Reflections of my own view!!

Thoughts on the Death of Osama Bin Laden by Shaykh Yasir Qadhi

Osama bin Laden is dead.

And once again, in this Manichean good-versus-evil, us-versus-them, black-versus-white, world that we are told we live in, we are expected to take ‘sides’, and either jump for jingoistic joy as we thump our chests screaming, ‘USA! USA!’, or else mourn the death of a ‘martyr’.

And once again, many people, myself included, will have to take a deep sigh and wonder whether we can ever successfully explain, to an increasingly polarized world, the complexity of our stances and the nuances of our positions.

The fact of the matter is, contrary to what both bin Laden and his one-time nemesis Bush propagated, we don’t live in a stark black-and-white world. We live in a very colorful, very multi-faceted world. Because I refuse to see everything in black-and-white, my position is neither one of sorrow nor one of elation.

It is not one of sorrow because I never viewed bin Laden as someone worthy of my reverence. He was a reactionary who lacked wisdom and who had no long-term vision. His response to Western imperialism was a visceral rage expressed in the language of a false pseudo-jihad – an understanding of ‘jihad’ that he himself invented, and not one that the trained scholars of our glorious religion shared with him. He helped formulate and propagate ideas that caused more bloodshed in Muslim lands, and more civil war, than any non-Muslim invasion in the last decade. Suicide bombers claiming allegiance to him cheerfully bombed men, women and children in bazaars in Baghdad, in shrines in Karachi, in sky-scrapers in New York, and in markets in Kabul.

Through his rhetoric of takfir, hundreds of people who were deemed ‘co-operating’ with the enemy were considered permissible to slaughter, and if a few thousand innocent bystanders needed to be killed in order to get to those handful, so be it. This was to be a permissible form of ‘collateral damage’ – one that seems to provoke only a fraction of the ire from those who harp on and on about Western collateral damage. (For the record, both are evil, and both need to be condemned; and again for the record, the ‘collateral damage’ of Muslim extremists groups is far more severe than the ‘collateral damage’ caused by Western drone attacks). His death was expected, for his own words and deeds called for action against him from a powerful military and a mighty country.

So I feel no personal grief at his death. After all, he was already largely irrelevant in the Arab and Muslim world. What good did all of his fiery rhetoric ever do for the Palestinians he claimed to have been fighting for? And what impact did he have amongst the Arab masses as they all rallied together (and continue to do so) against their brutal dictators? From the alleyways of Benghazi to the maydans of Cairo, and from the mosques of Damascus to the streets of Sana, not one protestor waved the flag of Osama or chanted slogans of al-Qaeda. It was the people who brought about real change, not Osama with his anti-American rage and calls for violence.

Yet, I cannot cheer his death either. Why?

Firstly, because the intentional taking of another human life is not a cause for cheering. Even if a murderer is legitimately executed (qisas) by the State for his crimes, it is not in our religion to rejoice at such a death; therefore how much more so when the death was caused in this fashion? (By this I mean that I would have preferred a live capture and public trial – but then again, at this stage we do not know the circumstances of his death).

Secondly, those who looked up to bin Laden for inspiration were not motivated to become suicide bombers and radical terrorists because bin Laden managed to brainwash them. The grievances that all such radicals recite are political and social (I have discussed these in other articles at length). Bin Laden was but a figurehead, and his death will actually feed into the whole martyrdom mythology that these movements weave around themselves. As Jeremy F. Walton, professor of Religious Studies at NYU, wrote on his blog today,


“I do not mean to denigrate the persistent grief of the families of 9/11 victims, or, for that matter, the pain that countless Americans continue to experience when they recall or witness the indelible images of that infamous Tuesday morning. But make no mistake: last night’s celebrators, and all those whom they represent, have no comprehension of the political history, quotidian violence, and post-colonial frustration over increasing global inequities—to gesture to but a few factors—that made Osama bin Laden and his network possible. Political theorist Mahmood Mamdani, for one, has vigorously argued that a reckoning of the American role in the creation of jihadist violence during the Cold War is indispensable to understanding al-Qaeda itself. Acknowledgement of this neglected political history is even more crucial in the wake of bin Laden’s death.”

