Asalamu'alaiku Waramatu'llahi Wabarakat'un.

The dust will never settle down is a lecture delivered by Anwar Al Aulaqi. In this said lecture, he gave instance, with the backing of Hadith and other reliable sources where people where killed for abusing and speaking against Muhammad (s.a.w) when he (s.a.w) newly migrated to Madina.

I could have post it here but, the lecture is in a pdf format.

Brothers and sisters, please download it either the pdf format or audio and explain some of these things.

cc: Caseless, usermane, AbdelKabir, AlBaqir, Empiree, fundamentalist, demmzy15.

IdisuleOurOwn:
Asalamu'alaiku Waramatu'llahi Wabarakat'un.

The dust will never settle down is a lecture delivered by Anwar Al Aulaqi. In this said lecture, he gave instance, with the backing of Hadith and other reliable sources where people where killed for abusing and speaking against Muhammad (s.a.w) when he (s.a.w) newly migrated to Madina.

I could have post it here but, the lecture is in a pdf format.

Brothers and sisters, please download it either the pdf format or audio and explain some of these things.

cc: Case.less, userma.ne, Abdel.Kabir, Al.Baqir, Em.piree, fundame.ntalist, dem.mzy15.

# With all due respect, I don't listen to that fanatic and I can't waste my time reading his junks.

# However, going by the few exposition you have posted from his book, though I haven't seen his evidence, I am compelled to ask what exactly was he proving or driving at?

* Is it that it is justifiable to kill whoever abuse or speaks against the holy Prophet?

# The fact is the Arab society of that time were 100% savage. If not for Islam, there won't have been no difference between them and animals. Naturally, on a smallest issue, they will attack and kill each other. War used to easily broke out between clans on a silly matter that for example was between two individuals. So, you can imagine the kind of mindset that enter into new religion - Islam. Hence, Qur'an says:
Surah Al-Jumua, Verse 2:

"He it is Who raised among the inhabitants of Mecca an Apostle from among themselves, who recites to them His communications and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, although they were before certainly in clear error"


# There are lots of ahadith where for example an ignorant polytheist will abuse or attack the Prophet, then you will see a Sahabi trying to attack back with sword or even ask permission from the Prophet to strike him down. Then, Nabi will reply in negative way saying, "No". For example:


Narrated Anas bin Malik:
" A bedouin urinated in the mosque and the people ran to
(beat) him. Allah's Messenger ( s) said, "Do not interrupt his urination (i.e. let him finish)." Then the Prophet (s ) asked for a tumbler of water and poured the water over the place of urine."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 6025
In-book reference : Book 78, Hadith 56
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 8, Book 73, Hadith 54
www.Sunnah.com/bukhari/78/56


# Then, some of these sahabah went back to the period of Jahiliyah after the demise of the Prophet.

Peace

You may not know this, I am not your typical next door Muslim. So, what I'm about to say on this subject might not be what you expect. Some people call me a Qur'anist, deviant Muslim, Dajjal, modernist Muslim, extremist Muslim, all kinds of slanderous names but I'd identify myself a HETERODOX Muslim, because my Islamic beliefs are far cry from the mainstream and what is regarded orthodox.

I read the lecture as you requested. However, I am anything but shocked.
Anwar Al Aulaqi is merely expressing that side of traditional Islam that almost every Muslim want to just sweep under the rug and pretend that it doesn't exist. The Muslim community loves to rave on how beautiful, peaceful, egalitarian & women empowering traditional Islam is but this is often borne out of ignorance or dishonesty because if you bore deep into traditional Islamic sources that interpret Islam(Tafsir, Hadith, Seerah, Fiqh), you will find all kinds of unholy teachings.

Every account in Anwar Al Aulaqi's lecture on killing those who abuse Muhammad can be tracked to traditional Islamic sources of sharia. The references are well cited.
I'd say, start investigating the Islam you have been thought. Start from scratch(Qur'an), What is Islam, what are the sources of Islam? Don't limit yourself to the orthodox viewpoints, research and learn of the heterodox before reaching conclusion

Peace.

