salafee is one who “Follows the Salaf as Saalih” and they are those whom the Messenger salallaahu alaihi wa salam said: خير الناس قرني، ثم الذين يلونهم ثم الذين يلونهم

    ((The best of generations is my generation and then those after them and then those after them)) (Reported by al Bukhaaree in his Saheeh)

    The word Sunni and Salafee are synonymous. They mean the same thing basically however many people who ascribe to both may not fulfill what they ascribe to. You find many Muslims saying they are Sunni, but they don’t follow the Sunnah. They only say Sunni to differentiate between themselves and the Shee’ah. This is why the Ulemaa use “Salafee” since it differentiates and is specific in meaning to those who take the understanding of the Salaf.

    The claim that it’s a NEW thing is a false claim.

    Imaam adh-Dhahabee made it a condition for one to be a scholar:

    ان يكون تقيا ذكيا نحويا لغويا زكيا حييا سلفيا

    ((-Taqiyan (have taqwah) -Dhakiyah (have intelligence) -Nahwiyan (firm in Arabic grammar) -Lugawiyan (firm in Arabic language) -Dhakiyan (pure in action and/or intentions) -Hayiyan (shy) -Salafiyan (follow the way of the Salaf As Saleh))) (Siyaar A’laam an-Nubalaa (13/580))

    So those who claim salafiyyah is a “new thing” are ignorant of this deen.

    Salafees are NOT against Jihaad, but the people who claim that are ignorant in the issues of Jihaad. They get angry that the Ulemaa who follow the Salaf say that Jihaad cannot be established except with conditions and what people call to today is not Jihaad fee sabeelillaah. So rather than sit with the Ulemaa and learn that Jihaad has conditions and rulings they just spread these statements like “Salafees hate Jihaad”. Ask the question… can you fulfill Salaah without Wudhu? Likewise with Jihaad there are conditions.

    As for “never made du’aa for Mujaahideen” then many of the Salafee Imaam’s will make Du’aa for them but not in the way that the people like to hear. The people like to hear that everyone fighting today is a Mujaahid, regardless if his ‘Aqeedah is that of the Shee’ah or the Soofiyyah or the Jahmiyyah or anything. It is not a requirement of Qunoot to make du’aa for the Mujaahideen.

    As for reciting verses about Jihaad, that’s just ridiculous. A salafee recites the Qur’aan, we accept the Qur’aan in completion including verses on Jihaad. Rejecting the view of the extremist Jihaadists and Khawaarij does not mean we recite “less of the verses of Jihaad”.

    As for Anwar Awlaki, our Shaykh Muqbil bin Hadee al- Waadi’ee made a beautiful statement:

    فأهل السنة ليست لديهم محاباة بخلاف المبتدعة

    ((So Ahlus Sunnah do not have with them favoritism (for individuals) in opposition to the innovators)) (Muqaddimah of Tuhafat-ush-Shaabir Rabbaanee page 4)

    And Ibnul Qayyim said:

    فلان حبيبنا ولكن الحق أحب إلينا منه

    ((So and So is our beloved by the Truth is more beloved to us than him))

    Imaam Ahmad recorded in his Musnad (Number 21453) from the Hadeeth of Aboo Dharr al-Ghifaaree (رضي الله عنه) that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) advised him saying:

    وأمرني أن أقول بالحق وان كان مرا

    ((And he ordered me to say the Truth even if it is bitter))

    So with Anwar al Awlaki, his mistakes are numerous and his speaking of the deen without the knowledge is a dangerous matter.

    It’s safest to stick with the Kibaar al Ulemaa as the Prophet salallaahu alaihi wa salam said:

    البركة مع أكابركم

    ((The Blessings are with your major ones))

    Wa iyyake

    Wa alaikum as Salaam

  21. Abu Shuhaib says:

    Abu Irsaad

    Its obvious you have decisively won the exchange

    As Salaamu Alaikum

  22. Al-Khallaal says:

    >>Assalam Alaikum,<>Let’s go point by point.<>How is Imaam Anwar outside the fold of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah? I’m still waiting on this.<>I agree, but when a Muslim speaks Haqq and has strong dalaa’il, then you accept it humbly. This is how the Salaf acted, yes?<>Even if you disagree with some of the other views of Imaam Anwar, we are not discussing that here.<>We are asking question: did what he say in this lecture fall under the Shari’ah or is it incorrect and outside of the Shari’ah?<>Mind you, he was quoting Ijmaa’. So please give some thought to this.<>Yes, if the rulers are not Apostates<>who support the Harbi Kuffaar,<>protect them,<>give them money<>and allow them to kill the Muslims from their own Muslim land and in addition,<> not rule by the Shari’ah<> (such as allowing Riba).<>In addition, there are hundreds of quotes from the Salaf who said that they would stay away from the ruler and this is based off of the ahadeeth regarding staying close to the gates of the Ruler. Would you like some examples?<>He quotes from Ijmaa’.<>Like I said, I will get you your information when he replies inshaa’Allaah, but again, we are talking about the speech here itself on the subject of killing the one that insults Allah and His Messenger.<>I find it disgusting that you attack him personally (without even knowing who he is) and not give an iota of credit for speaking the Haqq with strong dalaa’il. This is certainly not the way of the Salaf my brother.<>If you are against what this man says, then bring your evidences. Simple as that. Otherwise, stay quiet because your words cause unnecessary doubts and fitnah.<>Where was the lack of benefit? Please teach us.<>On the contrary, many now are clear regarding the hukm of the one who insults Allah and His Messenger (s).<>Imaam Anwar quoted strictly from Ibn Taymiyyah and Qadhi Iyaad and brought strong evidences from Qur’aan and Sunnah. How is this “speaking with their opinion?”<>Which Muslims did he plan to attack intentionally? Bring your evidences.<>And Imaam Anwar is calling to Qur’aan and Sunnah according to the understanding of the Salaf.<>If you believe he didn’t, then prove that his dalaa’il is weak by bringing your dalaa’il.<>Prove that Zawahiri is a Khariji.<>I hope you know that in order to call someone a Khariji, he has to fulfill all the traits of the Khawaarij…<> one cannot call a Muslim a Kaafir if the Muslim has not nullified his Shahaadah. There are rules upon the labels and those who follow the Salaf follow these rules.<>Really? Share with us where Imaam Anwar was wrong in his lecture here. Show us where the Ijmaa’ is wrong.<>It seems that you are a man who likes to speak without dalaa’il for whatever evil motives you have.<>Imaam Anwar gave his dalaa’il and his dalaa’il happens to be stronger than those ‘Ulema who believe in the Quwwa before Jihaad.<>I hope you realize that the ‘Ulema are not Prophets.<> A Scholar can be wrong.<> There are hundreds of cases like that throughout our history. If you believe the ‘Ulema are infallible, then you have some serious ‘Aqeedah issues brother.<>Yes, they are Apostates. Only the blind cannot see that.<>Please refer to Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhaab’s book on Nawaaqid al-Islaam and the various Sharh’s of this book (specifically, from the Classical Shuyookh) and look to what he says about taking the Kuffaar as Awliya against the Muslims and then ask yourself, “Is the Saudi regime doing this?”<>Yes, Allah has made the blood of Muslims Haraam but He, Ta’aaalaa, has made the blood of the Apostates Halaal.<>A great percentage of the Salafi’s in America are. Strange huh?<>Did Imaam Maalik discuss this in the context of when Jihaad ad-Dafi’ is fard ‘ayn upon the entire Ummah from East to West?<>What an arrogant reply of yours! Is this how the Salaf replied to their brothers? If someone was wrong on an issue, did they say, “read some books of ‘Aqeedah?”<>Obviously, you need to read some books on Adab first. This is horrendous.<>Secondly, you need to read some books on Fiqh al-Jihaad; even something like al-Mughni goes against your words because ibn Qudaamah states:

    قال ابن قدامة في المغني: فإن عدم الإمام لم يؤخر الجهاد لأن مصلحته تفوت بتأخيره
    Ibn Qudaamah said in Al-Mughni 8/253: “The absence of an Imam does not postpone the jihad because much is lost in its postponement”.<>So according to your logic, Ibn Qudaaamah needs to “read some books on ‘Aqeedah.” Right?<>Silly man, the burden of proof is upon you for making such claims that he’s ignorant of this and that.<>Oh and you have?

    Tell that to yourself, keyboard warrior.<>Come to my blog and bring your dalaa’il brother.

    One Salafi came and tried to debate us and he was torn apart. After that, no Salafi’s came.<>So come, I invite you.<<

    I invite you to come speak with the Ulemaa in person, if I had the money to spare i’d pay for your ticket and handle your visa, but i’m sorry I dont have that kind of money. But make ‘umrah and come meet the Mashaayikh and debate with them see how long you will survive if even your greatest “Shuyookh” who are Actually at that level of Shaykh could not survive a debate with the Kibaar al Ulemaa. In fact just recently some hizbees tried to pull that issue of jihaad off with Shaykh Saaleh and with 5 minutes of explaining the issue THEY SUBMITTED TO THE HAQQ.

    tayyib enough time wasted here. I’m not planning on returning since i’ve got better things to do like study the deen. So you can go scream with joy to your friends about how you “won another argument”

    Hilarious.

    Salam alaikum

  23. Al-Khallaal says:

    Apparently it didnt post my post so I’ll just quickly respond.

    “Assalam Alaikum,”

    Wa alaikum as Salaam

    “Let’s go point by point.”

    It’s obvious by your website what you’re upon so I’ll make this brief. I don’t like wasting time debating with people who’ve picked a destructive manhaj such as yours. The Ulemaa of the Salaf have already refuted such a destructive manhaj and mentality there’s no point in dilly dallying around with people who support Khawaarij and terrorists.

    “How is Imaam Anwar outside the fold of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah? I’m still waiting on this.”

    I won’t say he’s out of the fold of Ahlus Sunnah but I will say he’s upon a manhaj other than the Manhaj of the Salaf as Saalih. This is evident from his open affiliation with the Khawaarij like al-‘Uyayree, one whom you consider “Shaykh” as you openly proclaim on your website.

    “I agree, but when a Muslim speaks Haqq and has strong dalaa’il, then you accept it humbly. This is how the Salaf acted, yes?”

    Dalaa’il? The plural of Daleel is Adillah or Adlaa’not Dalaa’il. Ibn Mandhoor reported in his Leesaanul ‘Arab:

    والجمع أَدِلَّة وأَدِلاَّء، والاسم الدِّلالة والدَّلالة

    As for what ‘Awlaki says, then his Adillah is disagreed with. If we go by your claims then the Mutasawwifah can claim they have strong Adillah as well and they are upon Haqq.

    “Even if you disagree with some of the other views of Imaam Anwar, we are not discussing that here.”

    Are you calling him an Imaam based upon his ‘Ilm or based upon the fact that he just leads prayer? The Salaf did not ascribe “Imaam” in this way to those who merely lead prayer.

