Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement - Islam for Muslims - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Islam for Muslims / Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement (4788 Views)
Islam Doesn't Teach Terrorism, Clarification Of The Quoted Qur'an Verses / Why Muslims Should Never Have To Apologize For Terrorism - By Omar Alnatour / Seeking A Muslim Solution To Islamist Terrorism (2) (3) (4)
| Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by AlBaqir(m): 9:14pm On Jun 16, 2016 |
[size=15pt]THE TERRORISM OF SALAFISM[/size] In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful [size=13pt]JIHĀD IN ISLĀM[/size] Jihād has a number of rules and regulations governing it, according to Shī’ī Islām. The first of them is that you can fight only those who are fighting you. Allāh says (2:190): "Fight in the Way of Allāh against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. Allāh does not love those who go beyond the limits." In other words, do not fight against those who do not fight you. Thus, jihād is prohibited against people who are not fighting Muslims. In fact, the believers are required to be friendly, just and kind to non-Muslims who do not fight against Muslims. Allāh says (60:8-9): "Allāh does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. Allāh loves those who are just. Allāh merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you in the religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion. Any who take them as friends are wrongdoers." This, clearly, is a perfectly logical rule. If any group wages war against Muslims on account of their Islamic faith, the latter are commanded to fight back. As for those non-Muslims who are friendly, fair and kind towards Muslims, the believers are required to reciprocate the friendship, fairness and kindness. This is why Article 14 of the Iranian constitution reads: 'In accordance with the sacred verse; ("God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with those who have not fought against you because of your religion and who have not expelled you from your homes" [60:8]), the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and all Muslims are duty-bound to treat non-Muslims in conformity with ethical norms and the principles of Islamic justice and equity, and to respect their human rights. This principle applies to all who refrain from engaging in conspiracy or activity against Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran.' http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution-1.html Moreover, even when a group of people take up weapons against the believers, the Muslims must not kill their wives and children. In the view of Islām, women and children are, by default, civilians. Therefore, Muslims cannot fight them, and must not kill them. The Shī’ī scholar, Shaykh al-Kulaynī (may Allāh be pleased with him), in Kitāb al-Kāfī, vol. 5, p. 30, # 9, records about some other rules of engagement in jihād: Narrated Muḥammad b. Ḥumrān and Jamīl b. Darrāj: Abū ‘Abd Allāh, peace be upon him, said: Whenever the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, despatched troops, he used to call their commander and make him sit beside him, and he also used to make his soldiers sit in front of him. Then, he would say: “March in the name of Allāh, with Allāh, in the Way of Allāh and upon the religion of the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him and his family. You must not betray, and you must not act excessively. You must not mutilate anyone. You must not cut down trees unless where you have no other option. You must not kill old people, children and women. If anyone from the lowest or highest ranks among the Muslims looks at any of the idolaters with sympathy, he is under his protection until he hears the Word of Allāh. When he (the idolater) hears the Word of Allāh the Almighty, the Most Glorious, if he follows you, he becomes one of your brothers in your religion. But, if he refuses, then seek Allāh’s Help against him and escort him to a place where he is safe.” ‘Allāmah al-Majlisī, in Mir-āt al-‘Uqūl, vol. 18, p. 356, # 9 says about this ḥadīth: Ṣaḥīḥ. So, Muslim soldiers can only fight those who are fighting Muslims, and they must not betray anyone; they must not be excessive in any of their actions; they must not mutilate anyone; they must not cut down any tree except where they have no other choice; and they must not kill old people, children and women. If any of the enemies fighting Muslims asks for protection, any of the Muslim soldiers has the right to give it to him. If he protects the enemy during the war, he preaches Islām to the latter. If the enemy accepts Islām, he becomes a brother of the Muslim soldiers. However, if the enemy rejects Islām, the Muslim soldiers must escort him to a place where he is safe and let him go in peace. This is the Law of Allāh, and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace be upon him and his family). We also read in the Qur’ān (9:6): "If any of the idolaters ask you for protection, give him protection until he has heard the Words of Allāh. Then escort him to a place where he is safe. That is because they are a people who do not know." Another point that we must highlight is that when the Muslim army captures one of the enemy soldiers, they have an obligation to provide food for him. The Qur’ān says (76:8-10) about the Muslims: They give food, despite their love for it, to the poor and orphans and captives: ´We feed you only out of desire for the Face of Allāh. We do not want any repayment from you or any thanks. Truly We fear from our Lord a glowering, calamitous Day.' They should also encourage him to repent from his enmity against Islām and Muslims. If he genuinely repents, he is forgiven. However, if there is evidence that he still has active treacherous plots against the Muslims, then he must be punished severely. Allāh says (8:70-71): "O Prophet! say to those you are holding prisoner, ´If Allah knows of any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what has been taken from you and forgive you.´ Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful. But if they mean to betray you, they have already previously betrayed Allah, so He has given you power over them. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.' This too is perfectly logical. An unrepentant and treacherous prisoner of war is never forgiven in any human culture. 1 Like |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by AlBaqir(m): 9:20pm On Jun 16, 2016 |