Therefore, the real question for me is not whether we should rejoice or not. The real questions are far more profound and difficult to answer.

Now that we have killed bin Laden, will his death extinguish his ideas and truly make the world a safer place?

Now that we have killed bin Laden, will the anger that millions of people around the world feel towards our foreign policy simply dissipate into thin air?

Now that we have killed bin Laden, will that justify the trillions of dollars that we have spent on our two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hundreds of thousands of dead since 9/11?

Now that we have killed bin Laden, will our infamous ‘War on Terror’ finally come to an end, and will we discontinue drone attacks in far-away lands and draconian policies back home? (And on that note: can we finally travel with our toothpaste and without having to be sexually assaulted by TSA officials?!)

Now that we have killed bin Laden, will the hysteria being propagated by the Right and the Islamophobia that is rampant across Europe and America subside?

Now that we have killed bin Laden, will we start concentrating on far more important domestic and international issues?

I guess the bottom line is: now that we have killed bin Laden, has status quo really changed all that much?

I don’t have answers to all of these questions, but these are the questions that need to be asked before we rush to celebrate his death or, as some overzealous Muslims are doing, label him a shahid. (And on a theological note, I remind our readers that only Allah assigns Heaven and Hell to anyone, so let us not challenge this right of Allah by proclaiming anything about any individual’s fate in the Hereafter).

It took America – the most powerful and technologically advanced country on earth – a full ten years to find this one man. How great it would have been if we had managed to capture the perpetrators of 9/11 back then! But our own reactions to 9/11 created a whole list of new issues, both domestic and international, that the killing of bin Laden will not solve. And to make matters even worse, in that decade a new generation, a young generation, has come of age – a generation for whom 9/11 evokes barely a memory. For this young generation, the death of bin Laden does little to solve its own problems.

If we have learned anything from the Arab protestors across the Middle East, it is that change has to begin from within, and the best way to fight for the change that you believe in – even if that fight be against powerful regimes – is through nonviolent means. Killing your enemies doesn’t solve problems; working proactively and productively to gain the world’s sympathy when clear injustices have been committed does.

A blogger friend of mine wrote that it is as if America is playing a game of chess with a small group of radical Muslims. We are not playing this game ourselves, for we are spectators. We understand both players very well, and both have made ridiculous moves in the past that have caused many unnecessary pieces to be lost.

America has just made its latest move.

‘Check!’

Lovely Piece!!!

Dear brothers and sisters,

why do you fail to see the problem for what it is?

bin laden did not invent anything new.he did not start anything that the wahhabi aka salafi movement does not have.after his killing was reported yesterday,they have tagged him with the title of "shahid" or matyr for killing innocent people which islam rejects.this ideology is a burden on muslims and the image of islam.the more we expose it the better for us.the world would understand that they dont represent islam.

see:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234988980-bin-laden-did-wrong-ijtihad-but-he-is-a-shahid/

there is a minority of so called muslims who are giving islam a bad image.this movement started in saudi arabia by Muhammad Ibn Adul-Wahab as an offshoot of sunnism.this is an intolerant and extreme form of religion based on hate.its not islam.

the salafi/wahhabis have it in their ideology that everyone else is a kaffir.they believe islam can be spread by forcing people while islam says no compulsion in religion.the Quran says so that you cant force people to believe.but they think all the verses in the Quran asking muslim to fight the unbelievers,the muslims fought simply because those were unbelievers and not because the unbelievers were aggressors who offended and hurt the muslims.

see this:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234988608-saudiwahhabi-beheader-on-tv-show/

tbaba posted an excellent piece, and though I celebrated with the revelers screaming USA, USA I am currently reflecting on the news that OBL was not armed when he was killed by US Special Ops. Could they have arrested and tried him in a US Military or UN Human Rights Court with evidence against him presented to the whole world? Then could he have been handed capital punishment when the courts found him guilty. Yes that could have been a possibility.

On the other had while reading the article that you posted I read the statement below:

Even if a murderer is legitimately executed (qisas) by the State for his crimes, it is not in our religion to rejoice at such a death; therefore how much more so when the death was caused in this fashion? (By this I mean that I would have preferred a live capture and public trial – but then again, at this stage we do not know the circumstances of his death).

