Added on November 18, 2007 | 29 Comments »
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.
Salam. Not much substance for an hour long stuttering lecture. Keep repeating the same fact that an act against civilians is forbidden which is agreed by most Muslims anyway. But where do we go from here? How do we fight against the injustice around the world? And this fight is not done by Muslims alone….everyone wants justice.
I understand your concern Akhi, but there is absolutely no need to use insiduous comments like “an hour long stuttering lecture”… we need to have some basic respect for our brothers, let alone those who do their best to impart the knowledge they have gained.
Please keep this in mind.
Wa alaykum as-salam,
I totally agree with brother Muadh. What the first commentator said is downright insolent.
Fi Aman Allah
i respect the sheikh but i think he is way off on this one. ok blame muslims and use the label ” terrorist” as if you are an american right winger. but can you give us an alternative on how to fight for our rights, lands and brothers. islam is definately under attack so how do we deffend ourselves? blaming and criticizing does not help. Give us a way out or just SHUT UP if you are scared. i love the ulama but when a sheikh talks about stuff he has no idea about then he is on his own.
Salahadin was seen as crazy by the ulama of his time they strongly were against him. the sheikhs are wrong sometimes. this brother is wrong on this one. listen to ANUAR AWLAKI ON this issue.
pliz listen to this lecture by Anuar alawlaki
Muslm: If Salahuddeen Ayyoubi [ra] were alive today, the terrorists like Usama bin Ladin would call him a sell-out traitor. Salahuddeen [ra]–in his final great act before dying–made peace with the Crusaders, and even allowed them a piece of land in Palestine. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda and crew blasted Hamas for daring to agree to the Two State solution with Israel. Salahuddeen [ra] also treated King Richard with the utmost respect, even though Richard slaughtered thousands of Muslims. I can just imagine a PDF against Salahuddeen [ra] for daring to give two horses to Richard.
Salahuddeen [ra] was a man who was moved to tears when the Non-Muslim women would come to him, grieving the loss of their husbands or sons. He was not like these scumbag terrorists who mutilate the dead bodies, all in the name of “Jihad.”
Salahuddeen [ra] was the epitome of Jihad. As for your claim that the Ulema were against him, show your proof. Rather, Salahuddeen [ra] was always in the company of the Ulema, built universities for them, patronized them, etc.
As for Anwar al-Awlaki, he is a terrorist sympathizer who has openly said it is permissible to target women and children. Salahuddeen [ra] would never do something like that…as he was known as merciful to his enemies, such that even his enemies respected him. Today, Usama bin Ladin is not even respected by the Muslims, let alone the Non-Muslims!
One last thing: Salahuddeen’s own secretaries–as well as the chroniclers of the time–used to complain about Salahuddeen’s excessive mercy towards the Crusaders. They used to say that it was Salahuddeen who organized the defense of Tyre, a Crusader city…they said this because Salahuddeen–in his benevolence–used to arrange safe passage for the Crusaders to Tyre.
Salahuddeen would never break his word. Even when the Crusaders were leaving Jersualem with swaths of stolen gold on their persons, Salahuddeen refused to confiscate the gold, for fear that then people would accuse the Muslims of reneging on their covenant. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda breaks covenants all the time…that is after all how they did 9/11, by taking a covenant of security to come into the land of America, and then betraying them.
May Allah [swt] send us down another Salahuddeen [ra].
thanks 4 ur comment and a good lecture about Salahuddeen. and yeah may Allah make all of us like him. as for the terrorist stuff. i gues we have different opinions and that should be fine even the sahabah did not always agree.
u call Anuar Alawlaki a terrorist sympathizer. i wonder why he is the most loved sheikh especially in the west. could it be that he tells the truth that most peaple would not say? only Allah knows.
personally i think as muslims we need to wake up. as for our mujahid brothers let s make dua for them that they do things right. which they dont always do. remember KHALID Bin walid killed a whole illage once. it was a m istake but still muslims did not call him a terrorist.
by the way if the prophet was alive today the west would call him a terrorist. i wonder what they would say about Omar!
we need our shookh to tell us what to do islamically about our lands being taken over. and puppet gangters leaders being imposed on us. we definately need sharia in our lands .and the west will not allow it. look at somalia as an example . they will never allow it.
so my question is what do we do? forget the ossam bina laden and the likes. what do we do as muslims. africa is full of wars about land and freedom and no body says a thing. but as muslims we cant stand up when we get abused!
