So this mallam, Baghdadi (leader of ISIS) declared the restoration if the Caliphate yesterday and himself the Caliph. Twitter is abuzz with the news with some clans in the levant, groups and individual pledging bayah (allegiance). So what do you think of the declaration. Do you think the Islamic State (as ISIS wants to be known now) will last, are you happy, will you pledge bayah or you see the declaration as laughable?

.......

Has the Caliphate been re-established by ISIS?

Yesterday the group that has swept to mass media attention in the last month, ISIS, has claimed that the Caliphate has been restored in its ‘domains’, and called for Muslims to render their pledge of allegiance (bayah) to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, changing its name to simply ‘Islamic State’ (I.S).

While most Muslims would be jubilant at the claim of the return of the Khilafah (Caliphate), which is a vital obligation upon Muslims that has been conspicuously missing for so long, a self-proclamation does not a Caliphate make.

The short-lived war-born ‘Islamic States’ of Chechnya, Somalia to Taliban Afghanistan, each ruling fighitng group had declared their leader ‘Amir ul Momineen’ (including Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s predecessor, and former ISIS leader, Abu Abdullah Rashid al Baghdadi) and all of them have met with the same fate. Invasion, uprising and destruction of their fledgling state or area of operations, not to mention their resorting to unIslamic laws, policies and practices while they were in power. Knowing this cycle, we should be especially cautious when the phenomena arises again. This is not the say that sincere people do not follow those groups, or that all of those groups didn’t have noble intentions, but the case is assessing their validity, viability and truth. So considering such history, has the Caliphate been restored under ISIS?

It is said that Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is of Quraysh descent, and this must validate his claim to Caliphate. While many classical scholars have spoken about the desirability of a candidate of Qurayshi descent to be the leader – it is neither agreed to be an obligation, nor does it matter even if the candidate was. Many Muslims are of Qurayshi descent – including the ‘Mahdi’ of Makkah Mohammed Abdullah al-Qahtani!. Being the Caliph also requires the candidate to be just and competent, something we must not forget. But regardless of the qualifications of the individual, it is whether or not the prospective Caliphate actually has a Caliphate or not to rule over, that will determine whether he is the Caliph.

A Brief note on invalid reasons to reject a claim of Islamic State Some Muslims may consider a group’s fiqh and interpretations of Islam not in line with their own interpretations of their school of thought. This is not a correct basis to reject a group’s work for a common obligation i.e. Khilafah (Caliphate). To those who reject I.S. merely because I.S. school of thought is disagreeable to them, they should remember that Islam permits difference of opinion. To reject something as outside the fold of Islam due to it being a different school of thought to one’s own, makes one a purveyor of disunity amongst Muslims (as long as the opinions are validly derived from Islamic texts). This does not mean that Muslims must not intellectual discuss, debate and challenge each other’s opinions – but to call a valid Islamic opinion, unIslamic, is intolerant and in breach of the Prophet’s (saaw) commands to unity. He (saaw) informed us that the judge who derives an wrong Islamic opinion still gets reward (despite it being wrong – and wrong means not the true Islamic opinion). In the end, Allah (swt) alone knows what is the correct opinions with the area of legitimate difference of opinion, and it is best left to He (swt) to resolve disputes on the day of judgement. An Islamic state is valid and correct, even if it is based upon Hanbali fiqh, Hanafi figh or even Dhahiri fiqh from the mostly forgotten school of Ibn Hazm al Andalusi!

Some may object that they find a group or state’s understanding of Islam uncompromising, austere and even arduous. However, it should be remembered that sometimes throughout history, the toughest and hardiest Muslims have come from harsh conditions that although produced a basic and austere understanding of Islam, also produced very capable warriors that slowed down, reversed and even saved the Muslims from defeat many times. One such case is Al Murabitun of North Africa, who rose from the Berber tribes and conquered an area of land from West Africa to Central Spain, led by Yusuf bin Tashfin.

The highly cultured, but divided, bickering and weak Muslim city states of Al Andalus (Portugal/Spain) were being conquered piecemeal. Their armies too weak and softened to fight the hardened Spanish Christian Crusader states to the north in pitched battles. Muslims lost battle after battle, until Yusuf bin Tashfin marched his armies into Al Andalus and scored victory after victory on the terrified Crusader armies. Even a heavy cavalry charge by the Knight orders couldn’t dent the Al Murabitun battle lines! Yusuf bin Tashfin was originally invited by the Amirs of the Muslim city-states, but he was so appalled at their pathetically weak and lax attitude to some unIslamic practices (like wine drinking) he deposed them all and took control. Interestingly, Yusuf didn’t declare himself Caliph, but only Amir. He sent a letter to the Caliph in Baghdad giving him his pledge of allegiance, and declaring his newly conquered territories to return to being wilayah’s (districts) of the greater Caliphate.

Of course the Al Murabitun had strange Islamic opinions, like wearing the Litham (face veil for men!) because they believed that the mouth was unclean (presumably based upon a very different understand of the hadith that the Muslim should guard their tongues and what is between their hips). The Al Murabitun also had opinions that would be recognised today, like the prohibition of images and statues – which led them to destroy a number of artworks and carvings. However, these issues aside, and putting aside the unIslamic actions that are recorded some of them committed in their duties, that their wilayah was Islamic (ruled by Islamic law) is beyond question, and was accepted by the Caliph of Baghdad and the scholars of Al Andalus, at the time.

Even if a group or movement holds opinions that are against one’s own opinions, unity allows us to collectively benefit from their works, and while united, nothing says Muslims cannot then engage in intellectual debate to persuade them to change their ideas through intellectual discussion. This way we remain united, but help each other to improve and refine our ideas. As the famous classical scholar Ibn Khaldun points out in his book ‘An Introduction to History’, many great states were started by nomads, and became powerful intellectual and cultural centres of power.