    “We are asking question: did what he say in this lecture fall under the Shari’ah or is it incorrect and outside of the Shari’ah?”

    I made it clear in my initial post that I’m not speaking about this lecture, I was referring to Anwar al Awlaki in general.

    “Mind you, he was quoting Ijmaa’. So please give some thought to this.”

    A lot of people claim Ijmaa’ but it doesnt exist. Everyone seems to have Ijmaa’ for everything. I’ve noticed that strange behavior these days from people on the internet. “Oh there is Ijmaa’ on such and such”. Look it up and find out that the majority of the Salaf disagreed with the issue. For example someone who claims that the Jaasoos is Kaafir saying there is Ijmaa’… well open the books of the salaf and you’ll find the majority of them did not hold that statement to be true they disagreed severely on it.

    But I digress on the issue, I didnt listen to this lecture. Actually when I clicked on this link I only did so because I saw “Call me Khallal” commented and I was curious. I was listening to Qur’aan so I didnt want to turn it off for this.

    “Yes, if the rulers are not Apostates”

    Ahh and here is where the Mushkilah arises. That you consider the rulers Apostates where as the majority of the Ulemaa upon Sunnah do not. And then it goes further, you dont consider them Ulemaa, according to your site you consider people like Uyayree who never studied the deen with Ulemaa as a Shaykh. Or Awlaki as an Imaam.

    You don’t have the right to consider the rulers apostates, we can go really deep into this issue but this is not your place nor mine.

    “who support the Harbi Kuffaar,”

    Again bidoon Tafseel. This is the problem with most of the Muslims these days. They talk about issues the salaf spoke about with Tafseel but they leave off the tafaaseel that the salaf sought. Not all those who support the “Harbi kuffaar” as you say are Kuffaar. If you claim that then this necessitates Takfeer upon Haatib bin Abee Balta’ah radhiallaahu anhu who supported the Quryash against the army of the Prophet salallaahu alaihi wa salam. And we can do into more details on this issue, but Ibn Hajar cleared this issue up in refutation of those who say that I’aanah of the Kuffaar is Kufr Akbar Mutlaqan.

    And the well known principle in Islaam that Kufr cannot be applied if there is a difference on the issue:

    الأمر المختلف فيه لا يكفر به

    And Ibn Jareer at-Tabaree said in his Tafseer about I’aanah al Kuffaar:

    من تولاهم ونصرهم على المؤمنين فهو من أهل دينهم وملتهم فإنه لا يتولى متول أحداً إلا وهو به وبدينه وما هو عليه راضي وإذا رضيه ورضي دينه فقد عادى ما خالفه وسخطه وصار حكمه حكمهم

    And the issue is even more detailed than this.

    “protect them,”

    Again no Tafseel. If you refer to the Kuffaar within the lands of the Muslim, it becomes obligatory upon the Muslims to protect them if they are under a ‘Ahd from the Wulaatul Umoor. Ibn Qayyim spoke in great detail about this in his Ahkaam adh-Dhimmah. And that is if they are at war with the Muslims INCLUDED in this Hukm. But if they are Dhimmee, then everyone knows the ruling on this for the Messenger salallaahu alaihi wa salam said that anyone who harms a Dhimmee will never smell the scent of Jannah (aw bi hadhal Ma’naa).

    “give them money”

    Another general statement. What is the money given, if you refer to the money given when disaster occurs and the government gives money to help the citizens then there is nothing wrong with this provided the rulers pay their Zakaat which takes precedence. If you actually study Seerah you’d learn this. If you mean they give the governments of the Kuffaar money, then you need the details… what for? Is it for Arms dealings? This is Tijaarah, nothing wrong with this. This is well-known in the Sharee’ah, it’s not Kufr Akbar, it’s not even Fisq because it’s found in the Seerah CLEARLY.

    “and allow them to kill the Muslims from their own Muslim land and in addition,”

    Here’s another issue where you blundered in. “Allow” them to kill. There’s a difference between allowing and permitting under coercion. If you dont know the politics behind the affairs, then who are you to speak? And if you claim you do, where is your evidence? Did you witness it? Because most of politics occur behind closed doors. So do you know the issues which have lead mostly all the Muslim countries to the rut they are in today? Remember what Aboo Daawood reported in his Sunan from the Messenger of Allaah salallaahu alaihi wa salam: إيّاك والظن، فإن الظن أكذب الحديث

    And what you say here is really nothing but conjecture, because you only take the apparent, something which the Salaf did not do because they sought Tafseel. Hence the statement of the Messenger: ما هذا يا حاطب؟ which is reported by Bukhaaree in his Kitaab al Jihaad. The issue is explained by Ibn Hajar in his Fath so there isnt a need to extensively enter into it here.

    “not rule by the Shari’ah”

    Another blunder. This is really just your opinion. This shows a lack of understanding of Tahkeem and Tanfeedh. On top of this the Salaf again had some major Ikhtilaaf on the issue with the Jamhoor stating that one cannot make takfeer mutlaqan! In fact Ibn Battah recorded a chapter in his al-Ibaanah stating that it’s not Kufr at all, but Fisq.

    He records this in volume 2 under the chapter: باب ذكر الذنوب التي تصير بصاحبها إلى كفر غير خارج به من الملّة

    And he explains the issue and that is sufficient a refutation.

    “(such as allowing Riba).”

    Occurrence is not allowance. Remember that. Occurrence of Ribaa is not necessarily that one allows it. Ribaa is from the Major sins, so if it occurs it falls under the Kabaa’ir and the one who performs it is performing a major sin but it’s not Kufr. Who are you to say that they ALLOW it without finding out whether the issue is I’tiqaadi with them? Obviously you do not know. But heres what is seen from the internet discussions on the issue with people like Abu Qataadah, Abul Baseer and Abu Muhammad and those likes. They fail to make any differentiations. So then all those sisters who do NOT wear Hijaab are kuffaar because they “allow it”? Here will come the excuses now right? What about the brothers who shave their faces? Do they Allow it? Or will you ask if they believe it or not? No there’s no difference between ruling a country and ruling yourself. If you claim that, then what about the Muqallidoon? They take the Hukm of men, not of the Nusoos. Then you should make Takfeer of them as well? This is a point which the Salaf brought up. And it really exposes the weakness of the destructive Manhaj you are propagating.

    “In addition, there are hundreds of quotes from the Salaf who said that they would stay away from the ruler and this is based off of the ahadeeth regarding staying close to the gates of the Ruler. Would you like some examples?”

    I’ve read most of those narrations, funny how many people dont understand these narrations at all but try to apply them. So if this were the case them some of those who narrated those should fall under that same ruling shouldnt they? Like al-Fudayl or Al-Hasan? What about az-Zuhree who entered upon Abdul Maalik? Or since those narrations are very general in its texts, what about ‘Umar radhillaahu anhu? Or Uthmaan radhiallaahu anhu? They entered upon the Rulers of their times.

    But many people are picking and choosing these days. What about what at-Tirmidhee reported by way of Samrah radhiallaahu anhu with a Hasan Saheeh Sanad:

    المسائل كدوح يكدح بها الرجل وجهه فمن شاء أبقى على وجهه ، ومن شاء ترك إلا أن يسأل الرجل ذا سلطان ، أو أمر لا يجد منه بُـدَّا

    Ibn al-Wazeer said: فهذا عام في سلاطين العدل والجور
    وليس يمكنه السؤال إلا بضرب من المخالطه

    Be Just! Verily that is closest to Taqwa. This issue is also quite deep and many of the Salaf already discussed this, i’m surprised that you mentioned these ahaadeeth but not the Sharh of the Salaf on it, unless it’s all just copy paste manhaj from the internet where selective material seem to be posted online.

    “He quotes from Ijmaa’.”

    Dealt with that issue. But no he doesnt always quote Ijmaa’. In fact a lot of the times he mentions a small portion of the issue, especially on issues pertaining to Jihaad.

    “Like I said, I will get you your information when he replies inshaa’Allaah, but again, we are talking about the speech here itself on the subject of killing the one that insults Allah and His Messenger.”

    I wasnt speaking about that issue, I’m speaking in general. Even with killing the one who insults Allaah and His Messenger, that’s not undertaken by the ‘Awwaam. I hope Awlaki mentioned that it’s established by the Wulaat al Umoor because Ibn Taymiyyah also mentioned that and the Jamhoor of the Salaf said that the Huddood are established only by the Wulaat al Umoor birr aw Faajir. See what Al Mawroodee said in his Ahkaam as Sultaaniyyah (please not the snippets on the net)

    “I find it disgusting that you attack him personally (without even knowing who he is) and not give an iota of credit for speaking the Haqq with strong dalaa’il. This is certainly not the way of the Salaf my brother.”

    I didn’t attack him personally. I asked about his knowledge. This is pertinent in establishing his credibility. Is everyone who speaks to be followed now? كل ناعق ينعق as the poet said. No we establish the Haqq, who is he? what’s his right to speak about these serious issues? By reading books? From what I know of him, is that he’s predominately self taught, a dangerous affair because even books like Saarim al Maslool which he is using here require Sharh of the Salaf. Why do you think ulemaa of the salaf had Shurooh of Shurooh? Amazing isnt it the details of the deen? Many people are unaware that even Saheeh al Bukhaaree has the Fiqh of Imaam al Bukhaaree within the book itself, but with this look at all the Shurooh on the book, al Fath of Ibn Rajab and that of Ibn Hajar and much more.

    “If you are against what this man says, then bring your evidences. Simple as that. Otherwise, stay quiet because your words cause unnecessary doubts and fitnah.”

    I brought evidences in general not in specific of this man.

    “Where was the lack of benefit? Please teach us.”

    Where does siyaasah benefit you? You are from the ‘Awwaam, how does this benefit you or me or Awlaki?

    “On the contrary, many now are clear regarding the hukm of the one who insults Allah and His Messenger (s).”

    By the way, what you quoted from ME was posted in his other lecture on issues of siyaasah NOT this lecture. Someone else copy pasted my words here without my permission.

    “Imaam Anwar quoted strictly from Ibn Taymiyyah and Qadhi Iyaad and brought strong evidences from Qur’aan and Sunnah. How is this “speaking with their opinion?””

    Again I was speaking about a different lecture and someone pasted that kalaam here. I’m not speaking about Awlaki quoting Shaykh so and so. Even if he Quoted Shaykhul Islaam, his istidlaal is wrong in certain issues that he has done so in the past, im not speaking of this lecture, but in general so he can still be from those speaking with opinion regardless of his istidlaal.

    “Which Muslims did he plan to attack intentionally? Bring your evidences.”

    Man this is WELL KNOWN. His planned attacks on a compound predominately populated by MUSLIMS in al-Khobar. On top of that his death was a gun battle with MUSLIM security forces.