Now I read up on Qisa and according to wiki I found this:
Differences exist over whether equal retaliation can be applied to Muslims who have murdered unbelievers. In the hadith of Bukhari, Ash-Sha'bi narrates that Abu Juhaifa said that "no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever)".[8] Three of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence thus expressly prohibit capital punishment for Muslims who have murdered unbelievers; only allowing the payment of blood money. For the Maliki and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence, the value of a non-Muslim's life is worth one-half the value of a Muslim's life; in the Shafi'i school, the lives of Jews and Christians are worth one-third of those of Muslims, and the lives of Zoroastrians are worth one-fifteenth.[9][10] The Hanafi school allows capital punishment for Muslims who have murdered unbelievers, citing a hadith wherein Muhammad ordered the execution of a Muslim who killed a dhimmi.

Then I go to a muslim website: http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=92261

[b]First of all, you should know that a Muslim should not be killed for killing a belligerent non-Muslim according to the consensus of the scholars . According to the view of the majority of the scholars a Muslim should not be killed against a free non-Muslim under the Muslim rule. The evidence about this is the saying of the Prophet : "A Muslim should not be killed for killing a non-Muslim." [At-Tirmithi]

Moreover, according to the view of the majority of the scholars the title (and rulings) “disbeliever” is applicable to a free non-Muslim under the Muslim rule. However, Abu Haneefah, and the scholars of his School of jurisprudence are of the view that a Muslim should be killed for killing a free non-Muslim under Muslim rule; their evidence is the two verses which the questioner mentioned. Nonetheless, the correct opinion is that of the majority of the scholars that is based on the above Prophetic narration, which is a direct proof related to the case of dispute.

Allaah Knows best.[/b]




I understood the whole eye for an eye concept but then got to the Muslims/Non Muslim treatment,
This is the very reason why Islamic jurisprudence and ideology as a whole is flawed. I am appalled to notice that 3 of the 4 Islamic schools endorse Muslims not being given equitable punishment for Murder against Non Muslims ie they are NOT to be given capital punishment. This sort of philosophy is called institutional discrimination.

Imagine if the courts in Nigeria stated that a certain group of people say Yoruba traditional religous practitioners should not be given a death penalty for killing a non Yoruba traditional religous practitioners. Or if Whites in America were not punished equitably to Mexicans Americans in America. Or Non muslims given preference to Muslims in the West? This is not justice. Islam degrades non muslims and really views them as sub human. Then you guys wonder why there are the like of OBL, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb, Al Shabab, Hamas discrimination and oppression is core to the doctrine and not a corruption of the faith and jurisprudence. It is my duty to expose it.

Lastly, Muslims and Arabs are not the only people that have been exploited by another group of people, Europeans and their descendants exploited each other and conquered many nations around the world, enslaved Africans, nearly annihilated native Americans and fought each other. Arabs/Muslims fought wars, enslaved and exploited each other, Europeans, berbers, Africans and fought wars all over the world. The Japanese did the same. Africans conquered and enslaved each other. The same for Asians etc etc. Why is it that most of the world has moved on and trying to build a better humanity while Muslims including those in Northern Nigeria, Palestine, India, Somalia, Philipines, China, Russia, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt (and pretty much anywhere there is a significant amount of muslims) refuse to live in peace with their christian, jewish, hindu, buddist, atheist, communist, animist, polytheist, capitalist neighbors. My last question is not in reference to each individual Muslims but just a pattern that is very glaring. The Japanese and German have US troops on their land and their people were killed and even bombed with the Atomic bomb (Japan) but we dont see them angry or playing victim with the west or anybody for that matter.
Thank you

LagosShia:

Dear brothers and sisters,

why do you fail to see the problem for what it is?

bin laden did not invent anything new.he did not start anything that the wahhabi aka salafi movement does not have.after his killing was reported yesterday,they have tagged him with the title of "shahid" or matyr for killing innocent people which islam rejects.this ideology is a burden on muslims and the image of islam.the more we expose it the better for us.the world would understand that they dont represent islam.

see:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234988980-bin-laden-did-wrong-ijtihad-but-he-is-a-shahid/

there is a minority of so called muslims who are giving islam a bad image.this movement started in saudi arabia by Muhammad Ibn Adul-Wahab as an offshoot of sunnism.this is an intolerant and extreme form of religion based on hate.its not islam.

the salafi/wahhabis have it in their ideology that everyone else is a kaffir.they believe islam can be spread by forcing people while islam says no compulsion in religion.the Quran says so that you cant force people to believe.but they think all the verses in the Quran asking muslim to fight the unbelievers,the muslims fought simply because those were unbelievers and not because the unbelievers were aggressors who offended and hurt the muslims.

see this:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234988608-saudiwahhabi-beheader-on-tv-show/

Please stop propagating falshood and why are you hell bent on disunity , concilatory and harmony. You thrive on contreversies, sectarianism and hatred.

Last time i checked Saudi Arabia the headquaters of Wahabism is suffering from terrorism, last time i checked Saudi have killed hundreds of their own citizens in the name of fighting terror, last time i checked saudi scholars the core scholars of Wahabism tagged Usama a kafir , last time i checked the Council of ulama in saudi called usama and al qaeda members brothers of the devil.

Life is not black and white like i always say to you . I am not a Wahabbi and i have lots of diasgreement with some of the positions in the Wahabbi school neither am i a shia but propagating falshood against a group of people is plain disgusting.

Lagosboy:

Please stop propagating falshood and why are you hell bent on disunity , concilatory and harmony. You thrive on contreversies, sectarianism and hatred.

we cannot unite under the banner of making islam to be mistaken for terrorism and killing innocent people to force the world into islam.the Quran says "no compulsion in religion".show me one place where the Prophet (sa) attacked Quraysh civilians and i will listen to your call for unity.the more we talk against this evil brand associating itself with islam the better the non-muslim world would listen to us muslims when we tell them islam is about peace and love.we need not fight anyone for islam.islam is rationality and beautiful enough for the entire world to be appealed to it.

Last time i checked Saudi Arabia the headquaters of Wahabism is suffering from terrorism, last time i checked Saudi have killed hundreds of their own citizens in the name of fighting terror, last time i checked saudi scholars the core scholars of Wahabism tagged Usama a kafir , last time i checked the Council of ulama in saudi called usama and al qaeda members brothers of the devil.

that is the problem with wahhabism.they tag anyone a kaffir as they wish.why call bin laden a "kaffir"?who are they?it is the same ideology of tagging other muslims with takfir that is spreading danger and hate in the world.

last time i check,your supreme headquarter of wahhabism,saudi arabia,with the permission of its un-islamic government are housing thousands of american forces on the most holiest land in islam.they commit every act which their so called shariah bans.

last time i check the saudi government is an american puppet.

last time i checked the wahhabi "scholars" are government employees.he who pays the piper dictates the tune.

Life is not black and white like i always say to you . I am not a Wahabbi and i have lots of diasgreement with some of the positions in the Wahabbi school neither am i a shia but propagating falshood against a group of people is plain disgusting.

every act of terrorism that have come out and tarnished the image of islam is from that "group of people" you're supporting.in iraq and pakistan more muslims have being killed by wahhabi extermists including alqaeda than by the american "crusaders".check here how they call bin laden a "matyr":

http://tribune.com.pk/story/160786/ssp-jud-call-osama-bin-laden-a-martyr/

I really do not like to engage you in discussions as I am sorry to say but you appear to lack the neccessary intellectual analytical depth for us to agree on anything. I dont debate to win but debate to meet at a common ground if it is possible and if not so be it.

we cannot unite under the banner of making islam to be mistaken for terrorism and killing innocent people to force the world into islam.the Quran says "no compulsion in religion".show me one place where the Prophet (sa) attacked Quraysh civilians and i will listen to your call for unity.the more we talk against this evil brand associating itself with islam the better the non-muslim world would listen to us muslims when we tell them islam is about peace and love.we need not fight anyone for islam.islam is rationality and beautiful enough for the entire world to be appealed to it.