Another reason that can’t be used to reject a claim of Islamic State, is the method used to create it, whether it was done by coup, revolution, fighting or election. Despite some of those methods being illegitimate, once the Islamic State is created and fulfills all the criteria, it is accepted on the basis of fact. However, that being the case, we would expect Allah (swt) to only grant victory to the group that best emulates the Prophet’s (saaw) method of achieving the Islamic State. This is why the Prophet’s (saaw) method is important to study, as following his method is the basis for the actions of a Muslim in discharging their obligations.

The Pre-requisite for Islamic State The question we must ask ourselves is, what is the prerequisite for an Islamic state? Without needing to go into formal fiqh, we can agree that there should be at least two basic and self-evident requirements: 1) Islam being the only basis, purpose and objective for law and policy in governance over state, and 2) the existence of a state.

Ruling a State by Islam

A state (or ‘Dawlah’ in classic Arabic) is basically a community under government. This requires the existence of a community, in this, the Ummah, and a government over them. In Secular theory, modern communities are defined by ‘nations’ of common race, culture and language. Modern state theory has now been overrun by the concept of the ‘nation state’ with states being purposed to be the political expression of the ‘collective will’ of their constituent ‘nation’. Unfortunately, this is also the cause of ethnic and racial conflict, and states with more than one ‘nation’ tend to face internal conflict for which ‘nations’ expression leads the state. For this reason even seemly peaceful nations like Belgium, Canada and Spain have very serious problems with population separatism, merely for differences in language!

An Islamic state can only be Islamic if the community it ‘expresses’ is defined purely by their Islamic belief, not language, race and culture. In this aspect, I.S. are not expressing only one race or ethnic group, but are correctly ignoring such arbitrary concerns, and based the state exclusively on representing Islamic affliation. In this I.S. have correctly demolished the colonial sykes-picot border and scored a moral victory over the artificial borders that were designed to separate and divide the Muslim world. In this they fulfill the Islamic criteria.

However, while it is true that I.S. ‘rule’ over warzones, this does not exempt them from adhering to the Islamic rules of war, and protection of civilians. In this I.S. have adopted patently unIslamic practices and strategies, like blowing up civilians in market places, kidnapping of innocents for ransom, and execution of those from other Islamic groups who voice criticism and political dissent (this is not only practiced by ISIS. There was the case of two British Muslims who went to Somalia to fight, and were killed because they complained at the tactics of one branch of al Shabab). If I.S. committed these crimes, but disavowed their use, then that is still horrific, but at least they admit their wrongdoing. However, the justification of targeting civilians IS KUFR (disbelief), and a borrowed concept from Western warfare.

Furthermore, I.S. should not target or kill Shias civilians, even if they consider them to be non-Muslims. This is because non-Muslims are also protected under Islamic law, and even if Shia are considered non-Muslims (and especially so), Shia shrines should be protected like Islam obliges Muslims to protect Churches and Synagogues. So we should ask I.S. to DECIDE, either Shias are Muslims that can’t be killed, OR Shias are non-Muslims that STILL can’t be killed or molested. The choice is theirs – there is no middle ground, except for those looking for excuses to kill those they hate.

‘and let not hatred of others make you depart from justice’ [Quran]

It is I.S’s JUSTIFICATION of their practices that are away from Islamic law in warfare and treatment of civilians that alone, immediately renders false any claim to being Islamic. If I.S. is sincere, they should renounce terrorism and renounce their declaring war on all Shias indiscriminately, in order to at least render themselves compliant with basic Islamic requirements.

Of course there are further problems with I.S’s lack of mercy, unsubtle application of Islamic law, lack of Islamic due process and ‘innocent till proven guilty’ considerations for adjudicating cases. However, these allegations against them, while numerous, are difficult to ascertain given the unclear reports and political agenda of external media propaganda. In the presence of unclear and conflicting reports, all that can be said for certain is that if these reports are wrong, I.S. should take care to portray themselves as fair, objective and merciful (which are Islamic requirements). Their gleeful broadcasting of harsh rhetoric and gruesome images of mass executions leads us to believe the more negative reports against them. Either way, I.S. should dismiss their spokeman Adnani as their PR manager.

It should be remembered that the Prophet (saaw) found any way he could to not punish people according to corporal and capital punishment. He (saaw) advised Muslims to find excuses and ‘loopholes’ to let people off punishment. He (saaw) was even reported to have said that the reason he hasn’t executed the seditious and treason agitators (i.e. ‘the hypocrites’) amongst the Muslim community whom Allah (swt) had revealed to him who they were, is because he fears people outside would say he kills his companions – since people wouldn’t know the reasons or have proof for their executions. The Prophet (saaw) set an example to us for this – even people who commit war, treason and sedition can’t be punished unless their is clear proof to the entire community, less people think Muslims merely punish people wantonly or for personal reasons.

I.S. should let the wisdom and mercy of the Prophet (saaw) guide their actions. The Prophet (saaw) after conquering Makkah, delayed demolishing and moving the Kaabaa on to its original abrahamic foundations, because the people weren’t ready developed enough in their newly embraced religion, to accept it, despite it being an obligation. If only I.S. learned from this, and refrained from destroying (Sunni and Shia) Saint shrines. If I.S. possesses the stronger intellectual position ,they should attempt instead to persuade Muslims of their position using reasoned argument, not the bulldozer. Sometimes the carrot is better than the stick.

Security – the basis for Statehood

The ability to govern depends on the provision of security and the enforceability of law and order over this community.What makes a government viable is its ability to provide security – without that, it becomes a failed government, and hence a ‘failed state’.