Thanks, bro usermane for this. Are this "barbaric act" still applicable to this day Ummah? This acts I believe are the driven power of isil, Al Qaeda,Taliban, Al shabab and the rest.

We all know that the main sources of Islamic creed are found in the area which the above groups originated from. Talk about Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria this places are where you find the original sources of Islamic history.

A.slm, Rilwayne001

IdisuleOurOwn:
Thanks, bro usermane for this. Are this "barbaric act" still applicable to this day Ummah? This acts I believe are the driven power of isil, Al Qaeda,Taliban, Al shabab and the rest.

We all know that the main sources of Islamic creed are found in the area which the above groups originated from. Talk about Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria this places are where you find the original sources of Islamic history.

A.slm, Rilwayne001

# Original my foot @underline. Unfortunately what is prevalent in those places are adulterated Islamic history. Muslim's history, Islamic understanding and interpretations are no doubt been adulterated over time in history, some intentionally and some foolishly and ignorantly. For example, I have discussed issue of jihad in Islam as preached by Islam vs as understood and practiced by liars:

www.nairaland.com/3170976/terrorism-salafism-vs-islamic-rules


# Today in all the Monarch ruled Arabian land, if you abuse, or protest against the King, beheading is the punishment. How can this be justified? Hadith need to be manufactured to fit that. Then, other manufactured Hadith declaring that you MUST submit and listen to your ruler even if he's a tyrant are also in abundant.

* The fact is as far as Islamic documents are concerned, you will always see:

1. Evidence in support

2. And Evidence against

Anything that is not par with Quran, Mutawattir Hadith and intellectual reasoning is obviously not Islamic.

AlBaqir:


# Original my foot @underline. Unfortunately what is prevalent in those places are adulterated Islamic history. Muslim's history, Islamic understanding and interpretations are no doubt been adulterated over time in history, some intentionally and some foolishly and ignorantly. For example, I have discussed issue of jihad in Islam as preached by Islam vs as understood and practiced by liars:

www.nairaland.com/3170976/terrorism-salafism-vs-islamic-rules


# Today in all the Monarch ruled Arabian land, if you abuse, or protest against the King, beheading is the punishment. How can this be justified? Hadith need to be manufactured to fit that. Then, other manufactured Hadith declaring that you MUST submit and listen to your ruler even if he's a tyrant are also in abundant.

* The fact is as far as Islamic documents are concerned, you will always see:

1. Evidence in support

2. And Evidence against

Anything that is not par with Quran, Mutawattir Hadith and intellectual reasoning is obviously not Islamic.

I need answer to this...

Are this "barbaric act" still applicable to this day Ummah?

Now...

Unfortunately what is prevalent in those places are adulterated Islamic history.

Where then can we get the unadulterated ones?

I actually listened to his an hour long audio yesterday. The only thing i disagree with him is his approach. So i need to understand where Albaqir and usermane stand on this. His approach is that a muslim who witnesses insults upon prophet (p) doesn't need permission from authority to kill such person. And he cited references from medieval scholars.

Problem with this approach is, it creates anarchy. Only authority is allowed to handle this. So he really got that wrong. This is what i believe is extreme in his view. He also pointed out hypocrisy of some Muslim leaders who rather tried to caution Muslims from raising their voices when nabi(p) is insulted.


However, it is a must for govt, Muslim or not to sign a bill making it punishable offence for anyone who insults the prophet. You can not let people just have field day in the name of "free speech". For as long as they refuse to sign such bill, incidents like Charlie Hebdo etc will continue to thrive. If it is free speech to insult the prophet, you may need to ask them why Western world made it punishable offence to deny or mock holocaust.


Shouldn't people have the right to deny it if they don't believe it happened just like people have the right to deny or reject or mock islam or any religion?.


It is also punishable offence to insult president of the US. But they will appear to you in the media like it is free speech protected by First Amendment to the Constitution. But behind closed doors, secret service, fbi, cia already picked up whoever insults the president and take him or her to secret location and fvck him up. Family members will not see him or her anymore till qiyamah. They have killed many people like this for running their mouth or lock them up indefinitely. But they come to you in the media that it is free speech just so people can insult the prophet. I know what i am talking about. You just need to search internet to see their dirty secret.