All the above is not needed because I never said anything close to or justifying the killing of innocents so please spare me your emotional outburst. All i am saying is Al Qaeda is different from Wahabism or Saudi Salafism period.

that is the problem with wahhabism.they tag anyone a kaffir as they wish.why call bin laden a "kaffir"?who are they?it is the same ideology of tagging other muslims with takfir that is spreading danger and hate in the world.

last time i check,your supreme headquarter of wahhabism,saudi arabia,with the permission of its un-islamic government are housing thousands of american forces on the most holiest land in islam.they commit every act which their so called shariah bans.

last time i check the saudi government is an american puppet.

last time i checked the wahhabi "scholars" are government employees.he who pays the piper dictates the tune.

This is the problem i have with you, you cannot understand the core message i am trying to pass across. You act and post like a robot that has been programmed to post  certain things regardless of what the other person is saying. I am not here to talk about Saudi govt or puppet scholars. Alli said and i am saying is Al qaeda ideology is different to Wahabism as we know it or Salafism. If Saudi wahabism was same with Al qaedas ideology why will they tag usama as a non muslim ? Why would they refuse his body? Why will the saudi scholars be fighting the Al qaeda idology in KSA. This is just simple logic dude! Take a break from all the shia message against wahabism. I am not Wahabbi  and i disagree with many of the wahabi school views but as a muslim i dont resort to cheap lies or propaganda.

every act of terrorism that have come out and tarnished the image of islam is from that "group of people" you're supporting.in iraq and pakistan more muslims have being killed by wahhabi extermists including alqaeda than by the american "crusaders".check here how they call bin laden a "matyr":

This is the again the problem you have, "if it is not black then it is white" . Where in my post have i been supporting whabbis killing innocents. Only if you will think outside the box that the fact that a person is calling your attention to be fair in castigating others does not mean he supports them.

Read through my many posts on this section and you will see my numerous posts against the Saudi regime and saudi govt scholars. However, my disagreement does not mean i will attribute what is not theirs to them.

ALQAEDA IDEOLOGY IS DIFFERETENT TO WAHABISM OR SAUDI SALAFISM.

@Lagosboy

since you know so much,please state the differences between the ideology of alqaeda and wahhabism aka salafism.

i am trying to let you see that they are one and the same.i am trying to let you see that the official version in saudi arabia is what the government has tailored to suit its interests as an american puppet.the saudi royals dont care about establishing the caliphate which is the sole aim of all wahhabi groups and factions and killing the infidels and heretics through global "jihad".the saudis are rich and they enjoy life.infact they enjoy it more than the "crusaders" (as the wahhabis are fond of calling the westerners) do.it is under that direction that the wahhabi "scholars" are paid to work.apart from the official face,the wahhabis themselves who work par their ideology are full of hate and violence.infact they are against the saudi regime itself.they want to overthrow the monarchy and establish a caliphate under their own control.

simply because there friction between the saudi regime and alqaeda does not at all make the saudi regime more wahhabi than alqaeda or vice versa.only that the regime is western controlled.without western support and the american bases in saudi arabia alqaeda and all the wahhabi militant factions will sweep the regime under the rug.the ideology of wahhabism aka salafism is the fuel which ignites the flame of psudo-jihad in the minds of the wahhabis.to them all the west is "crusader".to them alll the shia are "rafidha" and are heretics who must be killed.it is on that basis that alqaeda operates when it leads its psudo-jihad.

if i'm wrong and you're of the opinion that wahhabism is so peaceful and accomodating then enlighten us.lets see!

just a little insight which can be extensively backed into the wahhabi (salafist) ideology of alqaeda which is based upon the teachings of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahab,Ibn Taymiyyah and Sayyed Qutb (wahhabi ideologists).this is just a tip of the ice-berg about the ideology which permits killing even civilians for simply being non-muslims or even muslims from other school of thought (as the shia) who are deemed heretics:

Ideology and Goals
The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).

Al-Qaeda's ideology, often referred to as "jihadism," is marked by a willingness to kill "apostate" —and Shiite—Muslims and an emphasis on jihad. Although "jihadism" is at odds with nearly all Islamic religious thought, it has its roots in the work of two modern Sunni Islamic thinkers: Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb.

Al-Wahhab was an 18th-century reformer who claimed that Islam had been corrupted a generation or so after the death of Mohammed. He denounced any theology or customs developed after that[b] as non-Islamic[/b], including more than 1,000 years of religious scholarship. He and his supporters took over what is now Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism remains the dominant school of religious thought.