    And that joke of a link you posted “To those who call us Khawaarij” that’s just sad and hilarious. It proves nothing. It shows you dont really know anything about Uyayree.

    “And Imaam Anwar is calling to Qur’aan and Sunnah according to the understanding of the Salaf.”

    No he’s not. His belief on Jihaad contradicts that which the Salaf as Saalih were upon. I gave the reference from his lecture on Jihaad and gave a list of books which you can read up on and see his differing from the salaf. A person who quotes from the salaf doesnt mean he is upon their way. Many Soofees will quote the salaf are they upon the manhaj of the Salaf?

    “If you believe he didn’t, then prove that his dalaa’il is weak by bringing your dalaa’il.”

    That’s been done by the Ulemaa already, just not to Awlaki in particular. He’s not known amongst the Ulemaa. But the Ulemaa have refuted Yusuf al Uyayree and that entire methodology has been refuted in the books of the Salaf.

    “Prove that Zawahiri is a Khariji.”

    His open takfeer of the Muslimeen is sufficient, his beliefs of the legitimacy of Khurooj, his making the blood of the Muslims as halaal, and one of our brothers who had fought in afghaanistaan during the time Zawaahiree was sent by the Egyptian government to Afghaanistaan (yes they sent him, he didnt go on his own) witnessed his takfeer of Muslim fighters who disagreed with his methodology. His affair is WELL KNOWN.

    “I hope you know that in order to call someone a Khariji, he has to fulfill all the traits of the Khawaarij…”

    Not necessarily. They dont have to fulfill ALL the traits of the Khawaarij. Ash-Shahrastaanee mentioned this in his Milal. The Qa’diyyah dont meet all the traits of the Khawaarij yet they are considered the worst of the Khawaarij.

    ” one cannot call a Muslim a Kaafir if the Muslim has not nullified his Shahaadah. There are rules upon the labels and those who follow the Salaf follow these rules.”

    Ah but then the Rulers and Ulemaa and security forces become Kuffaar that easily even though they are upon the Shahaadah? Strange.

    “Really? Share with us where Imaam Anwar was wrong in his lecture here. Show us where the Ijmaa’ is wrong.”

    I can disregard this because I didnt post this here, someone pasted my words here. So ask him to do so.

    “It seems that you are a man who likes to speak without dalaa’il for whatever evil motives you have.”

    More Soo’ adh-Dhann? Iyyaka wadh-Dhann ya Akhee.

    Imaam Maalik said:

    لا يصلح آخر زمان إلا بما صلح أولها

    That’s a very strong proof for the view of Tasfiyyah wat Tarbiyyah.

    “Imaam Anwar gave his dalaa’il and his dalaa’il happens to be stronger than those ‘Ulema who believe in the Quwwa before Jihaad.”

    His Adillah is not sufficient.

    Amongst those who opposed the view of Awlaki and stated that Quwwah is a shart of Jihaad was Ibn Hajar in his Fath, an-Nawawee in his Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Ibn Qudaamah in his Mughnee, Bukhaaree in his Saheeh, Muslim in his Saheeh, Ibn Taymiyyah in his Majmoo’ and I believe in his Minhaaj as well and At-Tabaree in his Tafseer, and Ibn Katheer followed him in this and al-Qurtubee as well mentioned this in his Tafseer and Ibnul Qayyim in al-Furoosiyyah. In fact Ibnul Qayyim really refutes this quite well with strong proofs. I’d love to type it up but it’ll take me too long, and honestly it seems you’ve already made up your mind and just want to argue… talking about “Oh we destroyed him” and rubbish like that.

    “I hope you realize that the ‘Ulema are not Prophets.”

    But they are the inheritors of the Prophets, and who is Awlaki? He’s not a scholar.. not even a taalibul ‘Ilm.

    “A Scholar can be wrong.”

    A beautiful statement from Ibn Taymiyyah:

    إن خطأ المحدثين والسلفيين وأهل السنة ليس بشيء إلى أخطاء المبتدعة. فكونه سنيًا أحب إلينا من أن يكون مجرد مسلم

    ” There are hundreds of cases like that throughout our history. If you believe the ‘Ulema are infallible, then you have some serious ‘Aqeedah issues brother.”

    They are not infallible, but they are more correct than Awlaki, Majhool fi baab al ‘ilm.

    “Yes, they are Apostates. Only the blind cannot see that.”

    Now you make takfeer so blindly and easily. This is your manhaj. Allaahul Musta’aan. I seek refuge with Allaah from the likes of you and your Manhaj. May Allaah raise you amongst this kalaam.

    “Please refer to Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhaab’s book on Nawaaqid al-Islaam and the various Sharh’s of this book (specifically, from the Classical Shuyookh) and look to what he says about taking the Kuffaar as Awliya against the Muslims and then ask yourself, “Is the Saudi regime doing this?””

    You should start reading the Shurooh and stop nitpicking with it. The khawaarij did the same thing with Durrar as Sinniyyah. The issue is more detailed than just using what’s in Nawaaqid al Islaam and its Shurooh. In fact Ibn Taymiyyah has a very large section in his Majmoo’ on the issue, please read that first… it’s not translated so you’ll have to read the Arabic which you should be able to do considering you’re speaking about such a serious issue here.

    “Yes, Allah has made the blood of Muslims Haraam but He, Ta’aaalaa, has made the blood of the Apostates Halaal.”

    This is where we differ. I disagree with your beliefs that the Wulaat are apostates. And I’m not wasting time debating some unknown kid on the net about that issue, judging by your site your mind is pretty made up. Allaahul Musta’aan.

    “A great percentage of the Salafi’s in America are. Strange huh?”

    Hmm I never said that statement. That must be pasted from else where.

    “Did Imaam Maalik discuss this in the context of when Jihaad ad-Dafi’ is fard ‘ayn upon the entire Ummah from East to West?”

    Do you realize that the Aa’imah have stated that Jihaad is NOT fard ‘Ayn unless the Khaleefah orders it? And as for Jihaad ad-Daf’ it’s also not Fardh ‘Ayn. Look man, go learn some deen then come back and talk. I’m not about to type up hundreds of pages from the books of the salaf when you obviously havent taken time to read the statements of the Salaf. Ibn Hajr discussed this heavily… Jihaad is NOT fardh Ayn and it never becomes as such and this was the Mashhoor position of Ibn Umar radhiallaahu anhu. I’m amazed that you dont know that considering the Salaf greatly spoke about it.

    “What an arrogant reply of yours! Is this how the Salaf replied to their brothers? If someone was wrong on an issue, did they say, “read some books of ‘Aqeedah?””

    It’s not said out of arrogance so stop assuming. It’s said since people asked where to find that information.

    “Obviously, you need to read some books on Adab first. This is horrendous.”

    Check that site you posted and then come back and talk about Adab. The reason I dont like discussions like this on the net is because people assume so much. Fear Allah and stop assuming things. The least you can do is ask how my statement was intended.

    “Secondly, you need to read some books on Fiqh al-Jihaad; even something like al-Mughni goes against your words because ibn Qudaamah states:

    قال ابن قدامة في المغني: فإن عدم الإمام لم يؤخر الجهاد لأن مصلحته تفوت بتأخيره
    Ibn Qudaamah said in Al-Mughni 8/253: “The absence of an Imam does not postpone the jihad because much is lost in its postponement”.”

    I hate copy paste material. Read that entire paragraph and then come back to me.

    A brother sent this to me so I’ll just paste it here since it’s enough a refutation but if you want more, then open up al mughnee to that same page and read the whole chapter and also in Volume 10 of al Mughnee.

    أولاً : ضرورة وجود إمام أو أمير .

    لا يقوم الجهاد إلا بإمام أو أمير ، يُرجع إليه عند الحاجة ، ويُردّ إليه عند الاختلاف .
    ولم يُنقل عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه سيّر سرية أو بعث بعثا أو أنفذ جيشاً دون أن يؤمّر عليه أميرا ، وقد أمّـر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ثلاثة من الصحابة على جيش مؤتة ، وهم زيد بن حارثة وجعفر بن أبي طالب وعبد الله بن رواحة رضي الله عنهم .

    قال في الشرح الكبير : وأمر الجهاد موكول إلى الإمام واجتهاده ، ويلزم الرعية طاعته فيما يراه من ذلك
    – إلى أن قال –
    فإن عُدِمَ الإمام لم يؤخّر الجهاد ؛ لأن مصلحته تفوت بتأخيره . اهـ .

    وهذا لا يكون إلا في حالات نادرة ، أو في حالات جهاد دفع العدو الصائل .
    إذ
    لا يصلح الناس فوضى لا سُراة لهم ولا سُـراة إذا جهالهم سـادوا

    ولذا قال عليه الصلاة والسلام : الغزو غزوان : فأما من ابتغى وجه الله ، وأطاع الإمام ، وأنفق الكريمة ، وياسَرَ الشريك ، واجتنب الفساد ؛ فإن نومه ونبهه أجرٌ كله وأما من غزا فخرا ورياء وسمعة ، وعصى الإمام ، وأفسد في الأرض ؛ فإنه لم يرجع بالكفاف . رواه الإمام أحمد وأبو داود والنسائي وغيرهم ، وهو حديث صحيح

    وقال عمر رضي الله عنه : إنه لا إسلام إلا بجماعة ، ولا جماعة إلا بإمارة ، ولا إمارة إلا بطاعة . رواه عنه الدارمي .
    Umar said ” Indeed there is no islam without jamaah, there is no jamaah without a leader, there is no leader without obedience” reported by Darimi

    وقد عقد الإمام البخاري – رحمه الله – بابا ØŒ فقال : باب الجهاد ماض مع البر والفاجر
    لقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : الخيل معقود في نواصيها الخير إلى يوم القيامة .
    ثم ساق بإسناده أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : الخيل معقود في نواصيها الخير إلى يوم القيامة : الأجر والمغنم .

    أما لماذا الجهاد مع البر والفاجر ؟
    فإنه بالنظر إلى مقاصد الشريعة ، وبالنظر إلى عواقب الأمور وما تؤول إليه عند ترك الجهاد مع الفاجر مِنْ تمكن العدو وتسلطه على رقاب المسلمين وعلى ديارهم وأموالهم ، فتحقيق هذه المصالح أعظم ، وترك الجهاد مع الفاجر يُفوّت تحقيق هذه المصالح بل وينتج عنه مفاسد لا يعلمها إلا الله .