I.S. is currently unable to provide viable, stable law, order and security in the territories it operates under. In Iraq, I.S. must share power with other Muslim groups just to hold down the cities of Mosul and Tikrit. In Syria, I.S. share the north of Syria with other Muslim groups of whom they fight and bicker with, and have exchanged pieces of land incessantly, with their Syrian capital of Raqqa itself being taken and retaken between them. I.S. clearly does not have a monopoly on power to control the territories let alone the ability to describe themselves as a viable government over them.

The leader of I.S. Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, like ‘Ameer ul Mumineen’ Mullah Omar does not even have the security to make public appearances. If the leader cannot even have the security to make public appearances in their own ‘state’, then how can they be said to be able to be in control of it?

Security against external threats

Some Muslims have argued superficially, that victory and success are from God, and so it does not matter how apparently weak a group is, if it is ‘righteous it shall be victorious’. Putting the assessment of I.S. ‘righteousness’ aside, let us consider this carefully. If a man established shariah in his own home or ‘ranch’, performing legal punishments, and having armed himself, would it be reasonable for people to conclude that he had established a state? No of course not. Why? Because his state would last only for as long as the time it took for the police to arrive.

A State, in order to fulfill the requirement of being a state, and not a mere outlaw zone, must be able to effectively protect itself to a sufficient degree from other states that if they choose to attack it with conventional forces, it could put up effective resistance. Of course even a superpower can be invaded and lose wars, but if the only thing that keeps an area of land from successful invasion is merely the enemy’s discretion and mood, than the ‘State’s’ control of that land is illusory at best. What’s the difference between a client state (like Hawaii, Puerto Rico or Crimea) and a state that can’t stand up to conventional warfare? The answer is, there is no difference, since if they both irk more powerful States that can project power over that area, they would be swept away in as little time it took for the enemy States to mobilise and arrive for battle.

It could be argued that I.S. have effectively repelled conventional attack from the Iraqi Army. However, this is not an example of a resisting a State power, but rather resisting a client State. Iraq’s Army has not been effectively rebuilt and cannot fight a conventional war, its moral is low, it is poorly trained, and ultimately depends upon the U.S. Army.

The Prophet Muhammed (saaw) when he was seeking the support of military power and protection for the Deen of Islam, approached various tribes to believe in Islam and pledge allegiance to him as leader, and to the cause of Islam. One of his encountered was with Shayban bin Thalaba, who accepted to provide the Prophet (saaw)’s offer, but was vulnerable and strategically exposed to the Persian empire, and couldn’t provide protection from them. The Prophet (saaw) didn’t take them up on their offer of support, for the beginning base for the Islamic State must be strategically defensible from all sides.

‘We would be reneging on a pact that Khusrau has placed upon us to the effect that we would not cause an incident and not give sanctuary to a troublemaker. This policy you suggest for us is such a one that kings would dislike. As for those areas bordering Arab lands, the blame of those so acting would be forgiven and excuses for them be accepted, but for those areas next to Persia, those so acting would not be forgiven and no such excuses would be accepted. If you want us to help and protect you from whatever relates to Arab territories alone, we should do so.’ The Messenger of God(SAAS) replied, ‘Your reply is in no way bad, for you have spoken eloquently and truthfully. (But) God’s religion can only be engaged in by those who encompass it from all sides.’ “

[Abu Nu'aym, Al-Hakim and Al-Bayhaqi]

The difference between Emirate and Caliphate If I.S. wanted to claim a state, even if we ignore all the considerations we discussed, the best that I.S. could say is that they are merely an Islamic Emirate (a leadership of a local area). This has been allowed by Islamic Scholars in the past, who had to give reluctant rulings on a divided and fractured Ummah for over 1,000 years. They ordered that Muslims who are ruled over by local leaders, may obey them (as long as the laws were Islamic – which precludes virtually all current Muslim states), until a powerful leader arose and re-united the Muslim territories by conquest. This indeed was how the turkish Osmanli tribe rose to power until it became powerful enough to control the centres of power of the Ummah, and therefore declare themselves the Caliphate (i.e. Ottomans). I.S. are far from ruling over the main centres of power in the Muslim World, and so cannot call themselves a Caliphate.

For the reasons mentioned above, I.S. is not a State, if they were they would not be recognisably Islamic when compared to the mercy and wisdom of the Prophet’s (saaw) example, nor their treatment of civilians. Lastly, they are not a Caliphate as their ‘areas’ are too small, vulnerable and unstrategic within the Muslim world.

A note to those concerned regarding Western opinion Some Muslims are concerned that I.S. actions send the wrong message about Islam to the Western audience. In this, they are correct. However, it is wrong for Muslims to permit the West to have an higher moral ground, or judgment upon I.S. or Muslims. The simple reason is if I.S. do create a state using terrorism and brutal actions – it wouldn’t be any different to how many Western nations were formed and rose to power.

France arose out of a bloody reign of terror (from which the word ‘terrorism’ was first created – i.e. ruling by terror), forget I.S’s publication of gruesome execution images, ‘enlightenment’ france invented the guillotine for public and frequent execution.

The U.S.A arose from the actions of what would certainly be called terrorism and insurgency against the British empire – they even destroyed and wiped out entire pro-British civilian towns (in now modern day Canada), not to mention they bloody genocide against the native Americans. To this day, U.S.A has anti-cuba terror training camps in Florida, where they harbour Luis Posada Carriles, who blew up a cuba civilian plane. He now lives in the U.S.

Britain had a number of bloody civil wars, but the true horror of the activities they undertook to raise their state into a international empire are too numerous to be written in this piece. Suffice to say, Winston Churchill, voted in a poll as the ‘best briton of all time’, invented the idea of ‘strategic bombing’ (mass bombing of civilian cities – yes, he and not Hitler did it first!), and had advocated that civilians be bombed to ‘spreading a lively terror’ – what do you call someone who bombs civilians to spread terror amongst them? (answers on a postcard).