May Allah take us back to islam
Wa alaykum as-salam, Muslim.
Thank you for your good manners.
“u call Anuar Alawlaki a terrorist sympathizer.”
He sympathizes with Al-Qaeda, and believes it is permissible to target women and children.
“i wonder why he is the most loved sheikh especially in the west.”
Most loved Sheikh? I don’t think so at all. He’s not that popular at all. The most popular scholar in the West is Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.
As for Anwar al-Awlaki, he is just popular amongst internet e-jihadis, mostly teenager boys and young men in their twenties…all posting from their mother’s basement. He appeals to them because Anwar is emotional, and youth are emotional, as the Prophet [s] himself stated. Furthermore, the youth like to rebel, and adopting a militant attitude like Anwar’s is one way of doing it…just like how white youth will turn to Neo-Nazi groups oftentimes. It is similar, just under the guise of Islam.
“remember KHALID Bin walid killed a whole village once. it was a m istake but still muslims did not call him a terrorist.”
Please provide your proof that Khalid bin Waleed [ra] killed a whole village! Rather, he did transgress once against a man (NOT a whole village), and the Prophet [s] rebuked him for that, and did baraa from his actions. The only reason Khalid [ra] wasn’t punished was because it was based on a misunderstanding. Khalid [ra] did not think it was legal to target non-combatants, so how are you likening him to the ones today (such as Usama bin Ladin and Anwar al-Awlaki) who believe it is permissible to target non-combatants?
“if the prophet was alive today the west would call him a terrorist. i wonder what they would say about Omar!”
If the Prophet [s] or Umar [ra] were alive today, they would forcefully forbid targeting women and children…just like they did back then. So I don’t get what you are saying at all.
“so my question is what do we do?”
We speak the truth, even if it be against our ownselves. We don’t make the wrong actions as right ones–and we don’t brush them under the carpet–simply because our emotions want to believe in some party fighting for the truth.
Fi Aman Allah,
Bring your evidence where Imam Anwar said it is permissible to kill women and children.
If I bring forth the evidence–from his own blogsite–will you then concede the argument and condemn Anwar?
I’d love to see where Sh.Anwar al Awlaki states: “it is permissible to target women and children.”
Look_here and ‘S': If I bring forth the evidence, will you condemn Anwar? YES OR NO?
No, I would not condemn him because I don’t have the requisite information to say his statements are incorrect.
‘S’ : If you don’t even know the basics of religion, i.e. that it is forbidden to target women and children, then you have no right to defend Anwar. Your opinion is then irrelevant.
In reading this discussion I was very surprised at J’s knowledge. May Allah Bless you for that.
However, upon reading the last part I am a little conflicted. S simply asked for evidence
of that statement and it almost seems like you are trying to avoid it. He never said he was
defending Anwar Al-Awlaki, so saying he “has no right to defend him”, doesnt make sense.
Please, for the sake of our own knowledge and enlightment, show us evidence of such comments by Anwar Al-Awlaki.
It is important to know these kind of things, whether we condemn him or not will be based on the information
May Allah forgive us all.
As-Salam Alaykum, brother Hamza.
I apologize for my harshness. I was simply predicting that even if I bring forth the evidence, they will continue to defend him, because this is the way of the emotional youth, namely that they will defend whom they judge to be “mujahideen”, no matter if their sins and atrocities reach the sky.
In any case, since you have asked so kindly, I will provide the reference. Anwar al-Awlaki said clearly:
“Thirdly, the illegal state of Israel needs to be eradicated. Just like Rasulullah drove them out of the Arabian peninsula the Jews of Palestine need to be driven out to the sea. There are no Israeli civilians unless they are Muslim. When the enemy targets our women and children we should target theirs.”
And he said further:
“I agree with the methods adopted by the mujahideen and I agree with them when they state that they would not stop targeting civilians until the Israeli’s do the same.”
To: Brother J, Thank you for your reply, I have read the article.
And I notice a point you may have not noticed.
Anwar al-Awlaki states as clarification:
“My opinion which I have stated in past recordings and is still my opinion now is that non-combatant women and children CANNOT be targeted. However if the type of war forced on us to fight is one in which non-combatants would end up being killed in order to reach to the fighting force then it is allowed in this case.”
And then goes on to state an example of this from the time of the Prophet (saw) which is in support of bombarding a city where civilians would be killed in the process of getting to the “fighting force”.