[size=15pt]TERRORISM IN SALAFISM[/size] But, what about the Salafī sect? What are the rules of engagement among Salafīs? We have all seen how Boko Haram – who are Salafīs – bomb marketplaces and burn women and children to death. Does this mean that in the Salafī sect, they have different rules of engagement? Well, according to Salafīsm, being a non-Muslim is a sufficient reason to be legitimately attacked with the sword. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says in his Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 28, p. 349: "The punishments brought by the Sharī’ah for those who disobey Allāh and His Messenger are of two types: the punishment of the one who is overpowered – whether a single individual or a group – as previously discussed; and the second type is the punishment of the stubborn group, like the one which cannot be overpowered except through fighting. The root of this is the jihād against the disbelievers, the enemies of Allāh and His Messenger. So, everyone who knows about the call of the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, to the religion of Allāh which he was sent with, but does not answer him, it is obligatory to fight him until there is no more sedition and religion becomes for Allāh Alone." http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/375.html Please note that the word “disbelievers,” in the language of Salafīsm, refers all non-Salafīs, including Ṣūfīs, Shī’ah and non-Muslims generally. To Salafīsm, you have not answered the call of the Prophet as long as you remain a non-Salafī. The Shaykh, in Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 28, p. 264, further emphasizes that all non-Salafīs must be brought to Salafīsm through the sword: "Whoever turns away from the Book (i.e. the Qur’ān) is to be corrected with the iron. This is why the soundness of the religion is based on the muṣḥaf (i.e. the Qur’ān) and the sword. It was narrated that Jābir b. ‘Abd Allāh, may Allāh be pleased with him, said: “The Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, commanded us to strike with this, meaning the sword, whoever turns away from this, meaning the muṣḥaf.” http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/374.html In the eyes of Salafīs, all non-Salafī Muslims and all non-Muslims have turned away from the Qur’ān. So, Salafīs have an obligation to strike them with the sword. For instance, as the Shaykh says in his Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 28, pp. 499-500: it is permissible for the Salafī to kill any Shī’ī Muslim who is a soft target: "As for the killing of the single, overpowered individual from the Khawārij like the Ḥarūriyyah and the Rāfiḍah (i.e. Shī’ah), the fuqahā have two opinions about it. They are two reports from Imām Aḥmad. The correct opinion is that it is permissible to kill the single individual from them, like the one who invites to his sect and other similar corrupt elements, for the Prophet said: “Wherever you meet them, kill them.” http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/376.html He also says in the same Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 28, p. 500: "If their corruption cannot be stopped except through killing, then they should be killed. But, it is not obligatory to kill every single one of them if he does not publicly show this opinion, or if there is greater disadvantage in killing him." Their “corruption,” of course, is their rejection of the Salafī misinterpretation of the Qur’ān. But, then, why do Salafīs think that the best way to convert a person to Salafīsm is to kill him? This methodology of theirs does not seem to have much logic behind it. In any case, in order to be killed by Salafīs, you do not need to fight them. As long as you fail or refuse to accept their version of Islām, you are a legitimate target according to their jurisprudential law. But, if a Salafī – such as Shaykh Jabata – wishes to murder a Ṣūfī husband and the latter is with his wife and baby, what should he do? This Salafī wants to kill the Ṣūfī man only. However, if he bombed him at that period, his wife and baby would die as well. What is the “correct” step for the devout Salafī in this situation? Imām al-Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥīḥ, English translation, Volume 4, Book 52, Hadith 256, allows the Salafī to kill them all: Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama: The Prophet (peace be upon him) passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." http://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/221 Commenting on this report, Shaykh al-‘Uthaymīn, a favourite scholar of Shaykh Jataba, says in his Sharḥ Bulūgh al-Marām, vol. 5, pp. 467-468: "One of the benefits of this ḥadīth is the indication towards what the scholars mention, that what is not permissible in the case of a single individual becomes permissible in the case of a group. This is through the permissibility of killing women and children during this night raid. The general provision is that the killing of women and children is not permissible, because women and children become slaves and properties of the Muslims, and it is not permissible to destroy properties of Muslims. However, this is due to a necessity, and because what is not permissible in the case of a single individual becomes permissible in the case of a group." Note the Salafī justification for not killing women and children during their aggressions against Muslims and others. They consider the women and children properties of the Salafī killers, and they hate to destroy their properties. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the women and children are civilians, and that the Qur’ān does not allow fighting against non-combatants. Yet, Salafīs only allow women and children to live if they are not together in a group with people whom they wish to kill. But, if the women and children are, for instance, with a Ṣūfī man, Salafīs consider it permissible to kill all of them together. As they say: what is not permissible in the case of a single individual becomes permissible in the case of a group. This explains why Boko Haram attacks at marketplaces, mosques, churches and elsewhere. Other Muslims – whether male or female – also deserve death, whether individually or as part of a group, in certain situations, according to Salafīsm. In Part I, we already gave some examples. Let us add a few more here. For instance, the Muslims who say the niyyah (intention) aloud before their prayers are legitimate targets, as Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says in Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 22, p. 236: "Saying the niyyah aloud is not considered a valid act by any of the Muslim scholars, and the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, did not do it; and none of his successors, his Ṣaḥābah and the Salaf of the Ummah and its Imams did it. Whoever claims that it is the religion of Allāh and that it is obligatory, he must be taught the Sharī’ah and asked to repent from that statement. If he persists upon it, he should be killed." http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/350.html Millions of Nigerian Muslims would be killed under this fatwā, should Shaykh Jabata and the other Salafī leaders decide to implement it. Also, delaying a single prayer beyond its time may get you murdered by Salafīs. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah again says in his Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 2, p. 9 (1386 edition): "All Muslims are unanimous on the fact that he (the Muslim) must pray Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr during daytime and al-Fajr before sunrise. He must not abandon that because of any occupation or fun or any of the other activities. The master cannot forbid his slave, nor can the employer forbid his employee, from performing ṣalāt at its time. Whoever delays it because of any occupation, or any hunting, or any service to the teacher, or any other reason, till the sun sets, it is obligatory to punish him. In fact, it is obligatory to kill him, according to the majority of the scholars, after he has been asked to repent. If he repents and takes an undertaking to pray at the right time, he must be bound by that. But, if he says “I will not pray until after sunset” because of he is busy at work, or hunting or for any other reason, he should be killed." http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/16/85.html Then, there is this ultra-dangerous fatwā of the Shaykh. We will end this Part II with it. If a non-Salafī Muslim – such as a Ṣūfī or a Shī’ī – decides not to openly practise his faith out of fear, he must be killed even if he repents. The Shaykh in his Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 28, p. 555, declares: http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/377.html "With regards to the killing of someone who publicly displays Islām and hides his kufr, and this is the hypocrite whom the jurists call the zindīq, the majority of the jurists are of the opinion that he must be killed even if he repents. This was the view of Mālik, Aḥmad in the most apparent of the two reports from him, one of the two opinions in the madhhab of Abū Ḥanīfah, and al-Shāfi’ī. Whichever of them is a caller to their misguidance, and his evil cannot be stopped except by killing him, he should be killed too, even if he publicly repents, and even if he is not declared a kāfir, like the Rāfiḍī Imāms who mislead the people, as the Muslims killed Ghīlān al-Qadrī, al-Ja’d b. Dirham and similar other people among the callers. This liar must be killed unconditionally." By Ansorul Mahdi Research Team http://jabatacheck..com.ng/2016/06/the-terrorism-of-salafism-part-ii.html 2 Likes |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by AlBaqir(m): 9:23pm On Jun 16, 2016 |
To be continued in sha Allah Ta'ala 1 Like |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by MrOlai: 10:41pm On Jun 16, 2016 |
For innocent minds that might be following, the OP is a shia. 1 Like |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by Newnas(m): 8:08am On Jun 17, 2016 |
MrOlai: Don't mind that caller to hell! Always trying desperately to call to his misguidance. But Allah has exposed him repeatedly on this forum. The weaknesses and falsehood in his post is just too clear, I wonder if he really has any sense again! If only he would repent and turn away from that grave worship that he calls a religion!!! Anyway I have just a three responses to all the thrash he has posted; # Boko Haram doesn't claim to be a salafi group. even if it does, not everyone who ascribes himself to something is actually a part of it. # Tell us who is the terrorist! The Saudi government that is spending millions to give scholarship to Muslims around the world to spread the Islamic monotheism of the Prophets companions and household of the Iraqi -grave worshipping- government that spends millions to sponsor rebels such as The Houthi in Yemen and thugs like Zaky Zaky?! # The baseless narration that criminal Persian Al-Majlisi authenticated shows the complete irrationality of his shia path. Even a student of Bayqooniyyah wouldn't think twice to declare it baseless and rejected, can't you see that it has no chain?! Even if that dotard majlisi didn't see its unreliability, should you also follow him in his blindness?! Surah Al-Hajj, Verse 46: أَفَلَمْ يَسِيرُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ فَتَكُونَ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ يَعْقِلُونَ بِهَا أَوْ آذَانٌ يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا فَإِنَّهَا لَا تَعْمَى الْأَبْصَارُ وَلَٰكِن تَعْمَى الْقُلُوبُ الَّتِي فِي الصُّدُورِ Have they not travelled through the land, and have they hearts wherewith to understand and ears wherewith to hear? Verily, it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts which are in the breasts that grow blind. (English - Mohsin Khan) via iQuran Note: I'm not commenting on the text of the narration, I'm only commenting on the chain. 3 Likes |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by MrOlai: 11:57am On Jun 17, 2016 |
Newnas: He is a paid agent! He has lost his senses courtesy of the monetary benefits he gets from destroying lives! He is a devil in human form! I pray Allah(SWT) rectify his affair. 1 Like |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by Rilwayne001: 4:21pm On Jun 17, 2016 |
MrOlai: I was actually expecting you to counter his point and not tell us that he is a shia. Are those truly the rules of engagement as according to salafism? I am willing to learn. 4 Likes |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by Rafidi: 5:58pm On Jun 17, 2016 |
Rilwayne001: May Allah bless you. He wants us to treat the messenger and not the message because of hatred. What a pity! Character assassination and false claims in the month of Ramadan do not reveal you are truthful but a Salafist aka Wahhabi hater. 3 Likes |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by Rafidi: 6:19pm On Jun 17, 2016 |
Newnas: Utter nonsense.