The Israeli government was infamously fought for and formed by confirmed terrorist groups the Haganah and the Stern gang, who pioneered terror bombings against civilians targets like hotels and cruise ships.

Even the innocuous ANC in South Africa who fought against racist apartheid South African government (a legitimate cause) used terror tactics of blowing up shopping malls, restaurants and cafes with civilians, to make their point. They even fought and killed rival groups in ways not to dissimilar to I.S. Yet all these groups, individuals and causes are praised, and (minus the ugly facts of course) commemorated. It is argued that although modern Westerners may condemn these actions, they are explained away as either ‘the result of a terrible time’, or ‘unfortunate, but necessary at the time’.

The only argument any Western media pundit, politician or Western-learning Muslim, who hold any praise for the individuals or groups who did ‘what was necessary’ could ever say against I.S. is that I.S. are fighting for the wrong cause (which is portrayed as ‘Islam’). Of course, it always has been the case in Western history and foreign policy, that as long as a group fights for ‘freedom’, little regard is paid to the tactics. Our response is, I.S. are no different to Western armies, Western covert-backed groups and even some of the ‘founding fathers’ of Western nations – therefore they certainly have no basis to judge I.S. - I.S’s crime is being actually being good student of the West, right down to their corporate structure and organisation, and ability to use social media!

The Muslim response to Western media regarding I.S. is that Islam considers that both the cause and the tactics must be correct, and Islam condemns terrorism and the targeting of civilians. However, we should also explain to them that I.S. are the product of a reaction to Western foreign policy in the region that arose out of the actions of the U.S, UK and their puppets in the region.

If the Muslim world is left alone, this will give Muslims the peace, space and time to intellectually evolve into a refined civilisation that future generations can live in. Muslims do not want any ‘intervention’ from the outside powers which caused all these problems in the first place.

http://abdullahalandalusi.com/2014/06/30/has-the-caliphate-been-restored-under-isis/

kazlaw2000: So this mallam, Baghdadi (leader of ISIS) declared the restoration if the Caliphate yesterday and himself the Caliph. Twitter is abuzz with the news with some clans in the levant, groups and individual pledging bayah (allegiance). So what do you think of the declaration. Do you think the Islamic State (as ISIS wants to be known now) will last, are you happy, will you pledge bayah or you see the declaration as laughable?

There is nothing laughable in this matter. It was not long when the Ottoman was dismantled by the West and this is why Muslims hate the West. The incident of 1928 led to the birth of Muslim Brotherhood movement for the restoration of caliphate and from then other groups erupted to defy the Western way of forced democratization of muslim countries. The American behavior of pushing its way of life on people of other culture and religion is catalyst that trigger the agitation for the restoration of caliphate. ISIS and other Al-Qaeda offshoots came alive as a result of American oppressive policies. As for the question whether the newly-restored caliphate will last, I believe that depends on the justice and righteousness of the ISIS leaders. If they establish Shari'ah in its purest form, they will last, but if they relapse into corruption, injustice and illegal bloodshed then they will soon join the dusty history of corrupt Muslim leaders. If the ISIS Caliphate followed the ethical principles of leadership in Islam, no power on earth can uproot it.

Bogus Caliphate. Beware!!!

I do not agree with sheikh Imran Hussein on some issues. I think, his conspiracy theories are too much and sometimes unhealthy. Personal opinion.

May Allah bless him for all the good, he has done.

That's polite enough. neither do i

Isis like thaba stated is an extremist group, the only reason they have so far succeeded is simply becos the locals have supported them out of desperation and sectarinism of the maliki govt. What the war on terror has so far succeeded in doing is creating more terrorism. One can only wonder what the end of all this will look like?

vedaxcool: Isis like thaba stated is an extremist group, the only reason they have so far succeeded is simply becos the locals have supported them out of desperation and sectarinism of the maliki govt. What the war on terror has so far succeeded in doing is creating more terrorism. One can only wonder what the end of all this will look like?

like they say, a lie often repeated becomes the truth. can you state one sectarian policy of Maliki's government that discriminated against Arab Sunnis? the problem is not even about the Sunnis because the Kurds are mostly Sunnis and they are content. the problem is the Arab Sunnis and their born to rule mentality. otherwise, many important positions in Iraq, including the presidency occupied by a Kurdish, are held by Sunnis. compare the targeted discrimination of Shia in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait and you will see, if you are a fair person, that there is no discrimination in Iraq against Sunnis at large, and Sunni Arabs in particular. what is going on in Iraq is a war by proxy led by Saudi Arabia. the incessant suicide bombings killing Shia civilians and targeting Shia places of worship dont seem to be enough. they have now sent in ISIL to occupy Sunni areas. when ISIL takes control of Sunni towns, just like Boko Haram, and other Wahhabi alqaeda groups in Syria, it would be Sunnis themselves that will beg the non-Sunnis (Shia or Christians as may be the case) to rescue them from their extremism and brutality. the point is Maliki will go, and another Arab Shia (who barely make up 20% of the population) will take over in Iraq. yet still, the suicide bombings targeting Shia civilians will not stop and the Arab Sunni terror will continue. they will not rest until they install a Sunni tyrant to govern the majority Shia (as was the case in Iraq under Saddam, and the case in Bahrain of a Sunni tyrant ruling over an 80% majority Shia population). i think this time their wishes wouldnt come to pass as the Shia appear to be well armed in Iraq and capable of holding ground. Maliki will go, but he would be replaced by another Shia as commander in chief.