I know this is contradictory to what he states further on in his clarification:
So this must make you think. Did the Sh. mean that we should go kill civilians in Israel? While just prior he stated that one should NOT intentionally target civilians.
No, I don’t believe he meant say to so because that would be quite a conundrum, correct? Stating one thing then seemingly stating another? But I don’t believe he intended to say contradictory things on purpose because that would make no sense at all. Instead I believe he just mis-worded his last statement.
Wa alaykum as-salam, brother S.
“No, I don’t believe he meant say to so because that would be quite a conundrum, correct? Stating one thing then seemingly stating another? But I don’t believe he intended to say contradictory things on purpose because that would make no sense at all. Instead I believe he just mis-worded his last statement.”
Unfortunately this is not the case. His view on the matter is well-known. Yes, he did say contradictory things, but this is no different than Usama bin ladin who one minute says we cannot target non-combatants and the next issues a fatwa ordering people to kill all Americans anywhere.
In any case, your understand of what Anwar said cannot be correct, since Anwar clearly mentioned the shadh (anomalous) opinion of Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen. It is well known what this opinion is, and that is what Anwar was agreeing to. Like Ahl al-Bidah anywhere, Anwar latches on to a shadh opinion, thinking he is justified in doing so just because a big scholar said it. It is no different than those who try to justify mutah (temporary marriage) by saying that this was the view of Ibn Abbas [ra], etc.
EVERYONE agrees with the idea that there can be collateral damage, i.e. civilians are NOT targeted but are killed by accident, due to them being mixed up with military targets. This is not an issue of debate. Rather, what is debated (the view that Anwar takes) is the idea that we can specifically target their women and children just because they target ours.
Anyways, it is clear what Anwar meant, and his view on the matter is well-known.
Fi aman Allah
My opininion on how Muslims around the world can overcome opression:
> True understanding of Islam inturn purifying your heart and eliminating any mallice towards your brothers and siters as well as non Muslims. This purification of the heart will allow one to eminate Islamic ideals, Principles and Practices which will ultimately create a domino effect with in the society they live in.
> Focus on the unification of Muslims around the world. Move away from sectarian ideals but rather focus on the similarities Muslims share and let Allah (swt) do the judging.
> Focus on education. Education is your amunition. Become learned in a variety of fields of knowledge. Use this knowledge to better improve the societies Muslims live in around the world. Network with fellow muslims and therefore creating a world wide sense of community.
It is my opinion (and I dont claim to be right in anything I say), and only my opinion, through the use of my capacity which Allah (swt) has blessed me with, that the reason Muslims are suffering is due to the abuse of the pure Religion of Islam by the ‘Muslims’ around the world. Hence, Muslims have to abondon the ‘human’ practices they have adopted (corruption, mallice etc), and look to head in a direction which will restore them to their former historical significance. The answers are in front of us….THE QUR”AN.
Just food for thought.
J is right in this conversation. Anwar Awlaki can only be described as a terrorist. Anyone who looks at his blog will find plenty of praise among his supporters for “Sheikh” Osama bin Laden and other known criminals. These self-proclaimed mujahideen have no respect for any covenant whatsoever. They are simply a cult whose main goal is to fight and kill and nothing else. Even if they seize power, they would become oppressors themselves, just as they did in Iraq, and the Sunni Iraqis learned the hard way that the Americans are more civilized than al-Qaeda! Anyone who sincerely cares about the TRUTH of DEEN AL-ISLAM will find out that Awlaki is misguided and misguiding others, so I don’t expect to convince those people whose hearts are bent on killing. I’ll leave you with a “gem” from Awlaki. After attacking a well-known scholar for his statements against terrorism, Awlaki says:
“If a Muslim kills each and every civilian disbeliever on the face of the earth he is still a Muslim and we cannot side with the disbelievers against him.” (http://www.anwar-alawlaki.com/?p=75)
In other words, Awlaki is saying that even if his criminal friends commit genocide, which Al-Qaeda has said they will do with WMD, then no Muslim has the right to stop that. This flys in the face of the Prophet’s example SAW when he said, “Whoever oppresses a non-Muslim will not smell Paradise.”
Awlaki’s misguidance is clear to those who know DEEN AL-ISLAM, this is why he is only popular with youth who do not know their DEEN.
We seek refuge in Allah from the midguidance.