Tell us what they call themselves. Are they Shia? Are they Sufi Sunnis? What are they? What we are sure of is two: 1. They call themselves Jama'ati Ahlus Sunnah Lid Da'wati Wal Jihad (Sunnis for Propagation and Jihad). 2. They pledged allegiance to ISIS. The ISIS ideology is that of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahab. ISIS is unashamedly Wahhabi aka Salafist. They kill both Shia and Sufi Sunnis. So Boko cannot be anything but followers of Salafiyyah and its Takfiri ideology.
This false claim will take us deep into political discussion. Saudi is a sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. ISIS and Wahhabi Takfiri terror groups that kill Shia, Christians, Yazidis etc in the Middle East are either Saudi Wahhabi inspired or Saudi funded. It is Saudi suicide bombers that are killing our Shia brothers in their homes and mosques in Iraq because they are falsely, like you just did, called "grave worshippers". Indeed this is the terror monotheism the Saudis are spreading in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, while your Sunni Palestinian brothers are killed by the Zionists and only Shia powers help them. That is to show you the Saudis and Wahhabis are nothing good to Muslims, Shia or Sunni. They only further Zionist and western interests because they are purely servants. This is enough evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHLqaSZPe98
AlBaqir will handle you on that and try to slacken the screws on your coconut head. 2 Likes |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by AlBaqir(m): 9:20pm On Jun 17, 2016 |
Newnas: Rafidi: Akhi, really its better to ignore radicals. However he has made an attempt and challenge the chain of our hadith. Alhamdulillah, we have given a link to the hadith. Unfortunately, posting an Arabic text usually incurs antispam bot ban for me that's why I always don't include the Arabic text. Here's the screenshot of the hadith with its chain. 1 Like
|
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by AlBaqir(m): 9:23pm On Jun 17, 2016 |
^Link to the hadith: http://www.shialib.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/1126_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%AC-%D9%A5/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_30 1 Like |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by busar(m): 6:48am On Jun 18, 2016 |
Alhamdu lillah that no one really have time counter this madness anymore... People have started dedicating their time for beneficial things rather than stopping a dog from bringing out its tongue... 3 Likes |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by Demmzy15(m): 3:49pm On Jun 18, 2016 |
Salam Alaikum, Boko-are-rams, ISIS have never for once claim to adhere to Salafiyyah. In fact there is a video on YouTube(I'll look for it when I'm free) in which the leader of Boko Haram, Abubakar Shekau declared all Nigerian Muslims to be kafir. He said: "izala arna ne, tariqa tijanniyah arna ne, tariqa qadarriya arna ne, qashabadiyya arna ne, dan Shia arna ne" and he even concluded that Saudiyyah is not Islamic but they're the supporters of Ibn Salool, he was furious because Saudi Arabia never supported them. That aside, a documentary bro vedax shared on ISIS, in it, it was concluded that they haven't found any direct links to ISIS from saudi. In fact ISIS main aim after taking over Iraaq and Jordan is Saudi Arabia, it's stated in the documentary. No doubt that private individuals with khariji mentality fund them but the government of saudi doesn't. Concerning suicide bombings no saudi salafi scholar(Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaymeen, Al fawzan) and Al-Albani support or passed fatwa in support of it. The origin of suicide bombings was not a Sunni thing, but Shia. They were the first to carry out suicide bombings before this cancer was then passed to the Sunnis. Yet the major scholars condemn it! 5 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by vedaxcool(m): 6:21pm On Jun 18, 2016 |
Demmzy15: Shia will always live true to their name DIVISION. Lies and slander is what they employ. America has repeatedly accused Iran of being a leading sponsor of terrorism yet you see anyone parading the news with so much favor. Yet Hezboshaytan introduced and popularize the practice of suicide bombings and still engage in terrorizing their country men whenever disagreements arise. This behavior isn't new tell a lie. a thousand times and it would become the "truth". May Allah protect us from the fitnah the op and his co-travellers are sowing. amin 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by vedaxcool(m): 6:25pm On Jun 18, 2016 |
Let's not forget Syria where shia militias and Iran forces are really following Shia rules of engagements that focus on murdering the innocent by indiscriminate bombardments and deliberately orchastrated massacares. Another of their favorite rule of engagement starve people to death. Take these jokers seriously at your own peril. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by ShiaMuslim: 6:44pm On Jun 18, 2016 |
Demmzy15: my dear brother, a trademark of Salafiyyah aka Wahhabiyyah is TAKFIRI KILLINGS. they excommunicate you or even themselves, and then that means they have declared you a MURTAD (apostate/traitor) and your punishment is death. this was vividly seen in Syria when Al-Nusra (the Alqaeda affiliate in Syria) split from ISIS. they both follow the same SALAFIYYAH manhaj. they simply disagreed on who is their emir. al-Nusra chose to follow al-Chichani and ISIS followed al-baghdadi. on that basis they passed takfir on each other and butchered themselves. the doctrine or ideology of SALAFIYYAH is ugly because its essence is built on TAKFIR and followed by TAKFIRI KILLINGS. so it is not strange at all that Shekau would call the Saudi royalty names or disagree with it. they are of the same essence (TAKFIRISM) and based on that they kill themselves and kill others. this is the basis for SALAFIYYAH AL-JIHADIYYAH.