125 Hindus (from India) will travel to Iraq to defend Imam Hussain’s shrine from Salafi and Deobandi terrorists

posted by Abdul Nishapuri | June 28, 2014



Great initiative by the Interfaith Unity against Terrorism (IUT) project led by Ali Abbas Taj, Editor in Chief of LUBP and leading human rights activist. It is also a great example of Muslim-Hindu Unity against Deobandi and Salafi terrorists of Al Qaeda, Taliban, ASWJ, Boko Haram etc. According to Indian newspaper daily Sahafat (Mumbai, 27 June 2014), more than 125 Hindus, in addition to thousands of Shias and Sunnis, have registered their names to travel to Karbala, Iraq, to defend the holy shrine of Imam Hussain (a.s.), the grandson of Prophet Muhammad (pbuhp) from the anticipated attack by the ISIS aka AlQaeda. It may be recalled that 1400 years ago, when tyrant Caliph Yazid (revered by Salafis and Deobandis) killed Imam Hussain and his family, a tiny group of Hindus (Hussaini Brahmins) sacrificed their lives defending him along with his family members and companions.



http://lubpak.com/archives/316036?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Hindu Brahmins Fought for Imam Hussain in the Battle of Karbala

See more at: http://www.hindu.bz/hindu-brahmins-fought-for-imam-hussain.html#sthash.HlBR9Dfx.dpuf

@lagosshia, i have not seen any concrete reason to believe ISIS is a Saudi machination. They are diametrically opposite. Infact some even claim they are allied to the Syrian goverment. They are debunking it. They were making fun of the Saudi government on twitter yesterday.

These ISIS guys are a different breed. Thats why you see everybody is concerned i.e the americans, the saudis, the iranians, the jordanians, the lebanese, the russians and the syrians.

kazlaw2000: @lagosshia, i have not seen any concrete reason to believe ISIS is a Saudi machination. They are diametrically opposite. Infact some even claim they are allied to the Syrian goverment. They are debunking it. They were making fun of the Saudi government on twitter yesterday.
These ISIS guys are a different breed. Thats why you see everybody is concerned i.e the americans, the saudis, the iranians, the jordanians, the lebanese, the russians and the syrians.

if you want to know who is behind any of these groups, trace its financial sponsors or its source of funds. going by news reports, most of the groups that carry out sectarian killings in pakistan are funded by the saudis, either directly, or indirectly by wealthy saudi individuals or its intelligence agency in secret. they will call ISIL a terrorist group within saudi arabia but calssify them as "Sunni rebels" when they are fighting Shia in Iraq and the government of assad in syria. double standards. and this yeye ISIL is made up mostly of foreign fighters who are not iraqis or syrian. they are in other words hired mercenaries to spill the blood of muslims.

[[s]quote author=LagosShia]
like they say, a lie often repeated becomes the truth. can you state one sectarian policy of Maliki's government that discriminated against Arab Sunnis? the problem is not even about the Sunnis because the Kurds are mostly Sunnis and they are content. the problem is the Arab Sunnis and their born to rule mentality. otherwise, many important positions in Iraq, including the presidency occupied by a Kurdish, are held by Sunnis. compare the targeted discrimination of Shia in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait and you will see, if you are a fair person, that there is no discrimination in Iraq against Sunnis at large, and Sunni Arabs in particular. what is going on in Iraq is a war by proxy led by Saudi Arabia. the incessant suicide bombings killing Shia civilians and targeting Shia places of worship dont seem to be enough. they have now sent in ISIL to occupy Sunni areas. when ISIL takes control of Sunni towns, just like Boko Haram, and other Wahhabi alqaeda groups in Syria, it would be Sunnis themselves that will beg the non-Sunnis (Shia or Christians as may be the case) to rescue them from their extremism and brutality. the point is Maliki will go, and another Arab Shia (who barely make up 20% of the population) will take over in Iraq. yet still, the suicide bombings targeting Shia civilians will not stop and the Arab Sunni terror will continue. they will not rest until they install a Sunni tyrant to govern the majority Shia (as was the case in Iraq under Saddam, and the case in Bahrain of a Sunni tyrant ruling over an 80% majority Shia population). i think this time their wishes wouldnt come to pass as the Shia appear to be well armed in Iraq and capable of holding ground. Maliki will go, but he would be replaced by another Shia as commander in chief.[/quote][/s]

It is clearly unconscionable to argue with someone like u whose breed of dishonesty is exotic. U complain saddam was a minority ruling a majority, yet continue to defend a Shia-(ali worshipping )tyrant whose sect is clearly a minority and has on the blood of the thousands of innocents continue to tyrannically rule over them, if u say assad is popular so was saddam, who was able to rule of "80%"of iraq population without any civil war. U go on to say saudi is behind isil yet the same arguement can be made about iran or the syria regime, people can claim isil started out as the shia branch of al qaeda till they fell apart , as isil fought other syrian rebels, while assad provided air support by ignoring isil - the extremist group and bombing the more moderate groups thereby granting isil victory over them but such is life now isil has turned to be a far more greater threat than d moderate group. U keep yapping about saudi shias being mistreated when iran does worse to the sunnis deprive them of doing even what kafir regimes allow muslims to do, build a mosque they further arrest those who try to pray their own id fitr prayer. But your dishonesty won't let u raise the issue.
Lol so hindus defended husayn r.a becoz the shia cowards who decieved him to come to kabala were no where to be found when d fight started ? That's new. Any way I hope u use this ramadhan to learn how to be a little bit more honest to yourself. At the end judgement day will be about our conduct not how good u r in propaganda.

vedaxcool:
It is clearly unconscionable to argue with someone like u whose breed of dishonesty is exotic. U complain saddam was a minority ruling a majority, yet continue to defend a Shia-(ali worshipping )tyrant whose sect is clearly a minority and has on the blood of the thousands of innocents continue to tyrannically rule over them, if u say assad is popular so was saddam, who was able to rule of "80%"of iraq population without any civil war.

you must have had poo for sahur this morning for you to claim there is a "Shia branch of alqaeda". can Shias ever be accepted in a wahhabi terror organization or any organization for that matter? a wahhabi organization that is bent on killing shias, christians, and even sunnis opposed to wahhabism/salafism? are you insane? or lying and tyranny is just a Saqifah tradition you must live up to?