    قال الإمام أحمد : أرأيتم لو أن الناس كلهم قعدوا عن الجهاد كما قعدتم ، من كان يغزو ؟ أليس كان قد ذهب الإسلام ؟

    ذكر بعض العلماء أنه لا يجوز الغزو إلا بإذن الإمام .
    قال ابن قدامة في المغني : مسألة ؛ قال : ( وإذا غزا الأمير بالناس لم يَجز لأحد أن يتعلف ولا يحتطب ولا يبارز علجا ولا يخرج من العسكر ولا يحدث حدثا إلا بإذنه ) يعني لا يخرج من العسكر لتعلف وهو تحصيل العلف للدواب ولا الاحتطاب ولا غيره إلا بإذن الأمير . اهـ .
    كما ذكروا أيضا أن المبارزة لا تكون إلا بإذن الإمام

    وليس هذا على إطلاقه .
    قال في العمدة : ولا يجوز الجهاد إلا بإذن الأمير إلا أن يفجأهم عدو يخافون كلَبه ، أو تعرض فرصة يخافون فوتها . اهـ .
    ومعنى ( كَلَبَه ) أي شرّه وأذاه .
    وهذا القول – أعني – لا يجوز الجهاد إلا بإذن الإمام ، لـه حظ من النظر في ابتداء الغزو وتسيير السرايا وبعث الجيوش ، لا أن الحكم ينسحب على الأفراد .
    فلم يُنقل عن سرية أنها سارت أو جيش أن انطلق في زمان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إلا بإذنه .
    وهذا يُشبه حال الجيوش النظامية اليوم فإنه لا يمكن أن تسير إلا بأمر الحاكم ولو أن كل من أراد القتال جمع جيشا وسار بسرية لأصبح المسألة فوضى ، ولا تنضبط الأمور بذلك .

    أما دفع العدو الصائل فلا يُشترط له ذلك – كما تقدّم – .
    أما ما يُستدل به من مجيء ذلك الرجل إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يستأذنه في القصة المعروفة – وستأتي – فليس فيه دليل على عموم الاستئذان ، ثم إنه لا يقوى على تخصيص الآية في قوله سبحانه وتعالى :
    ( لاَ يَسْتَأْذِنُكَ الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ أَن يُجَاهِدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ ) .
    قال القرطبي – رحمه الله – في التفسير : أي في القعود ولا في الخروج ØŒ بل إذا أمرت بشيء ابتدروه ØŒ فكان الاستئذان في ذلك الوقت من علامات النفاق لغير عذر.اهـ .

    وقال الشوكاني بعد أن ذكر الأوجه في الآية :
    وأما على ما يقتضيه ظاهر اللفظ فالمعنى لا يستأذنك المؤمنون في الجهاد بل دأبهم أن يبادروا إليه من غير توقف ولا ارتقاب منهم لوقوع الإذن منك فضلا عن أن يستأذنوك في التخلف . اهـ .

    ثم إن قصة الرجل الذي جاء يستأذن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في الجهاد واقعة عين لا عموم لها ، بدليل أنه لم يُحفظ عن الصحابة رضي الله عنهم الاستئذان لكل من أراد الجهاد .

    وقصة الرجل الذي جاء يستأذن رواها البخاري ومسلم من حديث عبد الله بن عمرو رضي الله عنهما قال : جاء رجل إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فاستأذنه في الجهاد ، فقال : أحي والداك ؟ قال : نعم . قال : ففيهما فجاهد .
    ومثله قصة جاهمة السلمي رضي الله عنه حيث قال : أتيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، فقلت : يا رسول الله إني كنت أردت الجهاد معك أبتغي بذلك وجه الله والدار الآخرة . قال : ويحك ! أحيّـة أمك ؟ قلت : نعم . قال : ارجع فبرّها ، قال : ثم أتيته من الجانب الآخر فقلت : يا رسول الله إني كنت أردت الجهاد معك أبتغي بذلك وجه الله والدار الآخرة . قال : ويحك ! أحيه أمك ؟ قلت : نعم يا رسول الله . قال : فارجع إليها فبرها ثم أتيته من أمامه فقلت : يا رسول الله إني كنت أردت الجهاد معك أبتغي بذلك وجه الله والدار الآخرة . قال : ويحك ! أحيه أمك ؟ قلت : نعم يا رسول الله . قال : ويحك الزم رجلها فثم الجنة . رواه ابن ماجه ثم قال :
    قال أبو عبد الله بن ماجة : هذا جاهمة بن عباس بن مرداس السلمي الذي عاتب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يوم حنين .

    وهذا يدلّ على أمرين :
    الأول : أن الاستئذان وقائع أعيان لا عموم لها .
    والثاني : أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يوصي أصحابه بما يعلم أنه الأصلح لهم .
    بدليل اختلاف الوصية من رجل لآخر .
    ومن ذلك أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم جاءه رجل فقال أوصني . قال : عليك بالجهاد .
    وجاءه آخر فقال أوصني . قال : لا تغضب .
    وقال لثالث : عليك بالصوم فإنه لا عدل له .
    وأوصى رجلاً فقال : لا يزال لسانك رطبا من ذكر الله .
    وهكذا . تختلف الوصية باختلاف أحوال الناس .
    والذي يظهر أن هذا الرجل الذي ردّده النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما كان ذلك بسبب معرفة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بحاله وأنه لا صبر له – كما أشار إليه ابن ماجه – .

    قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية – رحمه الله – : قد يكون الشخص يَصلح دينه على العمل المفضول دون الأفضل ØŒ فيكون أفضل في حقه ØŒ كما أن الحج في حق النساء أفضل من الجهاد . اهـ .

    ثم إنه قد ثبت عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم خلاف ذلك – أي خلاف الاستئذان – .
    فقد جاء رجل إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسأله عن أفضل الأعمال . فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : الصلاة . قال : ثم مه ؟ قال : الصلاة قال : ثم مـه ؟ قال : الصلاة ثلاث مرات . قال : ثم مـه ؟ قال : الجهاد في سبيل الله . قال : فإن لي والدين . فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : آمرك بوالديك خيرا ، فقال : والذي بعثك نبيا لأجاهدن ولأتركنهما . فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : فأنت أعلم . رواه الإمام أحمد وابن حبان ، وإسناد ابن حبان حسن .
    فقول هذا الصحابي رضي الله عنه : ” فإن لي والدين ” يُشعر أنه سمع بترديد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لمن أتاه قبله .

    كما أن حمل الرجل بنفسه على العدو مُخالِف لاشتراط الاستئذان
    وقد وقع هذا بمرأى ومسمع من بعض أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فلم يُنكروه بل أقروه .

    حدّث أبو عمران التجيبي قال : كنا بمدينة الروم فأخرجوا إلينا صفا عظيما من الروم ، فخرج إليهم من المسلمين مثلهم أو أكثر ، وعلى أهل مصر عقبة بن عامر رضي الله عنه ، وعلى الجماعة فضالة بن عبيد رضي الله عنه فحمل رجل من المسلمين على صف الروم حتى دخل فيهم فصاح الناس ، وقالوا : سبحان الله يلقي بيديه إلى التهلكة ، فقام أبو أيوب رضي الله عنه فقال : يا أيها الناس إنكم تتأولون هذه الآية هذا التأويل ، وإنما أنزلت هذه الآية فينا معشر الأنصار . لما أعز الله الإسلام ، وكثر ناصروه ، فقال بعضنا لبعض سراً دون رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : إن أموالنا قد ضاعت ، وإن الله قد أعز الإسلام ، وكثر ناصروه ، فلو أقمنا في أموالنا فأصلحنا ما ضاع منها ، فأنزل الله على نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم يردّ علينا ما قلنا : ( وَأَنفِقُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ وَلاَ تُلْقُواْ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ إِلَى التَّهْلُكَةِ ) فكانت التهلكة الإقامة على الأموال وإصلاحها وتركنا الغزو ، فما زال أبو أيوب شاخصا في سبيل الله حتى دفن بأرض الروم . رواه أبو داود والترمذي وغيرهما ، وهو حديث صحيح .

    ولما أغار الكفار على لقاح النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فصادفهم سلمة بن الأكوع رضي الله عنه خارجا من المدينة تبعهم وطاردهم وقاتلهم بغير إذن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وأقرّه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم . كما في الصحيحين .

    ثم إن الخلاف قد وقع بين العلماء في الغزو بإذن الإمام .
    وفي الرجل يدخل دار الحرب وحده مغيرا بغير إذن الإمام .

    قال أبن قدامة في المغني : إذا دخل قوم لا منعة لهم دار الحرب بغير إذن الإمام فغنموا ؛ فعن أحمد فيه ثلاث روايات : إحداهن أن غنيمتهم كغنيمة غيرهم يخمسه الإمام ويقسم باقيه بينهم ، وهذا قول أكثر أهل العلم ، منهم الشافعي . لعموم قوله سبحانه : ( وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّمَا غَنِمْتُم مِّن شَيْءٍ فَأَنَّ لِلّهِ خُمُسَه ُsmiley الآية ، والقياس على ما إذا دخلوا بإذن الإمام – ثم ذكر بقية الأقوال – ورجه هذا القول .

    وقال في معرض سياق الأقوال : فإن الجهاد إنما يكون بإذن الإمام ، أو من طائفة لهم مَنَعَـة وقـوّة . اهـ

    ونسب هذا القول الإمام النووي إلى الجمهور .
    فلو كان الجهاد لا يجوز بغير إذن الإمام على إطلاقه لما جاز أن يُعطى هؤلاء نكالاً لهم .
    وكذلك القول في المبارزة بغير إذن الإمام .
    قال ابن المنذر : المبارزة بإذن الإمام حسن ، وليس على من بارز بغير إذن الإمام حرج ، وليس ذلك بمكروه ؛ لأني لا أعلم خبرا يمنع منه . اهـ

    >>So according to your logic, Ibn Qudaaamah needs to “read some books on ‘Aqeedah.” Right?<>So come, I invite you.<<

    I invite you to come speak with the Ulemaa in person, if I had the money to spare i’d pay for your ticket and handle your visa, but i’m sorry I dont have that kind of money. But make ‘umrah and come meet the Mashaayikh and debate with them see how long you will survive if even your greatest “Shuyookh” who are Actually at that level of Shaykh could not survive a debate with the Kibaar al Ulemaa. In fact just recently some hizbees tried to pull that issue of jihaad off with Shaykh Saaleh and with 5 minutes of explaining the issue THEY SUBMITTED TO THE HAQQ.

    tayyib enough time wasted here. I’m not planning on returning since i’ve got better things to do like study the deen. So you can go scream with joy to your friends about how you “won another argument”

    Actually some other kid just came in and said that without even allowing time for response. That’s just sad.

    Hilarious.

    Enough time wasted on the net, the Haqq is clear. You can read the books of the Salaf in completion and learn from the Ulemaa rather than spend time talking about what this king or that king ate for breakfast.

    One of the Tulaab advised me as well to avoid posting on this board so khair inshaAllaah. You can continue talking but I’m not going to reply inshaAllaah, claim another “victory” but verily Allaah will Judge that.

    Salam alaikum

  24. Al-Khallaal says:

    Allaahul Musta’aan.

    Just to make a quick clarification on something before I leave this board.