if you are closely following the news of the liberation of fallujah (a sunni city) in iraq from isis grip, you will hear about the saudi nationals arrested by iraqi forces who belong to isis. how many saudi suicide bombers have targeted Shia gatherings, places of worship, markets etc. in iraq? countless. why does saudi media oppose the iraqi forces recapturing fallujah? as for suicide bombings, i am yet to hear ONE saudi wahhabi cleric who condemn the attacks on Shia in Iraq. they will condemn the attacks on a gay nightclub in america (the land of their masters), but they will never condemn attack on innocent Muslims in next door iraq because those Muslims are Shia. why? when saudi clerics tell you they oppose suicide bombings and terrorism, they oppose it when it challenges the grip of the saudi royalty on power, and the Salafist terrorists question the basis of monarchy in Islam and the saudi allegiance to western powers; ironically the same western powers through their intelligence services are using these salafist elements in syria to accomplish their goals against the syrian government. the saudi clerics do not care or condemn when the victims of the attacks are Shia in Iraq. but in sha Allah Taala that will come to end soon. as for suicide bombing, it is not a matter of methodology. in arabic, if you listen to aljazeera you'd know there is a difference between "suicide bombing" and "martyrdom operation" even though both use the same method (killing one's in the process to kill the enemies). the Shia in southern Lebanon used "martyrdom operation" to fight against israeli soldiers occupying their land; SOLDIERS ARE COMBATANTS AND IN ISLAM COMBATANTS ARE LEGITIMATE TARGETS. the enemy was a superior force and any means to inflict damage to free their land was sought. it was not used to target worshipers in Sunni mosques or in Christian churches as Salafist groups like Boko Haram and ISIS do. the target of the Shia is military presence of an enemy occupation force that was superior and "martyrdom operation" was a last resort. so the difference is clear based on the target. if you are to use "martyrdom operation" against (for instance) Cameroonian forces occupying Abuja is different from when boko haram uses a gun or even lethal injection (very beautiful means to kill, right?) to kill christian worshipers in the church. the ugliness of the means is not the issue but the target and justification for using such means. 3 Likes |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by ShiaMuslim: 6:48pm On Jun 18, 2016 |
vedaxcool: you are blinded by hatred. Bashar al-Assad ruled syria for 11 years and did not discriminate against his people. the media you watch is deceiving you. when Sunni Salafist terrorists target syrian army positions and syrians of other faiths, you rejoice and call them "freedom fighters". when these same terrorists are killed by the syrian army (which is the legitimate force in syria) you cry foul and claim the syrian army and its allies are killing Sunnis. you vindicate the acts of terrorists through sectarian labels and incitements. this attitude is sick and widespread in online forums and Sunni arab media outlets. in the process of the syrian army and its allies retaliating, if there are collateral damage and innocent people get mistakenly harmed in the crossfire, you make issues out of it and claim "assad is killing his people". laughable! but when the terrorists deliberately blow up Shia worshipers and christian churches, you keep quiet. what sort of a god do you worship and what religion do you follow? you lack fear of God. this is not Islam you follow my friend. |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by vedaxcool(m): 7:36pm On Jun 18, 2016 |
[s] ShiaMuslim:[/s] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=261RaGt2Sqo GRAPHIC CONTENT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnDcDLGtN-s DISTURBING CONTENTS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S587ncQR8ps Take these jokers seriously at your own peril. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by Demmzy15(m): 9:46pm On Jun 18, 2016 |
ShiaMuslim: I get your point, but my main bone of contention is that they're not Salafis. They've never claimed salafiyyah talk more of adhering to it. Nusra and Da'ish are from the same source, which is Al Qaeda and their founding father is Usamah Ibn Ladin, when the scholars of Sunnah perceived his evil they began warning against him. Yes, when I mean scholars I mean salafi scholars, and they did this years before 9/11. Lemme give some examples: Sheikh Abdulaziz Ibn Baz ... My advice to Al-Massari, Faqih, Bin Laden, and anyone following their way is to give up this destructive path they’ve taken, to fear Allāh and fear His retribution and anger. They must return to guidance and repent to Allāh for what they’ve done.... "Al-Muslimūn” and “al-Sharq al-Awsaṭ” newspapers (in the Arabic month of Jamādá al-Ūwlá in 1417 Hijrah – which corresponds to 1996 C.E.) Sheikh Muqbil: I know. Some brothers from Britain even called me, complaining about the hardships they now face there, asking if it is permissible to publicize their rejection of and disassociation from Osama Bin Laden. We told them that we have already rejected and disassociated ourselves from him and his crimes a long time ago. And this current state is evidence that Muslims in the West suffer difficulties because of movements like those of ‘The Muslim Brotherhood’ and others. And from Allāh we ask help. Kuwaiti newspaper, “al-Ra’yu al-’Ām” (no. 11503, 12/19/1998), I still have some other fatwa warning Muslims to stay away from him and his cohorts, it was this khariji ideologies that give birth to Da'ish and Nusra. if you are closely following the news of the liberation of fallujah (a sunni city) in iraq from isis grip, you will hear about the saudi nationals arrested by iraqi forces who belong to isis. how many saudi suicide bombers have targeted Shia gatherings, places of worship, markets