So my opinion is, muslim and secular muslim govt should have or retain such law that make it punishable offence for anyone who insults the prophet. But only govt should carry out hudud not average citizens. The least citizens should do is, stay away from where islam, Allah, nabi or any islamic figures are being insulted. Or citizens should only report to the authority "If You Hear Something, Say Something". That's how it should be.

Cc IdisuleOurOwn
Make sure you read the thread to the end https://www.nairaland.com/3170976/terrorism-salafism-vs-islamic-rules

AAnd as for Anwar Al Awlaki, it's very dangerous to listen to him. Download this pdf refuting some of his lectures that has been responsible for causing havoc amongst the youths as regards Jihad here

Whenever he approaches issues, he does it in crude and cruel manners. He has even gone as far as to support the killing of innocent men, women and children in America. He supports treachery as regards his support for Nidal Hassan, a US major who killed his men. This is why I've been warning since to stay away from his lectures, it'll mess you up badly.

And as for that Matam monkey � slapping and beating himself, continue o. Unrepentant liar!

AlBaqir:


# Today in all the Monarch ruled Arabian land, if you abuse, or protest against the King, beheading is the punishment. How can this be justified? Hadith need to be manufactured to fit that. Then, other manufactured Hadith declaring that you MUST submit and listen to your ruler even if he's a tyrant are also in abundant.

If you can't prove the ahaadeeth that talk on this are fabricated other than just opening your mouth to say nonsense from your empty brain then shut up.

You think this is shia religion where everything done is nonsense upon nonsense from empty brains..

AbdelKabir:


If you can't prove the ahaadeeth that talk on this are fabricated

# I have given you advice from my "opened and running mouth" to make Quran your guide and that you should stop reading those wahabi book.


# Quran says:

* Surah An-Nisa, Verse 59:

"O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end".

* Who are the ulul amr whose obedience to is synonymous to that of Rasul, according to the verse?

* I don't want to go deeper about the true "ulum amr" that the ayah is primarily talking about; however, going by the general extrapolation, it may refer to "leaders, kings (law makers) etc". However, the specific characteristic of this leader is he too must be obedient to Allah and His prophet, only that can he enjoy sharing with the Prophet - "obedience of the believers" that the Qur'an command.

Note: The covenant between a leader and Allah is that he must rule and act by Allah's dictate. Qur'an talks about Nabi Dawud: "O Dawud, We have made you Khalifah on earth; therefore, judge among people with truth"

* You can read what one of your Sunni Tafsir says on the ayah of ulul Amr:
https//:library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=1788&idto=1800&bk_no=132&ID=543


# What about those that do not "obey Allah and His Prophet"?

Surah Al-Maeda, Verse 44:

" Surely We revealed the Taurat in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allah) judged (matters) for those who were Jews, and the masters of Divine knowledge and the doctors (the Rabbis), because they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allah, and they were witnesses thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and do not take a small price for My communications; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers".



# In case we have "unbelievers" as lawmakers/authority, what is our duties according to Qur'an?

Surah Hud, Verse 116:

"But why were there not among the generations before you those possessing understanding, who should have forbidden the making of mischief in the earth, except a few of those whom We delivered from among them? And those who were unjust went after what they are made to enjoy of plenty, and they were guilty".


# Do we have examples in history?

1. Khalifah Uthman Ibn Affan was opposed, revolted against and killed by FELLOW SAHABAH for deviating from the laws of Allah and Sunnah of the Prophet in his reign.


2. Yazid, the cursed one, who spread fasad during his reign was opposed and revolted against by Imam Hussain (alayhi Salam).


3. The Ummayad and Abbasi Khalifas witnessed revolt upon revolt during their reign. They initially try to cage people with force, then they caged their mentality via bogus Hadith of "obeying leaders no matter what".


# Conclusion: Any Hadith that enjoys obedience to tyrant and oppressive leader is manufactured

IdisuleOurOwn:

I need answer to this...