Sunni arabs in syria constitute 50% of the population. 20% is kurds (who are largely sunnis), 20% alawites, shia,druze and ismailis, and 10% christians. at least 20% of sunni arabs stand with assad. the minorities of kurds, alawites, shia, ismailis, druze, and christians are mostly pro-assad.that leaves about only 30% of the population who are anti-assad and mostly sunni arabs. so no, assad is not a minority "tyrant" ruling a "majority". the last election early this month demonstrated that. the west (who are "pro-democracy" ) and the arab tyrants opposed the syrian election because they know assad is popular, and all the bloodshed and mess in syria is sponsored by foreign countries and carried out by wahhabi/salafist terrorists. as for saddam, he didnt have any foreign country send foreign terrorists and mercenaries to fight him. saddam was gassing his own people. he committed genocide against the kurds in halabja. the kurds are mostly sunnis. saddam brutally suppressed the shia that they were not even allowed to hold ashura commemorations. he killled an entire shia village in dujeil because a few men from dujeil tried to assassinate him. fear God!

U go on to say saudi is behind isil yet the same arguement can be made about iran or the syria regime, people can claim isil started out as the shia branch of al qaeda till they fell apart , as isil fought other syrian rebels, while assad provided air support by ignoring isil - the extremist group and bombing the more moderate groups thereby granting isil victory over them but such is life now isil has turned to be a far more greater threat than d moderate group.

its when you have poo for sahur + the fasting that makes you think there can ever be a "Shia branch of Wahhabis alqaeda". ISIL fell apart with the "Islamic front" and the "Nusra front" (the other two alqaeda brands/affiliates in syria) because those two refused to pay allegiance to the terror head of ISIL, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. when have you heard in recent times a Shia bearing the name of "abu bakr"?

U keep yapping about saudi shias being mistreated when iran does worse to the sunnis deprive them of doing even what kafir regimes allow muslims to do, build a mosque they further arrest those who try to pray their own id fitr prayer. But your dishonesty won't let u raise the issue.

iran doesnt deprive sunnis from having their mosques. you are only required to reason a little, but reasoning doesnt take place in a skull that claims there is a "shia branch of alqaeda". this must be the breaking news of the millennium.

Lol so hindus defended husayn r.a becoz the shia cowards who decieved him to come to kabala were no where to be found when d fight started ? That's new. Any way I hope u use this ramadhan to learn how to be a little bit more honest to yourself. At the end judgement day will be about our conduct not how good u r in propaganda.

it is an honor for you to recognize that it is the duty of the Shia to defend him and for you to recognize that Imam Hussain (as)-the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, whom the Prophet (sa) said: Hussain is from me and i am from Hussain- is Shia and he is from us and we are from him. this is a great honor that he wasnt expecting the Sunnis, whose caliph (yazid) sent an army to besiege and behead him, to fight for him. however, no true Shia would "deceive" their imam. it must have been that those so called "shia" who deceived him to kufa were like those who called themselves "muslims" that wanted to assasinate the Prophet (sa) in aqaba. unlike you, we disassociate the hypocrites of kufa from anything Shia, and we only embrace the true Shia of Kufa who sacrificed everything for Imam Hussain (as), e.g. Hani Ibn Urwa (ra). you on the other hand, you praise those 12 hypocrites who wanted to assassinate the Prophet (sa) in aqaba and you regard them as amongst "rightly guided caliphs".

if you are honest to yourself, with the fervor you show, you wont stay a Sunni for one minute. arent you the same person who would consider everything recorded in history and in your hadith books as "non-incident"? or rather you believe those who call the coup of Saqifah Banu Saeda, the event of Ghadeer Khumm and the attack on the house of the Prophet's daughter by Umar as "non-incident"? do you fear God? fear God first before you fast. Imam Hussain (as) said: even if you do not believe in any religion and you do not fear the day of reckoning, at least, be a free human in this your world.

pls no e-bashing, brothers. Lets be courteous always.
For Allaah sake

kazlaw2000: pls no e-bashing, brothers. Lets be courteous always.
For Allaah sake

i have long ignored that clown. he think uttering a mixture of spiced up lies, half-truths, concealment of the truth, insults and online thuggery would make his words acceptable. he doesnt know how to be courteous because he knows well that being courteous and reasoning would expose his denial and prick his conscience.

LagosShia:

if you want to know who is behind any of these groups, trace its financial sponsors or its source of funds. going by news reports, most of the groups that carry out sectarian killings in pakistan are funded by the saudis, either directly, or indirectly by wealthy saudi individuals or its intelligence agency in secret. they will call ISIL a terrorist group within saudi arabia but calssify them as "Sunni rebels" when they are fighting Shia in Iraq and the government of assad in syria. double standards. and this yeye ISIL is made up mostly of foreign fighters who are not iraqis or syrian. they are in other words hired mercenaries to spill the blood of muslims.

This is true. However, some Muslims here in NL will ignore your statement because of sectarian reasons. The primary financial backers of groups like the Taliban, Al-Queda, ISIS and the likes are Sunni bodies and governments. What they are forgetting is that some of these groups will get out their control and will come back to bite them. I am watching how all this will go down

In summary, this is a Sunni and Shitte 1400 year old rivalry. It's nothing new, just old events in making new head-lines.