etc. in iraq? countless. why does saudi media oppose the iraqi forces recapturing fallujah? No doubt they're many Saudi youths who are extreme but the government and scholars have nothing to do with them. Let's take Nigeria for example, majority of Boko Haram members are Nigerians but does that mean the whole Nigerian Muslim Ummah should be condemned? No! So it would be very unfair to do that, by the way I'm following the events in Iraaq and Syria well, esp, Iraaq. Look at the Saudi society, does anyone go about blowing Mosques in Shia neighborhood? No! Therefore, there would surely be bad eggs in every community or country! as for suicide bombings, i am yet to hear ONE saudi wahhabi cleric who condemn the attacks on Shia in Iraq. they will condemn the attacks on a gay nightclub in america (the land of their masters), but they will never condemn attack on innocent Muslims in next door iraq because those Muslims are Shia. why? when saudi clerics tell you they oppose suicide bombings and terrorism, they oppose it when it challenges the grip of the saudi royalty on power, and the Salafist terrorists question the basis of monarchy in Islam and the saudi allegiance to western powers; ironically the same western powers through their intelligence services are using these salafist elements in syria to accomplish their goals against the syrian government. the saudi clerics do not care or condemn when the victims of the attacks are Shia in Iraq. but in sha Allah Taala that will come to end soon. I maintain that they Saudi Arabian scholars are totally against suicide bombings of all kinds regardless of its intention. Here's a fatwa of Sheikh Al Uthaymeen: Indeed, my opinion is that he is regarded as one who has killed himself (committed suicide), and as a result he shall be punished in Hell, for that which is authenticated on the authority of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam). [((Indeed, whoever (intentionally) kills himself, then certainly he will be punished in the Fire of Hell, wherein he shall dwell forever)), [Bukhaaree (5778) and Muslim (109 and 110)]]............. " Kayfa Nu'aalij Waaqi'unaa al-Aleem - Page 119 Check here to see other salafi scholars condemning thus dreaded act: https://abdurrahman.org/2014/10/08/ruling-of-suicide-bombing-operations-which-have-increased-in-modern-times/ as for suicide bombing, it is not a matter of methodology. in arabic, if you listen to aljazeera you'd know there is a difference between "suicide bombing" and "martyrdom operation" even though both use the same method (killing one's in the process to kill the enemies). Yes I remember watching such a documentary about the 2013 war in Gaza. Hamas engaged in one suicide bombing in that fight! the Shia in southern Lebanon used "martyrdom operation" to fight against israeli soldiers occupying their land; SOLDIERS ARE COMBATANTS AND IN ISLAM COMBATANTS ARE LEGITIMATE TARGETS. the enemy was a superior force and any means to inflict damage to free their land was sought. it was not used to target worshipers in Sunni mosques or in Christian churches as Salafist groups like Boko Haram and ISIS do. Like I said earlier, the end doesn't justify the means. Many of other terrorists groups have this same reasons, Hezbollah was able to defeat Israel without any suicide bombing in 2006. This technique has brought more harm to Muslims than good, when US invaded Iraaq, people were killed discriminately on suspicion they were suicide bombers, whereas they weren't. Look at Palestine for example, when a suicide bomber strikes Israel, how many Muslims do you think pay for it? many, in fact it has gone to the extent that they now demolish the houses of the parents of the Palestinian even though his parent never supported him. All of this is why Salafi scholars condemned it and declared it to be haram is irrespective of its intentions or conditions! the target of the Shia is military presence of an enemy occupation force that was superior and "martyrdom operation" was a last resort. so the difference is clear based on the target. if you are to use "martyrdom operation" against (for instance) Cameroonian forces occupying Abuja is different from when boko haram uses a gun or even lethal injection (very beautiful means to kill, right?) to kill christian worshipers in the church. the ugliness of the means is not the issue but the target and justification for using such means. I maintain that it is based in something which is haram, so therefore it can't be used for any operation. To me that's cowardice, why not fight like the Sahabas, blowing yourself is prohibited in Islam and according to scholars of salafiyyah, whoever engages in it is going to hell. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by ShiaMuslim: 9:49pm On Jun 18, 2016 |
vedaxcool: Poor propaganda videos by Sunni Arab media outlets who cheer for terrorists! They can smuggle cameramen and journalists to terrorist held areas without government permit to cover the "starving children" but they couldn't smuggle food. What an irony!!! |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by Demmzy15(m): 10:12pm On Jun 18, 2016 |
ShiaMuslim:Bro this is no propaganda, they're starving innocent men, women and children!  1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by Nobody: 10:24pm On Jun 18, 2016 |
Demmzy15: And yoy think he doesn't know that? 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by ShiaMuslim: 10:30pm On Jun 18, 2016 |