To Yusuf and the haters,
Awalaki spent time unjustly in jail in Yemen and might have been even tortured just for his views before he started espousing “extreme” views. Trust me, if any of you spent time in these arab government jails(which was due to a request from the US govt. to Yemen in the case of Awalaki) for just your views and unjustly denied access to a lawyer for years, you will hate the Western government who put you in there.
So before you judge others, put yourself in their shoes.
I have enjoyed many of Imam Anwar Awlaki’s lectures. However, I was extremely disappointed to hear his views on innocents and suicide bombing. Very against the code of conduct set by the Prophet (PBUH) and then Abu Bakr (RA).I have never heard Surah Buruj and its accompanying hadith as proof that suicide bombing is ok. Never.
As for Br. Amro’s comments that jail and torture justify hating a people and making incidiary comments, I think the treatment of our great imams of the past like Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Imam Malik who for sure were tortured shows how we are supposed to act like in similar if not worse circumstances.
Assalam u Alikum wr wb
I think Shaikh Waleed should just Shutup!! if he cant solutions. Oh this is wrong, that is wrong….what is right..tell us then…tell us to fight Americans…who invaded an Islamic emirate…..i mean please…this guy is sitting in America, with people praising him all the time, traveling all over for lectures and enjoying…what does he know of Jihad and Mujahideen and their circumstances…. I am pretty sure he doesn’t have it in him to tell Muslims where there is Jihad and that we should go and fight there. He wont Because it will hurt his travel plans, and his info will goto FBI who will come to him and then he will become a hippy like any other guy.
Imam Anwar by far a very famous Shaikh, just last week in Toronto Star there was an article which stated that he was fast becoming very famous amongst youth.,…and that anyone who listens to him is an extremist….i can see why…on the other hand people like Shaikh waleed want to live in America and enjoy their lives…they have no stake in Jihad or Mujahideen. He and his other friends can only talk, but walking the talk is not something his ilks can do, because it needs sacrifice, it mean pissing off Kuffr who will inturn make life miserable…but that is too much of a fuss…just live a good life…give lectures…make money and get praise….Why is it that just the Kalima of Muhammad(saw) caused an outrage amongst the kuffar…and how is it that when these Shuyukh speak no one cares what they do…No Kaffir calls on them…to be speaking against the west.
Imam Anwar is the man, just by listening to him one can know he speaks the Truth. Sorry if i pissed Shaikh Waleed;s Fans but….seriously…if he cant help the Mujahideen then he should either speak good or keep quiet. He doesnt have to toe the line of Kuffar unless he wants to be on their payroll.
Don’t get me wrong I am against Al Qeada, they have just become anarchists, killing just for the sake of killing, but until we have lived at least 1 week in the life of those who we accuse of terrorism, constantly having to watch out for missile attacks, and drone attacks, and having to fight against F-16s, helicopter gunships and massive tanks with just RPGs and an AK-47 and no body armor we can’t condemn the mujahideen who may resort to suicide attacks to fight their enemies, i mean when the odds are soo against you, you sometimes have no choice and that is the view of even American and Israeli generals and leaders.
Amro, you say you are against Al-Qaeda in one sentence calling them “anarchists” and in the next you refer to them as “mujahideen.” Pick.
They are terrorists. And we don’t have to “live their lives” to know that. And even if you put that requirement on us, then accept the words of Sh. Abu Jalal Abualrub who fought in Afghanistan, who calls them terrorists.
I meant Jalal Abu alrub, not “Abu” before his name.
Salam to All,
The Killing of Innocent muslims and non muslims is haram, period. How can my neighbour who is a non muslim be held accountable for what his president does? Is it not haram to bring harm to him/her? Its the same if that same neighbour is a muslim, is he accountable?
Anyone who preaches otherwise regardless of their title has an agenda. Just like the terrorist groups claiming to be muslim. Astaghfir Allah Al Azeem. May Allah protect us and guide us on the path of righteousness and allow us not to vere away from the truth. we should be reciting and memorising our Holy Book and practising goodness and remembering Allah (swt) every second of the day. The above talk is jibberish and its definately NOT wELCOMING to non muslims ho visit this site.
دابة العنكبوت تكشف عن موقع سفينة نوح علية السلام من القران الكريم وهي حاليا موجودة في حضرموت.شبوة. اليمن ادخلshipnoah.com Noah’s Ark Hadramout Yemen. سفينة نوح علية السلام MUST WATCH!!!shipnoah.com