    It seems to me by reading up on your board and reading your replies after that it is an utter waste of time discussing with someone affairs that are far above their levels.

    So don’t think that salafees “cant debate you”. That’s just a laughable cop out. Most salafees that do get into these debates are not very knowledgeable on these affairs and the Ulemaa have advised against it most salafees spend their time in Talabul ‘ilm that’s why most of the salafees out there in the west abandoned refuting you people, sadly many have taken to other affairs which do not benefit them. And I do feel regret, wastaghfirullah, that I wasted time in which I planned for Ibaadah on actually responding to you. Especially after Shaykhuna ‘Ubayd hafidhahullaah advised me not to get into or even speak with the people like you, Shaak, this is all, la ya’rafuna bi ‘ilm. Alhamdulillaah really the only benefit I derived from this was that I was listening to Shaykh Muhammad Sa’eed Raslaan’s lecture on Radd ala Ahlil bid’ah.

    But it’s clear from your responses that most of what I will say will go over your head. And to enter into a debate with you would mean having to open many many more books and typing much much more and frankly I don’t have the time to waste on arguing with kids. Especially since I need to be spending this time studying the Mutoon which I had planned to do but instead wasted it here.

    So I wanted to leave you with a word of advice from the Salaf… adhere to it and it’ll be success for you, abandon it and it’ll be your destruction

    Imaam al-Laalik’aaee recorded in his Sharh Usool al-I’tiqaad (page 87) that Ibn Mas’ood (رضي الله عنه) said:

    عليكم بالعلم قبل أن يقبض وقبضه أن يذهب أهله أو قال أصحابه وقال عليكم بالعلم فإن أحدكم لا يدري متى يفتقر إليه أو يفتقر إلى ما عنده وإنكم ستجدون أقواما يزعمون أنهم يدعونكم إلى كتاب الله وقد نبذوه وراء ظهورهم فعليكم بالعلم وإياكم والتبدع وإياكم والتنطع وإياكم والتعمق وعليكم بالعتيق

  25. Aaisha says:

    Khallaal,Sorry brother one thing i know today the people who saying we are salaf they don’t see what Kufar doing to my brother in Diin.Sorry my brother in Islam.I dont went say antheing bad but the fatawa of the so called ulemas today they have fatawa fro Salaman Khaan.But they dont have fatawa fro the Musalm’s.Allah(SWT) know who is in tru bath we oll like Allah(SWT)And Muhammed(SAW)and the Muslims oll.And Jihad is TRU SORRY

  26. Ibn Adam says:

    Saudis had wider role in war
    Their assistance during the invasion of Iraq had been kept secret for fear of adding to instability.
    By John Solomon ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA); 619 words
    Published: 2004-04-26
    Section: NATIONAL | Page A07 | Edition: CITY-D
    During last year’s invasion of Iraq, Saudi Arabia secretly helped the United States far more than has been acknowledged, allowing operations from at least three air bases, permitting Special Forces to stage attacks from Saudi soil, and providing cheap fuel, U.S. and Saudi officials say.
    The U.S. air campaign against Iraq was essentially managed from inside Saudi borders, where military commanders operated an air command center and launched refueling tankers, F-16 fighter jets, and sophisticated intelligence-gathering flights, according to the officials.
    Much of the assistance has been kept quiet for more than a year by both countries for fear it would add to instability inside the kingdom.
    Many Saudis oppose the war, and U.S. presence on Saudi soil has been used by Osama bin Laden to build his terror movement.
    But senior political and military officials from both countries said the Saudi royal family permitted widespread military operations to be staged from inside the kingdom.
    These officials would talk only on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivity and the fact that some operational details remain classified.
    While the heart of the ground attack came from Kuwait, thousands of special-forces soldiers were permitted to stage their operations into Iraq from inside Saudi Arabia, the officials said. The staging areas became essential once Turkey declined to allow U.S. forces to operate from its soil.
    In addition, U.S. and coalition aircraft launched attacks, reconnaissance flights and intelligence missions from three Saudi air bases, not just the Prince Sultan Air Base, where U.S. officials have acknowledged activity.
    Between 250 and 300 Air Force planes flew from Saudi Arabia, including AWACS surveillance jets, C-130 cargo planes, refueling tankers, and F-16 fighter jets during the height of the war, the officials said. Air and military operations during the war were permitted at the Tabuk air base and Arar regional airport near the Iraq border, the officials said.
    Saudis also agreed to permit search-and-rescue missions to take off from their soil, the officials said.
    Air Force Gen. T. Michael Moseley, who was a key architect of the air campaign in Iraq, called the Saudis “wonderful partners,” although he agreed to discuss their help only in general terms.
    “We operated the command center at Saudi Arabia. We operated airplanes out of Saudi Arabia, as well as sensors, and tankers,” Moseley said in an interview with the AP. He said he treasured “their counsel, their mentoring, their leadership and their support.”
    The Saudis provided tens of millions of dollars in discounted oil, gas and fuel for U.S. forces.
    During the war, a stream of oil delivery trucks at times stretched for miles outside the Prince Sultan Air Base, said a senior U.S. military planner.
    The Saudis also were influential in keeping down world oil prices amid concern over what might happen to Iraqi oil fields. They increased production by 1.5 million barrels a day during the run-up to war and helped keep Jordan – which had relied on Iraqi oil – supplied.
    Saudi officials said they also provided significant military and intelligence help on everything from issues of Muslim culture to securing the Saudi-Iraqi border from fleeing supporters of Saddam Hussein.
    Publicly, U.S. and Saudi officials have portrayed the U.S. military presence during the war as minimal and limited to Prince Sultan Air Base, where Americans have operated on and off over the last decade. Any other U.S. presence during the war was generally described as humanitarian, such as food drops, or as protection against Scud missile attacks.
    During the war, U.S. officials held media briefings about the air war from Qatar, although the air command center was in Saudi Arabia – a move designed to keep from inflaming the Saudi public.
    Illustration/Photo: Gen. T. Michael Moseley lauded the Saudis’ cooperation.
    © Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)

  27. Muslim says:

    DEAR MUSLIMS!

    STOP TALKING AND GIVING YOUR OPINIONS ON MATTERS IN WHICH YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE

    STOP GIVING THESE MINI FATWA’s and RULINGS WHEN YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE

    STOP ATTACKING OUR BELOVED SCHOLARS WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT REVIVE THE ISLAMIC SPIRIT IN MANY OF OUR HEARTS

    STOP, YOUR IDEAS ARE TAINTED WITH WESTERN IDEOLOGY..YET YOU DON’T REALIZE IT

    STOP BACKBITING IMAM AWLAKI, HOW CAN YOU SPEAK OF THESE ISSUES WHILE YOU SPEAK IN SIN?

    STOP DEAR MUSLIMS, DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME HERE IN VAIN TALK.

    DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME IN VAIN TALK…go remember your Lord (SWT)

    May Allah (SWT) Protect us, ameen.

  28. Abu Irsaad says:

    Assalam Alaikum,

    Sorry for the delayed response. I have been very busy the past few days so please excuse me.

    Al-Khallaal, you wrote,

    “As for what ‘Awlaki says, then his Adillah is disagreed with.”

    Ok, so where did he go wrong in this speech?

    I’ve asked this questions many times now.

    You wrote,

    “I made it clear in my initial post that I’m not speaking about this lecture, I was referring to Anwar al Awlaki in general.”

    You should then realize that talking bad about this man – by saying things like he is taking from a Kharijee without even providing the evidences that such people fulfill all the traits of the Khawaarij – is actually tarnishing the image of Imaam Anwar, and this will make others reject the truth in this lecture (and others) because of your unfounded words.

    You wrote,

    “A lot of people claim Ijmaa’ but it doesnt exist.”

    I honestly hope you aren’t saying that there is no Ijmaa’ on this issue of the hukm on the one who insults Allah and His Messenger (s).

    Imaam Anwar has responded on his blog to this. You can read it here:

    http://www.anwar-alawlaki.com/?p=19

    You wrote,

    “You don’t have the right to consider the rulers apostates, we can go really deep into this issue but this is not your place nor mine.”

    Allah calls them Kuffaar in al-Maa’idah. Not me.

    If a ruler commits Kufr Buwah such as taking the Kuffaar as Awliya’ against the Muslimeen, then every Muslim should realize it and it doesn’t take a Saint to realize that such people are Apostates. Plus, I’m not the first one to say that the rulers today are Apostates. There are many Scholars in the past and present who have already declared such.

    You wrote,

    “Not all those who support the “Harbi kuffaar” as you say are Kuffaar. If you claim that then this necessitates Takfeer upon Haatib bin Abee Balta’ah radhiallaahu anhu who supported the Quryash against the army of the Prophet salallaahu alaihi wa salam.”

    At-Tibyan has refuted this argument. Please refer to the Appendix in the book of Shaykh Naasir bin Hamaad al-Fahd entitled, “The Exposition Regarding the Disbelief of the one that assist the Americans.” You can read it here:

    http://amreekan.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/misconception-number-one-the-story-of-hatib-ibn-abi-balta%e2%80%99ah/

    And you’ll find a more in-depth analysis in the Appendix of the book, “Millat Ibrahim” by Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi which you can download here:

    http://ia360941.us.archive.org/3/items/guidebooks/millat_ibraaheem.pdf

    Wallahul Musta’aan! Do you have no respect for the Sahaabah? Are you like the Shi’a where you make them equal to the scum of the earth? How can you compare Haatib (ra) with the Saudi Government? How can you compare a Sahaabi who wrote a letter that was not intended upon giving major support to the Kuffaar versus an entire Government that openly and fully supports the Kuffaar that fight and kill the Muslims and insult their Deen?!

    I don’t have to baby feed you the actions of this Apostate Government in order to prove to you that they did mountains of evil against Allah and His Messenger (s). It is open and apparent to everyone who has eyes.

    Regarding what you said of Ibn Hajar and at-Tabari, it is also refuted in the book by Shaykh Naasir (i.e., the wrong interpretation).

    You wrote,

    “Again no Tafseel. If you refer to the Kuffaar within the lands of the Muslim, it becomes obligatory upon the Muslims to protect them if they are under a ‘Ahd from the Wulaatul Umoor.”

    This is the core of our differences. What you said does not apply when those so-called “leaders” are Apostates. Every ‘Ahd they do is nullified because of their Apostasy.
    How can you answer Allah on the Day of Judgment for protecting those Kuffaar that are launching a Crusader war upon the Ummah? It’s like telling me that if the Saudi Government of today were alive during the time of Salahudeen, and they gave an ‘Ahd to the entire Crusader Nation which promised to protect them from the Muslims even though they know that the Crusaders will kill Muslims and take over their lands – such an ‘Ahd would be valid because they are “Wulaatul Umoor.” Do you think Salahudeen would let this Saudi Government live?