Demmzy15: And is the government to blame? Didn't the Nigerian government led by northerners impose a siege on Biafra during the civil war? Didn't that lead to starvation and is viewed as the factor that sped the end of the civil war? When terrorists invade an area and use the people as human shields or the people are willing accomplices, the government has to liberate that area and restore sovereignty of the state. That is the starvation you see there. And yet still, how did those media teams pass through the siege? Propaganda! Regarding your last reply, there is nothing for me to reply there because I cannot argue your opinion. I've stated the fact. The only thing I do not agree with and goes contrary to the fact is you portraying that Bin Laden, alqaeda and its offsprings are not Salafist. That is a lie. You cannot present the disagreement between the Saudi clerics,who are employees of the Saudi royalty, and Bin laden as evidence that the latter isn't Salafist. Why don't you reason that it's the former who aren't salafist? Aside, in salafiyyah any sheikh can lead a group and pass Takfir on another group of salafiyyah. I already gave an example. The main problem between bin laden and the Saudi royals isn't religious difference but political. Bin laden was opposed to the Saudis seeking help from the USA to liberate Kuwait from saddam's invasion. He wanted to fight Saddam the way alqaeda and taliban fought the soviets in Afghanistan. Bin laden was opposed to USA bases in the Arabian peninsula. Bin laden became a threat to the royalty. |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by ShiaMuslim: 10:37pm On Jun 18, 2016 |
Saudi officials were 'supporting' 9/11 hijackers, commission member says First serious public split revealed among commissioners over the release of the secret ‘28 pages’ that detail Saudi ties to 2001 terrorist attacks https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/911-commission-saudi-arabia-hijackers |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by Demmzy15(m): 12:33am On Jun 19, 2016 |
^^^ CIA chief John Brennan says that he believes 28 redacted pages of a congressional inquiry into 9/11 will soon be made public, and that they will prove that the government of Saudi Arabia had no involvement in the September 11 attacks. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/12/politics/cia-john-brennan-saudi-arabia-9-11/ 1 Like |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by ShiaMuslim: 9:32am On Jun 19, 2016 |
Demmzy15: Why was Saudi Arabia threatening and using economic blackmail US officials? Saudis warn of economic reprisals if Congress passes 9/11 bill http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/16/politics/saudi-arabia-government-9-11-congress-bill/ |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by Demmzy15(m): 9:45am On Jun 19, 2016 |
ShiaMuslim:Why won't they warn? You accuse me of something I didn't do in which you would grant rights to victims to sue me(of course on monetary gains) and you think I won't fight back? That's the only weapon they have, during the time of King Faisal(rah) he stopped exporting oil in protest against the sufferings of the Palestinians. He can't invade US, so he fought with the only weapon he had which was oil! 2 Likes |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by ShiaMuslim: 10:13am On Jun 19, 2016 |
What Role Saudi Officials Played in 9/11? Sunday 19 June 2016 Alwaght- A report released by The New York Time sheds light on possible Saudi government complicity in the 9/11 catastrophe. According to the US daily, two American investigators, in Riyadh, interrogated a man they believed might hold answers to a question: What role, if any, did officials in Saudi Arabia’s government play in the plot? The man under questioning, Fahad al-Thumairy, had been a Saudi consular official based in Los Angeles and the imam of a mosque visited by two of the hijackers. The investigators, staff members of the national 9/11 commission, were unsuccessful to prove Saudi government's connection as the Saudi Imam denied any ties to the hijackers or their known associates. Presented with phone records that seemed to contradict his answers, he gave no ground, saying the records were wrong or people were trying to smear him. The investigators wrote a report to their bosses saying they believed Mr. Thumairy was probably lying. American officials who have read long-classified section of a 2002 congressional inquiry into the attacks, the so-called 28 pages, say that the unanswered questions about Mr. Thumairy and the two hijackers remain the most intriguing as Saudi government alleged role most likely goes through hom. At the F.B.I., the Sept. 11 plot officially remains an open case. While there is broad agreement on how it unfolded, there are aspects of the investigation that remain unresolved. And the mystery begins with the arrival at Los Angeles International Airport on Jan. 15, 2000, of two Saudi men who more than year and a half later would be among the hijackers who crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Apart from their proven devotion to the jihadist cause, the men, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, seemed unlikely choices for a pair of terrorists who would have to survive, and plot for months, in the United States. Neither spoke English or had experience navigating American life. An F.B.I. document from 2012, cited last year by an independent review panel, concluded that Mr. Thumairy “immediately assigned an individual to take care of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar during their time in the Los Angeles area.” The review broadly upheld the conclusions of the 9/11 commission on Saudi involvement, and the F.B.I. has still not been able to fill other gaps in the timeline of those initial two weeks in January 2000. When the two hijackers reappeared in early February, they were eating at a restaurant, Mediterranean Gourmet, near the mosque. There, they encountered Omar al-Bayoumi, a fellow Saudi who was on the Saudi government payroll through the country’s civil aviation authority, possibly with an assignment to keep an eye out for Saudi dissidents in California. Mr. Bayoumi later told the F.B.I. that the meeting was happenstance — that he overheard Mr. Hazmi and Mr. Mihdhar, noticed their Gulf accents and struck up a conversation. But the bureau believed that Mr. Bayoumi had met with Mr. Thumairy at the mosque just before he met the hijackers in the restaurant, and