[s]

LagosShia:
you must have had poo for sahur this morning for you to claim there is a "Shia branch of alqaeda". can Shias ever be accepted in a wahhabi terror organization or any organization for that matter? a wahhabi organization that is bent on killing shias, christians, and even sunnis opposed to wahhabism/salafism? are you insane? or lying and tyranny is just a Saqifah tradition you must live up to?
Sunni arabs in syria constitute 50% of the population. 20% is kurds (who are largely sunnis), 20% alawites, shia,druze and ismailis, and 10% christians. at least 20% of sunni arabs stand with assad. the minorities of kurds, alawites, shia, ismailis, druze, and christians are mostly pro-assad.that leaves about only 30% of the population who are anti-assad and mostly sunni arabs. so no, assad is not a minority "tyrant" ruling a "majority". the last election early this month demonstrated that. the west (who are "pro-democracy" ) and the arab tyrants opposed the syrian election because they know assad is popular, and all the bloodshed and mess in syria is sponsored by foreign countries and carried out by wahhabi/salafist terrorists. as for saddam, he didnt have any foreign country send foreign terrorists and mercenaries to fight him. saddam was gassing his own people. he committed genocide against the kurds in halabja. the kurds are mostly sunnis. saddam brutally suppressed the shia that they were not even allowed to hold ashura commemorations. he killled an entire shia village in dujeil because a few men from dujeil tried to assassinate him. fear God!
its when you have poo for sahur + the fasting that makes you think there can ever be a "Shia branch of Wahhabis alqaeda". ISIL fell apart with the "Islamic front" and the "Nusra front" (the other two alqaeda brands/affiliates in syria) because those two refused to pay allegiance to the terror head of ISIL, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. when have you heard in recent times a Shia bearing the name of "abu bakr"?
iran doesnt deprive sunnis from having their mosques. you are only required to reason a little, but reasoning doesnt take place in a skull that claims there is a "shia branch of alqaeda". this must be the breaking news of the millennium.
it is an honor for you to recognize that it is the duty of the Shia to defend him and for you to recognize that Imam Hussain (as)-the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, whom the Prophet (sa) said: Hussain is from me and i am from Hussain- is Shia and he is from us and we are from him. this is a great honor that he wasnt expecting the Sunnis, whose caliph (yazid) sent an army to besiege and behead him, to fight for him. however, no true Shia would "deceive" their imam. it must have been that those so called "shia" who deceived him to kufa were like those who called themselves "muslims" that wanted to assasinate the Prophet (sa) in aqaba. unlike you, we disassociate the hypocrites of kufa from anything Shia, and we only embrace the true Shia of Kufa who sacrificed everything for Imam Hussain (as), e.g. Hani Ibn Urwa (ra). you on the other hand, you praise those 12 hypocrites who wanted to assassinate the Prophet (sa) in aqaba and you regard them as amongst "rightly guided caliphs".
if you are honest to yourself, with the fervor you show, you wont stay a Sunni for one minute. arent you the same person who would consider everything recorded in history and in your hadith books as "non-incident"? or rather you believe those who call the coup of Saqifah Banu Saeda, the event of Ghadeer Khumm and the attack on the house of the Prophet's daughter by Umar as "non-incident"? do you fear God? fear God first before you fast. Imam Hussain (as) said: even if you do not believe in any religion and you do not fear the day of reckoning, at least, be a free human in this your world.

[/s] like I stated earlier it is unconscionable to argue with one who is dishonest to his own self!

LagosShia:

i have long ignored that clown. he think uttering a mixture of spiced up lies, half-truths, concealment of the truth, insults and online thuggery would make his words acceptable. he doesnt know how to be courteous because he knows well that being courteous and reasoning would expose his denial and prick his conscience.

like I stated earlier on yamul qiyammah, Allah will not judge based on your propaganda or weaving fantastic lies but on your conduct, clearly all u wrote up there applies to you! Allah would judge eventually, and non of your imams can save u from his judgement!

vedaxcool: like I stated earlier on yamul qiyammah, Allah will not judge based on your propaganda or weaving fantastic lies but on your conduct, clearly all u wrote up there applies to you! Allah would judge eventually, and non of your imams can save u from his judgement!

We all know that @vedaxcool "Qassida"^; and Allah is Maliki yaomi deen. So you don't need all that^.

This is an intellectual discussion. Bring out your facts and findings or keep silent. No anger, No abuse, No use of words.

'Saudiphile CIA chief behind ISIL rise'
Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:55:47 GMT

[img]http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20140630/369304_John%20Brennan.jpg[/img]

An American author and investigative journalist says CIA director John Brennan who is “a known Saudiphile” has played a key role in the creation and rise of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Wayne Madsen made the remarks in a phone interview with Press TV on Monday, saying Washington’s trainings and provision of arms and cash to militants in Iraq and Syria gave rise to the brutal militancy.

As with al-Qaeda whose origin is traceable to “the US war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan,” Madsen explained, “we’ve once again supported and trained and given cash to the same elements and now we’ve got the rise of ISIL in Iraq and Syria and possibly they’re going to take this war into Jordan and beyond because they’ve changed their name now to the Islamic caliphate, [or] the Islamic state.”

On Sunday, US President Barack Obama said that “battle-hardened” Europeans who have joined ISIL militants in Syria and Iraq pose a “serious threat” to the US as they “have a European passport” and “don't need visas to get into the United States.”

This comes as Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said earlier this month that the US has been arming the ISIL militants in Syria. “I think we have to understand first how we got here,” Paul said on CNN’s ‘State of the Union.’ “We have been arming ISIS in Syria.”

Madsen said Brennan has been instrumental in training and arming these militants in Iraq and Syria.

“The fault lies with the current CIA director John Brennan. John Brennan is a known Saudiphile, former CIA station chief in Riyadh. He was there when a lot of Saudi connections were determined to many terrorist attacks against the United States,” the analyst said, citing the Khobar Towers bombing, the attack on the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks.