    Do you think this ‘Ahd will be acceptable in the eyes of Allah? Do you think this [invalid] ‘Ahd – which the Kuffaar already broke by just waging war against the entire Ummah under the guise of “war on terrorism,” – will protect you and your leaders on the Day of Judgment?

    You wrote,

    “Ibn Qayyim spoke in great detail about this in his Ahkaam adh-Dhimmah. And that is if they are at war with the Muslims INCLUDED in this Hukm.”

    You’ll have to bring me the quote of Ibn al-Qayyim in the context of what he was saying.

    But you quote to me Ibn al-Qayyim and I will quote to you Allah ‘Azza wa Jall:

    How (can there be any treaty for the others) when, if they have the upper hand of you, they regard not pact nor honour in respect of you? They satisfy you with their mouths the while their hearts refuse. And most of them are wrongdoers. (9:8)

    And He, Ta’aalaa, says:

    But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of disbelievers: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained. (9:12)

    So let me get this straight. The ‘Ahd that the Saudi Government gave to the Americans included, “you are allowed to kill Muslims overseas.” Such a covenant is invalid from the start.

    And if such stipulations or rules were not in the original ‘Ahd, then what kind of honor and Deen do these Saudi’s have? Surely, they have an agenda.

    Let me also remind you that it was the Saudi’s who revolted against the Ottoman Khilaafah and its Khaleefah for a monthly payment from the British. So understand the history and you’ll understand current events.

    You wrote,

    “But if they are Dhimmee, then everyone knows the ruling on this for the Messenger salallaahu alaihi wa salam said that anyone who harms a Dhimmee will never smell the scent of Jannah (aw bi hadhal Ma’naa).”

    Do you think an ‘Ahd is valid when it allows Ahl adh-Dhimmah to fight and kill the Muslims and insult their religion? Imaam Abu Haneefah, rahimahullah, only said that the ‘Ahd is valid with Ahl adh-Dhimmah if they insult your Religion; but this is a minority opinion. So what about those who not only insult our Religion, but also kill us and are not under any ‘Ahd?

    You wrote,

    “What is the money given,”

    To give financial aid to the Americans so that they can kill more Muslims. They supply them with oil for their air and ground vehicles which destroy Muslim properties, and spill Muslim blood.

    You wrote,

    “There’s a difference between allowing and permitting under coercion.”

    Subhaan’Allaah, I hope you are not saying here that when one is under duress (Ikraah), the Shari’ah permits them to permit the disbelievers to wipe out thousands of Muslims and destroy their properties, rape their women, and insult their religion.

    Ikraah has its limits my friend. Allowing or permitting the disbelievers to do the above is not allowed in the Shari’ah whatsoever and there is no evidence for such unless if you can prove it.

    You wrote,

    “Occurrence is not allowance. Remember that. Occurrence of Ribaa is not necessarily that one allows it.”

    The Saudi Regime has permitted (istihlaal) for the establishment of banks there based on Riba. Admit it. Even Shaykh Bin Baaz wrote a letter to the King of Saudi asking him to retract this decision because of how it is Kufr. Would you like a copy of this letter?

    You wrote,

    “Ribaa is from the Major sins, so if it occurs it falls under the Kabaa’ir and the one who performs it is performing a major sin but it’s not Kufr.”

    Read my words again. I didn’t say anywhere that if you do Riba, you are a Kaafir. Rather, if you make Istihlaal – like the Saudi Regime – then this is Kufr al-Akbar.

    You wrote,

    “They entered upon the Rulers of their times.”

    There’s a world of difference between a Sahaabi Khaleefah, a corrupt ruler and an Apostate ruler that supports the American Government’s war against Islaam.

    You wrote,

    “I hope Awlaki mentioned that it’s established by the Wulaat al Umoor because Ibn Taymiyyah also mentioned that and the Jamhoor of the Salaf said that the Huddood are established only by the Wulaat al Umoor birr aw Faajir.”

    No, he refuted this misconception. Listen to it. He didn’t go in-depth with it though, but on his blog he mentioned that he will discuss it in-depth in the near future, inshaa’Allaah.

    You wrote,

    “I didn’t attack him personally. I asked about his knowledge.”

    One question led to another.

    For example: Since Imaam Anwar takes from the Kharijee Yusuf ‘Uyayree whom he himself takes from the Kharijee Ayman al-Zawahiri, therefore Imaam Anwar is a supporter of the Khawaarij.

    This is what you are trying to establish.

    You wrote,

    “Where does siyaasah benefit you?”

    I don’t understand your question. What exactly in the Siyaasah are you referring to? Why are you trying to make Siyaasah look negative? In this lecture, Imaam Anwar talks about the cartoonists and those Americans that have desecrated the Qur’aan in order to make it clear what the Ijmaa’ is on the issue from the Salaf.

    You wrote,

    “Man this is WELL KNOWN. His planned attacks on a compound predominately populated by MUSLIMS in al-Khobar. On top of that his death was a gun battle with MUSLIM security forces.”

    Yes, I know that. However, it was predominantly owned by the army of the Saudi Taaghoot along with the Americans. The one who fights for the Taaghoot is a Kaafir.

    You wrote,

    “And that joke of a link you posted “To those who call us Khawaarij” that’s just sad and hilarious. It proves nothing.”

    Because it’s reality. It’s really us who are laughing at you. Your “leader” is the one who kisses Kaafir’s and Kaafirah’s in order to please them in their “war against terrorism” whilst our leaders in Afghanistan, ‘Iraaq, Somalia, Chechnya and elsewhere are fighting for Allah’s sake to establish the Shari’ah and kick out the Kuffaar and they don’t compromise their Deen for a worldly gain (unlike your “leaders”).

    You wrote,

    “I gave the reference from his lecture on Jihaad and gave a list of books which you can read up on and see his differing from the salaf.”

    It’s unfortunate that you ignore everything he said regarding that subject in other lectures. That really shows how ignorant you are of Imaam Anwar’s views and how you have no problem attacking him without further verifying and doing an honest attempt at research (as you would with the ‘Ulema of Saudia). If you refer to his lecture, “Allah is preparing us for victory,” his views will become evident.

    You wrote,

    “That’s been done by the Ulemaa already, just not to Awlaki in particular. He’s not known amongst the Ulemaa. But the Ulemaa have refuted Yusuf al Uyayree and that entire methodology has been refuted in the books of the Salaf.”

    Not one single Scholar has refuted Imaam Anwar on the issue of the hukm for the one who insults Allah and His Messenger (s).

    And those who “refute” Shaykh Yusuf have weak opinions since they consider the Taaghoot of Saudi to be “Muslims” and their army to be “Muslims.”

    You wrote,

    “His open takfeer of the Muslimeen is sufficient,”

    So making Takfeer on the rulers – rules who take the Americans as Awliyah against the Muslims – makes one a Khariji? The most he would be classified as is one of the Bughaat. To consider him a Khariji, you will have to prove that he has all the traits of the Khawaarij which you have failed to do prove as I will show you.

    You wrote,

    “his beliefs of the legitimacy of Khurooj,”

    Such as?

    You wrote,

    “his making the blood of the Muslims as halaal,”

    Yes, the Apostates.

    You wrote,

    “Not necessarily. They dont have to fulfill ALL the traits of the Khawaarij. Ash-Shahrastaanee mentioned this in his Milal. The Qa’diyyah dont meet all the traits of the Khawaarij yet they are considered the worst of the Khawaarij.”

    The Prophet (s) gave a specific description about them and this was how ‘Ali (ra) was able to recognize them. So this nullifies Shahrastaanee’s argument. In addition, they were prophesized by the Prophet (s) and this is how one recognizes them. Picking and choosing the traits from the ahaadeeth shows that you have an agenda and are desperate.

    You wrote,

    “Ah but then the Rulers and Ulemaa and security forces become Kuffaar that easily even though they are upon the Shahaadah?”

    If any of them commit one of the nullifiers of Islaam, then how are they not?

    You wrote,

    “That’s a very strong proof for the view of Tasfiyyah wat Tarbiyyah.”

    What have the ‘Ulema said regarding this issue when Jihaad is fard ‘ayn on the Ummah from East to West? Again, Imaam Anwar is not denying Tasfiyyah wa Tarbiyyah; you only wish he was because you want to call him a Khariji.

    You wrote,

    “Amongst those who opposed the view of Awlaki and stated that Quwwah is a shart of Jihaad was…”

    Again, what have they said when Defensive Jihaad is fard ‘ayn upon the entire Ummah? You seem to forget that I’m talking from this context and not in the context of Jihaad at-Talab or when Jihaad is fard kaffayah.

    You wrote,

    “I’m not wasting time debating”

    Good, because you Talafi’s have been refuted by at-Tibyan Publications. I don’t need to debate you on this issue either.

    You wrote,

    “And as for Jihaad ad-Daf’ it’s also not Fardh ‘Ayn. Look man, go learn some deen then come back and talk.”

    Shaykh ‘Azzam’s fatwa of Defense of Muslim lands was approved by many of the major ‘Ulema of Saudi including Bin Baaz. So you need to go learn your Deen unless if you think you are more knowledgeable than Bin Baaz and his likes. In the preface of the book (hardcover), you will find the list of the Scholars who approved of this fatwa.

    You wrote,

    “I hate copy paste material.”

    Yeah, you do it more than me.

    You wrote,

    “Read that entire paragraph and then come back to me.”

    I have. It still proves you wrong.

    You wrote,

    “A brother sent this to me so I’ll just paste it here”

    I’m not interested in your copy and paste. Plus, you need to provide a translation.

  29. samieh says:

    salamu laykum….mashallah, everyone has some good points, i love the imam al-awlaki, really very much, i think that these are answers that only the ulema can even begin to come to. everyone can bring dalils that will prove the other wrong some how. i dont agree with everything he says, but he has much love for islam the muslims and al habib sallallahu aleyhe wassallam. and his anger is out of love, he has helped more people in the west with his materials than anyone else i really believe that, overlook his shortcomings and we all have them and non of us have done the good he has, may allah forgive us all. and the imam never claimed to be an alim. we need all of it , the awlakis to the habib ali jiffreys to all the imams they all have some good to offer, and this talk really put things in perspective mashallah doesnt mean we implement just realise how it should be, how it has been for one and a half milenia. alahu alim, dont speak bad of the imam, he is muslim

  30. mohamed says:

    salam alaikum

    the prophet saw said say someting good or be silent if u do not agree what the imam said its better if u keep silent cause do not forget as the sister said above his a muslim may allah forgive all of us do not forget the other lectues he has done there amazing like the prophets,abu baker omar al kattab

    if u got a problem with the lecture email the imam and speak to him do not forget the best thing is adab and thats whats the muslim has forgoten these days

  31. Shuja says:

    MashAllah, well said comment above ^^^ =)

  32. Shuja says:

    Like i HATE it when people insult our Beloved Prophet SAW and honestly i get thoughts in my mind like, that person should be killed. But I always thought to myself, no that is not what the Prophet SAW would have wanted, because he was veryyy Merciful and even to his enemies.