Are this "barbaric act" still applicable to this day Ummah?

# Empiree had given you right answer to this. He even exposed the so called "freedom nations".

Anyway, executing the punishment on those who openly abuse or curse or blaspheme Allah and His Prophet rest with a just Muslim leader (who is a Faqih). Executing the law is not for every tom, dick and harry as that terrorist was trying to insinuate.

IdisuleOurOwn:

Where then can we get the unadulterated ones?

Islamic history needs to be studied via various documentation of different historians. You compare and contrast with various intellectual argument and reasoning.

IdisuleOurOwn:
Thanks, bro usermane for this. Are this "barbaric act" still applicable to this day Ummah? This acts I believe are the driven power of isil, Al Qaeda,Taliban, Al shabab and the rest.

To a certain extent, Empiree did answer this question but with little damage control.
I'll start my own response with questions.
If these laws(babaric acts) are inapplicable today then,
why did Anwar Al-Awlaki write the book?
Why is Aasia Bibi under life or death sentence in Pakistan for allegedly insulting Muhammad?
Why did Iran condemn Salman Rushdie to death for writing Satanic verses?

In traditional Islam, the laws are immutable and applicable at all time. Anyone who dare question these laws on grounds of incompatibility with modern time will be slammed as a modernist, westernized or deviant Muslim. You can see from the few cases mentioned that these these laws are not applied by terrorists groups only. Every functioning sharia compliant Muslim country continue to apply these laws. In Saudi Arabia, there is the case of Raif Al Badawi still imprisoned for 10 years with 1000 lashes mainly for blasphemy. And with charges of apostasy against him, he'll likely face death sentence on conviction by the court.

Dude, this is the twenty first century, the information age. Google is indispensable too for anyone seeking the truth.

We all know that the main sources of Islamic creed are found in the area whichthe above groups originated from. Talk about Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria this places are where you find the original sources of Islamic history.

A.slm, Rilwayne001

I think you misunderstood my usage of the term; sources of Islam. By sources of Islam, I don't mean the region of origin of Islam. I mean the religious text(s) of Islam.

IdisuleOurOwn:

A.slm, Rilwayne001

Waalaykum Salaam brother.

I still stand by this

Empiree:
I actually listened to his an hour long audio yesterday. The only thing i disagree with him is his approach. So i need to understand where Albaqir and usermane stand on this. His approach is that a muslim who witnesses insults upon prophet (p) doesn't need permission from authority to kill such person. And he cited references from medieval scholars.

Problem with this approach is, it creates anarchy. Only authority is allowed to handle this. So he really got that wrong. This is what i believe is extreme in his view. He also pointed out hypocrisy of some Muslim leaders who rather tried to caution Muslims from raising their voices when nabi(p) is insulted.


However, it is a must for govt, Muslim or not to sign a bill making it punishable offence for anyone who insults the prophet. You can not let people just have field day in the name of "free speech". For as long as they refuse to sign such bill, incidents like Charlie Hebdo etc will continue to thrive. If it is free speech to insult the prophet, you may need to ask them why Western world made it punishable offence to deny or mock holocaust.


Shouldn't people have the right to deny it if they don't believe it happened just like people have the right to deny or reject or mock islam or any religion?.


It is also punishable offence to insult president of the US. But they will appear to you in the media like it is free speech protected by First Amendment to the Constitution. But behind closed doors, secret service, fbi, cia already picked up whoever insults the president and take him or her to secret location and fvck him up. Family members will not see him or her anymore till qiyamah. They have killed many people like this for running their mouth or lock them up indefinitely. But they come to you in the media that it is free speech just so people can insult the prophet. I know what i am talking about. You just need to search internet to see their dirty secret.


So my opinion is, muslim and secular muslim govt should have or retain such law that make it punishable offence for anyone who insults the prophet. But only govt should carry out hudud not average citizens. The least citizens should do is, stay away from where islam, Allah, nabi or any islamic figures are being insulted. Or citizens should only report to the authority "If You Hear Something, Say Something". That's how it should be.