investigators wondered whether Mr. Thumairy had arranged the meeting. At the time, Mr. Thumairy was part of a network of representatives of the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs, which finances mosque-building, trains clerics and proselytizes the Wahhabism, an extremist interpretation of Islam. Investigators wrote that Mr. Thumairy appeared to be “deceptive” when questioned about his contacts, notably with Mr. Bayoumi. He denied knowing Mr. Bayoumi, despite telephone records that showed 21 calls between them over two years. Whether out of charitable instincts or at someone’s direction, Mr. Bayoumi, then 42, helped the two future hijackers settle in San Diego, in the apartment building where he himself lived. He co-signed the lease and paid the security deposit and first month’s rent, though they reimbursed him. Mr. Lambert, the former F.B.I. official in San Diego, said he was skeptical that the assistance was given by chance. With the 9/11 plot riding on the hijackers’ ability to manage daily life, he said, Qaeda leaders would most likely have made arrangements to get them help. “I have to believe something was planned for the care and nurturing of these guys after they arrived,” he said. “They weren’t too sophisticated, and they didn’t speak English. They needed help getting settled and making preparations.” There were other tantalizing suggestions of a possible network of supporters. Mr. Hazmi and Mr. Mihdhar began worshiping at a San Diego mosque where the imam was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American cleric who years later would became an infamous online recruiter for Al Qaeda. A Yemeni student named Mohdar Abdullah drove them around, helped them open bank accounts and connected them with flight schools. Two Saudi naval officers living in San Diego had telephone contact with Mr. Hazmi. But it was the Thumairy-Bayoumi connection that some investigators found to be the most suspicious. The first independent panel investigating the attacks, the Congressional Joint Inquiry, compiled a list of leads into the California part of the plot that it turned over to the F.B.I. and C.I.A. and eventually became part of the 28 pages withheld from the public version of the report. That section has remained classified. The 9/11 commission’s final report says that investigations do not rule out the possibility that lower-ranking Saudi officials had assisted the hijackers. http://alwaght.com/en/News/58107 |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by vedaxcool(m): 10:36am On Jun 19, 2016 |
lexiconkabir: Gbam. He follow his desires in the name of politics he would even deny his own mum if it will aid his lies. May Allah guide them to the right path. amin 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by Demmzy15(m): 11:16am On Jun 19, 2016 |
Other FBI officials, however, concluded that al-Bayoumi was not a witting accomplice of the hijackers. As one FBI official explained, “We could not find any contact between him and terrorists, any involvement (with al-Qaeda). There was nothing to indicate he's any different from any of the hundreds of people who had contact with the hijackers, who were unwitting to the fact that they were going to be hijackers. It just wasn't there.” Shannon, Elaine; Zagorin, Adam; Duffy, Michael. "Feds Doubt Allegations of Saudi Terror Funding". Time, Also; "When interrogators asked Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, whether he knew al-Bayoumi, he said that he did not." Final Report on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. pp. 515–516 n.19. 1 Like |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by AlBaqir(m): 1:24pm On Jun 19, 2016 |
Demmzy15: Leading Saudi cleric: DAESH ISIS have the same beliefs as we do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC8DSdzi87I Kuwaiti Researcher Abdulazziz Al-Qattan_ ISIS Is the Product of Salafi-Wahabi Heritage ' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uad4E0bFiSg US - Parliament https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDpt0IN2GwE “Saudi Arabia are the Terrorists” says prominent Egyptian anchor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOUBRuZlMZM How Saudi Arabia Financed Global Terror https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCUbFJeRfME The Debate - Who's Financing ISIL_ (Nov 16th) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wic-fJ67Czo |
| Re: Terrorism Of Salafism VS Islamic Rules Of Engagement by vedaxcool(m): 2:44pm On Jun 19, 2016 |
Iran was ordered by a U.S. judge to pay more than $10.5 billion in damages to families of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and to a group of insurers. U.S. District Judge George Daniels in New York issued a default judgment Wednesday against Iran for $7.5 billion to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It includes $2 million to each estate for the victims’ pain and suffering plus $6.88 million in punitive damages. Daniels also awarded $3 billion to insurers including Chubb Ltd. that paid property damage, business interruption and other claims. Earlier in the case, Daniels found that Iran had failed to defend claims that it aided the Sept. 11 hijackers and was therefore liable for damages tied to the attacks. Daniels’s ruling Wednesday adopts damages findings by a U.S. magistrate judge in December. While it is difficult to collect damages from an unwilling foreign nation, the plaintiffs may try to collect part of the judgments using a law that permits parties to tap terrorists’ assets frozen by the government. The case is In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 03-cv-09848, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/iran-told-to-pay-10-5-billion-to-sept-11-kin-insurers |
Shia And Sunni Muslim / Kano Emirate Suspends Routine Eid-el-fitri Activities Over Insecurity - Guardian / Why Do Muslims Touch Their Chest After Exchanging Handshake???
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 185 |