    So you think all those hadiths that the Sheikh (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned were all authentic?

  33. Abu Irsaad says:

    “So you think all those hadiths that the Sheikh (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned were all authentic?”

    Yes, they are in varying degrees.

  34. Ibn Adam says:

    As-Salamu’alaikum:

    JazakALLAH Khair Abu Irsaad for your comprehensive reply,
    could you please post the letter from Sheikh Ibn Bazz to Fahd about legalizing riba banks, or provide a link for it?

    Was-Salamu’alaikum
    Fayyaz

  35. Shuja says:

    “So you think all those hadiths that the Sheikh (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned were all authentic?”

    Yes, they are in varying degrees.

    But wasn’t the Prophet SAW more merciful to the kaffir? Like wouldn’t you be able to find more hadeeths on his mercy than those hadeeths where he gave the Momin permission to kill whoever insulted him??

  36. Abu Irsaad says:

    Shuja –

    There is a balance in the Prophet’s nature, sallallahu ‘alayhi wassallam. One hadeeth that describes it well is, “the Prophet of Mercy, and the Prophet of Warfare” [As-Siyaasah ash-Shar'iyyah]. There are countless examples of his mercy and there are countless examples of his warfare.

    So when we talk about balancing the two, we are really saying that it depends upon the context. He was merciful in a certain context because the situation only needed his mercy and he was harsh in other contexts because the situation required it.

    So those who insult Allah and His Messenger, sallallahu ‘alayhi wassallam, the situation requires the believers to show harshness and warfare to such people. The evidences for this are established in the lecture of Imaam Anwar.

    In Shari’ah, we do not take general statements such as, “wasn’t he more merciful to the Kaafir” and apply it to everything. There is a time for mercy and there is a time for harshness.

    The Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wassallam, showed us balance.

  37. Abu Irsaad says:

    Ibn Adam –

    Give me some time inshaa’Allaah. I shall get it for you.

  38. Shuja says:

    Jazaikallah Khairun brother Abu Irsaad.
    That was simple and clear
    May Allah(SWT) reward you

  39. Muslimrobot says:

    Wow look at all the comments. I have never seen these many comments. So the lecture must be interesting. I have not listened to it but I think Anwar has pressed some buttons.

  40. Ibn Adam says:

    JazakALLAH Khair Abu Irsaad. I look forward to getting it from you inshaALLAH.

  41. Muslimrobot says:

    So much talk about Anwar Awalaki here. I am sure he is going to get someones good deeds on Judgment Day.

  42. dissapointed convert says:

    Brothers and Sisters
    Asalamu Alakum,

    Set a good example for us converts….you would not want to be responcible on the day of judgement for turning muslims and non muslims away from Islam.

    Allah knows ALL THINGS
    Especially our intentions remember this.
    Wasalaam

  43. giant says:

    I did not listen to the entire lecture, but I have an idea as to what Imam Anwar Al Awlaki is referring to… i’ve also read many of the comments… so i’d like to give my take.

    1) instead of bashing the speaker, you should examine his words and if you do not agree, attack his words using intellect. A problem a lot of Muslims have today is that they immediately attack the speaker and forget what he is arguing.

    2) Responding to a comment which said that if we do not agree with his speech we should keep silent, I would have to disagree at that statement. Discourse is a central aspect of our faith, and without it it will be difficult to come to the right decisions. We should debate with adhab.

    Addressing the issue now. The point I really disagree with is that the Imam even says “put yourself in those times” when referring to the attacks on the Prophet PBUH. That is a two way street. If you put ourselves in those times, we must also examine our own times and be able to differentiate the circumstances. Does the Prophet PBUh live with us today? Do we have a Khalif who can give us orders? Do we have an Islamic state? The answers are all no. Anwar Al Awlaki himself in his “The life and times of Muhammad SAW” stresses the importance of having an organized leadership. When we are not organized and we take action like headless chickens, what can we expect to get out of it? There is no strategy, there is no hikma in our actions! I’ll tell you what we get out of it: 1 million + dead Iraqis, thousands dead in Afghanistan, starvation in Africa, oppression in Palestine. Why? because of random action without any goals and focus. We must keep in mind the Fiqh al Awliat, the fiqh of priorities, in our actions.

    The Prophet PBUH gave different suggestions to different people at different periods in time. Why? Because it is important to look at things from all perspectives and take the context of the situation into consideration. There are consequences to your actions, it is Newton’s first law! So if we act the way Imam Anwar is suggesting, we must be prepared to deal with the consequences.

    Before taking rogue and stupid actions, like what happened outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad which ended up killing MUSLIMS, we must organize ourselves. We must first work on our deen and unite fisabillillah. When we unite, we can face all our problems and solve them without violence even. Remember brothers and sisters the saying of Sun Zi, a chinese military strategist: “the best war is fought without fighting”. We must be strategic in our actions. Killing once kuffar who attacks our prophet pbuh will give birth to 10 more. We must address the root of the problem.

    Our Ummah must have goals:

    1) Develop the love for each other which we don’t have right now.

    2) Unite as communities and create lobbying organizations
    3) Address the corruption within our own Islamic lands
    4) Raise good Muslim families
    5) Educate ourselves and our people. We should be at the forefront of technological advancement.

    Once we have a United Ummah, once we have an Islamic state, we can deal with these issues as a commonwealth under our judicial system. This may sound farfetched, but it is the promise of Allah SWT that this will happen. Why are we shooting in the dark instead of working for something Allah T’ala has already promised?

    We need STRUCTURE and PLANNING brothers and sisters. We must move as a single body. We will be fine inshaAllah, no one can hold us down.

  44. Shuja says:

    yo brother, i totally agree with you.
    well said

  45. lol says:

    i agree with Muslimrobot.
    Ooh brother Anwar, how blessed will you be when you get the ajar of some people here on the Day Of Standing..
    victory to the Ummah soon, Insya’Allah.

    “Islam begins as something strange and will end as something strange so glad tidings to the stranger!”

  46. Adam says:

    I don’t see why everyone is fighting over a simple lecture. I don’t believe that Anwar Awlaki was advocating executing a person nowadays for talking bad about the Prophet. He was simply telling the ruling on it. And note that that ruling says that if a person “curses” the Prophet, then he or she should be executed. People bring up issues about the Prophet that they don’t understand, and they want a rational explanation of it. Very few people engage in irrational cursing of the Prophet. Thus, the ruling would not apply to them anyway. Indeed, if anything, it is the Muslims who are blameworthy for not educating people how great the Prophet was.

    Therefore, I ask people to stop bringing forth dirt on Imam Anwar, who is not saying what people think he is saying; and I would ask others to stop advocating the random killing of anyone who criticises the Prophet. To these people, I would say one thing–they are all talk anyway, and would not be able to do what they are advocating. And if they do, then they should know that they are agaisnt the Sunnah of the Prophet, a sunnah that is full of instances where the Prophet forgave people, not for just talking ioll about him, but for killing members of his family.

  47. call me akramoh says:

    inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi rajioun!

    Please brother’s stop being emotional. Walai, the brother is justified fully to critique Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki.

    Critique him too and refute him, without making vague statements. Indeed, bro. Anwar Al-Awlaki has benefited us english speaking people with his lectures. But who is free from mistakes? we are the children of Adam and all of us err.

    And Walai brother Anwar has erred in Manhaj. Some of you don’t even know what this is and yet you are lambasting the brother Al-Khallah. This is not proper, rather you are benefitting him with your hasanat.

    If you wish to make any benefit in refuting him.

    Refute him in his points who are the sheikhs, Imam Al Awlaki attaches himself to? Why does he praise a known khawarij? Why does he differ with the Kibaar on Suicide bombing? Why does he praise syed qutb? Why does he belittle Shaykh Albani’s Tasfiyyah and Tarbiyyah?

    Then you can answer/refute him and say he attaches himself to shaykh fulan ibn fulan who is known for piety, his sincerity, his love for knowledge. The said person is not a khawarij but one whose names is besmirched by so and so. He loves syed qutb for his ikhlas and love for the deen. But doesn’t agree with him on wahdaat al-wujood, his belittlement of Uthman (RA), his takfeer of the leaders etc. This is how to refute.

    Please brothers indeed the Path of Allah is straight so follow it and don’t follow the subul fatafaraqu han sabili (they shall separate you from the path)

    Cool down brothers. Say something beneficial or keep quiet as advised by Allah (SWT).

  48. Sofia says:

    can anyone explain what Tasfiyyah wat Tarbiyyah is and how that apparently goes against Jihad? as u can tell, I don’t know much…but I’d like to learn.

  49. Talha says:

    Asalamu alaykum- He spoke the truth,,,,Nothing butt he truth! the issue is we live at a time when we are so desensitized that brothers like Anwar Awlaki would be vied/seen us someone without Hikmah, someone without strategy etc. i live in California, he was my imam many times, i know him,. bottom line, we live imams like him! then things will be more clear to our enemies!

    Talha Sumaliyi

  50. Abu Daud says:

    The ultimate Islamic “catch 22″

    To do this or do that the answer is “you must have an Islamic State”…but if you talk about establishing [or re-establishing] an Islamic state then the answer is “you shouldn’t oppose the rulers, etc., etc.”

    …and PLEASE don’t anyone try to say that there is an Islamic State ruling by Allah’s Command and implimenting the Shari’a [COMPLETELY]

  51. Ibn Abdul Aziz says:

    [[akramoh said: 'And Walai brother Anwar has erred in Manhaj']]

    Prove it…

    [[akramoh said: 'Why does he praise a known khawarij? Why does he differ with the Kibaar on Suicide bombing? Why does he praise syed qutb? Why does he belittle Shaykh Albani’s Tasfiyyah and Tarbiyyah?']]

    Prove to us that the people he praises are infact kharawij, how does he differ with the kibaar??? why are you madkhalis so ignorant of what the kibaar said and blindly follow what your ‘sheikhs’ tell you??? Sheikh Al-Albanee rahimullah said it is permissable to do suicide bombings in Palestine:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/AbulQadisiyya

    Also Sheikh Al-Albanee rahimullah praised Syed Qutb in a recorded tape by Abi Lailatal Athari and it is commonly sold under the title,‘al-I’tidaal Fee Sayyid Qutb’. The date of the recording is 1st of Rabi’ al Awwal 1414H – 9th December 1993.

    Also when did Br Anwar belittle Tasfiyyah and Tarbiyyah??, he just made it clear that its not a condition made by the Prophet, nor his companions, nor the rest of the salaf. If you think this is a condition show us proof.

    Jazak’Allahu Khairen

  52. Ibn Adam says:

    A lot of people who dislike Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki because they do not agree with his teachings have for a very long time tried very hard to undermine his knowledge and credibility by suggesting that he was not qualified at all. One person earlier on this very message board wrote:

    “My question stands: What makes him an Imaam or a Shaykh. What gives him the authority to speak about the Deen of Allaah?