Madsen concluded that there is “a terrorist threat against the United States and that is the CIA director” who is training and financing terrorists.

Brennan has overseen the massive proliferation of US drone warfare and other “counterterrorism” programs.

http://edition.presstv.ir/mobile/detail.aspx?id=369304

PressTV, iran propaganda machine.

tbaba1234: PressTV, iran propaganda machine.

That sounds good. Isn't it?

Every news agency has an interest to protect. BBC, Aljazeera, CNN, CCTV, SaudiTV channels I & II, et al. If you cannot read and dissect them all and deduce your conclusions, you must be a slowpoke.

Al-Baqir:


That sounds good. Isn't it?

Every news agency has an interest to protect. BBC, Aljazeera, CNN, CCTV, SaudiTV channels I & II, et al. If you cannot read and dissect them all and deduce your conclusions, you must be a slowpoke.

Easy, It is ramadhan, no need to insult. I do not consider presstv a reliable source of news. Yes, BBC et al are bad but Presstv is one of the worst, in my opinion.

tbaba1234:

Easy, It is ramadhan,no need to insult. I do not consider presstv a reliable source of news. Yes, BBC et al are bad but Presstv is one of the worst, in my opinion.

@underlined! Sorry I don't get it. Insult? I believe you are well accustomed to the word "nonsense". You use it very well for others so why would my word which you term "insult" vex you.

PressTV could be "Worst" in your own opinion but all the same your hypocrisy is exposed. It simply "worst" to you because its an Iranian (vis-a-vis Shi'a) media. But BBC, Aljazeera, Saudi et al are simply "bad" because they are non-Iranian (vis-a-vis Shi'a).

May Allah condemn Hypocrisy.

Ramadhan mubarak

Al-Baqir:


@underlined! Sorry I don't get it. Insult? I believe you are well accustomed to the word "nonsense". You use it very well for others so why would my word which you term "insult" vex you.

PressTV could be "Worst" in your own opinion but all the same your hypocrisy is exposed. It simply "worst" to you because its an Iranian (vis-a-vis Shi'a) media. But BBC, Aljazeera, Saudi et al are simply "bad" because they are non-Iranian (vis-a-vis Shi'a).

May Allah condemn Hypocrisy.

Ramadhan mubarak

Nonsense was directed to a post not a person. You insulted a person. There is a difference. And then made another accusation of hypocrisy indirectly. May Allah forgive us.

It has nothing to do with Shia or Iran. I used to follow presstv on fb and I found them to be unreliable too often. I eventually unfollowed them.

This is a personal opinion based on my experience with presstv. Ofcourse, we are.entitled to different preferences.

tbaba1234:

Nonsense was directed to a post not a person. You insulted a person. There is a difference.

Ma sha Allah. If that's your theory, then you should know a post is the thought of a person. Post is not a separate entity different from the person who created it.

tbaba1234:
And then made another accusation of hypocrisy indirectly. May Allah forgive us.


It has nothing to do with Shia or Iran.

Accusation verified. Is it the pang of hunger that makes you forget so soon?@ underline, here's your very word and laughter:

tbaba1234: PressTV, iran propaganda machine.

Again may Allah condemn hypocrisy. Its a disease of the heart. May Allah cure us of it.

tbaba1234:
I used to follow presstv on fb and I found them to be unreliable too often. I eventually unfollowed them.

This is a personal opinion based on my experience with presstv. Ofcourse, we are.entitled to different preferences.

You can add all that to your lists of achievements.

Al-Baqir:


We all know that @vedaxcool "Qassida"^; and Allah is Maliki yaomi deen. So you don't need all that^.

This is an intellectual discussion. Bring out your facts and findings or keep silent. No anger, No abuse, No use of words.

reminding people of the day of judgement remains far more important than any sectarian crap u are spewing even more so that someone is acting with such extreme levels of dishonesty! And no it is impossible to hold any sane discussion with people who are deliberately dishonest to themselves! Debate? U remind me of this guy pele, no abuse yet 2 post down u resort to abuse, 4 post down u double ur abuse, like I said dishonesty . . . Try and work on it this ramadan!

tbaba1234: PressTV, iran propaganda machine.

like u said worst, it falls into the category of cctv news, even cctv is better. well Iran is in the league of china and Russia we shouldn't expect any better! Presstv started out well, I use to watch but along the line the agenda they pursed became ever more clearer, it is sad but no unexpected, iran should rightly call itself shia republic of iran or shia-islam republic of iran so that actions it takes r not always seen as islam but as being acceptable to the creed they claim to profess, clearly islam does not raise lying, propaganda, disinformation and half-truths as part of statecraft all in a bid to be like the disbelievers! What a pity!

vedaxcool: like u said worst, it falls into the category of cctv news, even cctv is better. well Iran is in the league of china and Russia we shouldn't expect any better! Presstv started out well, I use to watch but along the line the agenda they pursed became ever more clearer, it is sad but no unexpected, iran should rightly call itself shia republic of iran or shia-islam republic of iran so that actions it takes r not always seen as islam but as being acceptable to the creed they claim to profess, clearly islam does not raise lying, propaganda, disinformation and half-truths as part of statecraft all in a bid to be like the disbelievers! What a pity!

i am sure Iran doesnt hide its identity and no Shia is ashamed of being a Shia Muslim. however, to abandon Islam or the term "Muslim" to extremists,terrorists, and followers of the coup of Saqifah Banu Saeda is not going to happen. you can however do us a favor by following what you are advising. start feeling pride in your Sunni identity, and its Wahhabi/Salafist branch. the likes of tbaba ad Maclatunji should stop denying their Sunni identity. dont you feel ashamed when they deny Sunnism?