    Recall the principle of Ahlus Sunnah from the statement of Ibn Seereen which is recorded in the Muqaddimah of Saheeh Muslim:

    ((Verily this is the knowledge of your religion, so look to whom you take your religion from))

    So why should religion be taken from Awlaki? Who was his teachers? Where is his silsilah? Does he even have one? Or is he some guy who decided to speak so he opened his mouth?

    We’re not talking about Ulemaa nor even Du’aat. Awlaki doesnt fall under either of these categories.”

    These people didn’t even find out what his credentials are, and have made (and continue to make) blatant slander against him. The sad irony of these people is if you go to their websites, you will see numerous “refutations” against such Imams and Shuyukh, by people who are unknown, and whose credentials they themselves do not reveal. Moreover, you will see on these very websites, lectures by these very people giving khutbah’s and lectures. I myself had an opportunity to speak to the founder of one of these websites who came to speak at a “conference” in my city some years ago, where he and his ilk came and simply “slandered for the sake of ALLAH” against many of the popular shuyukh and du’at here in the west (of course the credentials of the shuyukh and Imam’s whom they were slandering was irrelevant). I asked this individual how he can tell the Muslims of this city to not go to these people whom he’s slandered (people like Bilal Philips, Abdur-Raheem Green, Yahya Ibrahim, to just name a few), and ask them to go to seek knowledge from people who have no ijaza, no tazkiya, nor have travelled to learn? His simple response to me was, “These are not conditions for knowledge.” When it comes to shuyukh they don’t like, they attack their credibility, when it comes to people they do like, the conveniently ignore this. ALLAH in the Qur-an says 61: 2-3:

    “O you who believe! Why do you say that which you do not do? Most hateful it is with Allâh that you say that which you do not do.”

    Rather than simply dismissing Imam Anwar’s knowledge, why do they not debate the real issue (ie. WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT AND DISCUSS IT ACCORDING TO THE QUR-AN AND SUNNAH?) These people say some very harsh things against the Sheikh, yet they do not discuss his lectures and provide a line for line refutation of his talks, showing where he has erred. Moreover, you also notice that these same people are very forgiving of much bigger mistakes made by much bigger scholars (whom you would expect much more from). Where is the justice?

    Now comes the question, and in all fairness, it is a legitimate one, what are the credentials of Sheikh Anwar Al-Awlaki? In his own words, he posted a reply on his website:

    http://www.anwar-alawlaki.com/2008/08/12/a-question-from-a-reader-on-my-islamic-education/

    A Question from a Reader on my Islamic Education
    Posted (anwar) in Imam Anwar’s Blog on August-12-2008

    I have received the following question from one of the readers of my blog:

    I am not sure how much you have noticed, but in the West, their is a campaign to undermine your personal credentials as an ‘Alim. The all-too-common tactic of attacking the ‘messenger’ rather than the message itself is being employed in these campaigns.
    We want to be able to refute any false claims against you and support all of your works, wholeheartedly. Can you please provide us information regarding the Shuyukh that you have learned under in the past, and who you may be currently learning under? As well as, the source of your ‘ijaza, etc. This will be very important in refuting any slanderous attacks against your credibility.

    I have received this question in various forms and the frequency of it increased lately. Here is my response:

    Alhamdulillah I have had the chance to experience the various methods of gaining Islamic knowledge through studying directly under shuyukh in their general circles or privately. I have experienced the regular academic method of university study, studying by correspondence, and studying directly from books.

    Studying under shuyukh in their general circles:

    I have attended the circles of the scholars of Makkah and Madina for a combined period of a few months and for a short while attended the circle of Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen.

    Studying under shuyukh privately:

    In addition to an ijaza in Quran recitation according to the recitation of Hafs I have read and completed Sahih al Bukhari with Shaykh AbdulRahman Shumailah al Ahdal and he has given me ijazah to narrate Sahih al Bukhari from him through three high isnaads, one of them being the highest existing isnaad in the world. The other two he has received from his shuyukh in Makkah.

    I have also read and completed Sahih Muslim and al Muwata by Imam Malik with Shaykh AbdulRahman and he has given me ijazah on both books.

    I have studied al Minhaaj by Imaam Nawawi on Shafi fiqh with Shaykh AbdulRahman al Ahdal and Shaykh Hamud al Ahdal and received ijaza from both of them.

    The above mentioned shuyukh have also given me ijazah to narrate through their isnaad the six books of Hadith, al Adhkaar by Imaam Nawawi, al Shifa by Qadhi Iyaad, and some other books in Shafi fiqh.

    I have studied, traveled and lived with Shaykh Hassan al Ahdal and it was through him that I got to study with other scholars from this blessed family of scholars who are descendants of al Hussain bin Ali may Allah be pleased with them. They are based in al Marawa’ah in Tihama which is in the Western part of Yemen on the coast of the Red Sea and this is the land of the Sahabi Abu Musa al Ash’ari. He has given me a general ijaza in the six books of hadith, Buloogh al Maraam by Ibn Hajjar al Asqalani, Umdat al Ahkaam by al Maqdisi, al Minhaaj by al Nawawi, al Ghaya wal Taqreeb by Abu Shuja, and al Waraqaat by al Juwaini.

    I have spent a short time with Shaykh Salman al Odah.

    I have benefited considerably from the scholars I met in the US during the 90’s, a time in which there was a great influx of scholars in America.

    And last but not least, I have benefited and continue to benefit from the Shaykh whom I trust his deen and know him to be a scholar who does not fear in the sake of Allah and is willing to stand up for the truth, Shaykh Hussein bin Mahfoodh. He is a friend whose relationship with me extends over the years. Until this day, I consult with him on the various important aspects of Sharia that I am presented with and I have continued to benefit from his knowledge and wisdom over the years. I have accompanied him and traveled with him and consider him to be one of the best scholars that I have come to know.

    Regular academic university study:

    In 2002 I was given permission from the administration of the University of Eman in Yemen to attend any class at any level and I took advantage of this and attended classes in Tafsir and Fiqh for a period of a few months. I have also benefited from the teachings of Shaykh Abdul Majid al Zindani the Rector of the University.

    Studying Sharia by Correspondence:

    I studied for two years through correspondence with the Islamic university in France. I lost interest and discontinued my studies with them because I reached the conclusion that it was not a proper method of disseminating Islamic knowledge. This was in the mid 90’s so things must have changed now in the field of correspondence study due to advances in technology.

    Studying from Books:

    After receiving the basics from the scholars and the keys of knowledge, learning from books is a lifelong practice of the seeker of knowledge.

    My Ijazah:

    In addition to the ijaza’s I have mentioned above I have a general ijaza in Quran, Sciences of Quran, Hadith, Sciences of Hadith, Tafsir , Fiqh, Usool Fiqh and Arabic from:

    Shaykh Hassan Maqbooli al Ahdal

    Shaykh Hussein bin Mahfoodh

    Shaykh AbdulRahman Shumailah al Ahdal

    Shaykh Hamud Shumailah al Ahdal

    May ALLAH increase Sheikh Anwar’s knowledge and make a path to Jannah easy for him and his family, and guide us to the straight path. Ameen.

    Was-Salamu’alaikum
    Ibn Adam

  53. Abu Daud says:

    For those of you who had questions regaring Brother Anwar’s background and Islamic education, you can refer to HIS own answer to the same here

    http://www.anwar-alawlaki.com/2008/08/12/a-question-from-a-reader-on-my-islamic-education/

    then if you have any further questions or accusations I beleve its best if you take it up with him directly.

  54. mmahdy says:

    حصر بالمواقع التي تعرض أخر الأخبار والتطورات السياسية التي تحدث بغزة

    أعرض فيما يلي لمجموعة كبيرة من المواقع التي عرض لأخر الأخبار والتطورات السياسية التي تحدث بغزة بفلسطين، والتي تقدم الأخبار والمقالات ومقاطع الفيديو واللمقاطع الصوتيه الخاصة بالعدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة.
    للدخول الرابط التالي

    http://www.islamonline.net/SiteDirectory/Arabic/subcategories.asp?id=336

  55. TJ says:

    Asalaamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatu brothers and sisters for more clarification inshAllah refer to the following links: By Sheikh Khalid Rashid
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcKPj7HI4Pc – Tell my nation
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tAiTPA56Dk&feature=related ummah of Muhammad (sallAllahu alayi wasalaam) part 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KJunh-B5mw&feature=related
    ummah of Muhammad (sallAllahu alayi wasalaam) part 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEq9B446J9Q&feature=related
    ummah of Muhammad (sallAllahu alayi wasalaam) part 3
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxW9yYxcJy8&feature=related
    ummah of Muhammad (sallAllahu alayi wasalaam) part 4
    WE ARE SO HASTY TO ASK FOR JANNATIL FIRDAVS TO BE WITH THE PROPHET (SALLALLAHU ALAYI WASALLAM), HIS COMPANIONS, MARTYRS AND THE BEST OF CREATION BUT HAVE WE DONE TO ACHIEVE THIS GREAT REWARD. JANNAT IS NOT CHEAP SEEING THE FACE OF ALLAH IS NOT CHEAP AND DEFENDING THE PROPHET IS NOT ONLY GAINING REWARD BUT OBLIGATORY ON EVERY MUSLIM. DO THE COMPANIONS OF THE PROPHET (SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALAAM) THINK WE ARE GOING TO LET THEM HAVE HIM – NO WE WANT THE SHARE OF OUR PROPHET!!!

  56. Umm layla says:

    Yaa Allah!guide us and make our deen easy for us and unite us on the qu’ran and sunnah.
    brother if ou have a problem with anwar’s background then it is better if you spk to him directly and if you have a problem with the views of Anwar then you have the same sources he has (the Qur’an and sunnah) so investigate. Its true blind following is not justified however arguing and cursing every speaker for what you do not agree with is also not justified.
    Many of us are to blame as we are the ones who name students of knowledge as “ulema or shaykh” i am sure they don’t go around saying call me an ulema. It is our duty to learn our deen and what we don’t know we follow the rulings of our ulema who follow the Qur’an and sunnah. Our problem is there are too many sects and divisions who all feel what they follow is the truth.
    I have one advice for our fellow muslims go back to the Qur’an and sunnah and follow those who teach the Qur’an and sunnah.

  57. Wouldn't You Like To Know says:

    The Qu’ran tells you that Allah is the Ultimate Deceiver, friends. (7:99) Not even Muslims are safe from Allah’s wrath, no matter how many “kuffars” they kill or how much they “love” him. Leave Muhammad and his disgusting god in the lifeless desert where they belong, before it is too late.

    Al-Awalaki is sick. May God help our world with him as a leading scholar of Islam.

Leave a Reply

57 queries in 1.524 seconds