Sayyid Qutb, a radical Egyptian scholar of the mid-20th century, declared Western civilization the enemy of Islam, denounced leaders of Muslim nations for not following Islam closely enough, and taught that jihad should be undertaken not just to defend Islam, but to purify it.

Read more: Al-Qaeda — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html#ixzz1LILcSHJ1

Lagosboy:

I really do not like to engage you in discussions as I am sorry to say but you appear to lack the neccessary intellectual analytical depth for us to agree on anything. I dont debate to win but debate to meet at a common ground if it is possible and if not so be it.

All the above is not needed because I never said anything close to or justifying the killing of innocents so please spare me your emotional outburst. All i am saying is Al Qaeda is different from Wahabism or Saudi Salafism period.

This is the problem i have with you, you cannot understand the core message i am trying to pass across. You act and post like a robot that has been programmed to post  certain things regardless of what the other person is saying. I am not here to talk about Saudi govt or puppet scholars. Alli said and i am saying is Al qaeda ideology is different to Wahabism as we know it or Salafism. If Saudi wahabism was same with Al qaedas ideology why will they tag usama as a non muslim ? Why would they refuse his body? Why will the saudi scholars be fighting the Al qaeda idology in KSA. This is just simple logic dude! Take a break from all the shia message against wahabism. I am not Wahabbi  and i disagree with many of the wahabi school views but as a muslim i dont resort to cheap lies or propaganda.

This is the again the problem you have, "if it is not black then it is white" . Where in my post have i been supporting whabbis killing innocents. Only if you will think outside the box that the fact that a person is calling your attention to be fair in castigating others does not mean he supports them.

Read through my many posts on this section and you will see my numerous posts against the Saudi regime and saudi govt scholars. However, my disagreement does not mean i will attribute what is not theirs to them.

ALQAEDA IDEOLOGY IS DIFFERETENT TO WAHABISM OR SAUDI SALAFISM.

Well Said!

LagosShia:

just a little insight which can be extensively backed into the wahhabi (salafist) ideology of alqaeda which is based upon the teachings of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahab,Ibn Taymiyyah and Sayyed Qutb (wahhabi ideologists).this is just a tip of the ice-berg about the ideology which permits killing even civilians for simply being non-muslims or even muslims from other school of thought (as the shia) who are deemed heretics:

Ideology and Goals
The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).

Al-Qaeda's ideology, often referred to as "jihadism," is marked by a willingness to kill "apostate" —and Shiite—Muslims and an emphasis on jihad. Although "jihadism" is at odds with nearly all Islamic religious thought, it has its roots in the work of two modern Sunni Islamic thinkers: Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb.

Al-Wahhab was an 18th-century reformer who claimed that Islam had been corrupted a generation or so after the death of Mohammed. He denounced any theology or customs developed after that[b] as non-Islamic[/b], including more than 1,000 years of religious scholarship. He and his supporters took over what is now Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism remains the dominant school of religious thought.

Sayyid Qutb, a radical Egyptian scholar of the mid-20th century, declared Western civilization the enemy of Islam, denounced leaders of Muslim nations for not following Islam closely enough, and taught that jihad should be undertaken not just to defend Islam, but to purify it.

Read more: Al-Qaeda — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html#ixzz1LILcSHJ1

@LAgosshia

Please this will inshallah be my last response to you on the thread. We are having a relious discussion and as a muslim
the best place to reference for the definition of Wahabism and aqeedah is "infoplease.com" . This sums up my pereception of you.

Ibn Abdul Wahab RA and Ibn Tayimiyyah RA and even Sayyid Qutb RA could you please quote me a reference from their books where it is stated that innocent could be killed and murdered.

The fact that a group of people try to lay claims to a scholar does not mean the scholar sanctions their actions. Sayyid Qutbs ideology of replacing Jahliyyah sysytem with islamic system is no different from Imams khomeinis ideology of replacing a tyrant by islamic system. Sayyid Qutb said you could use a voilent means if neccessary, Imam Khomeinii used a voilent revolution against the shah.

I dont want to go down into a sectarian discussion bro as i dont have the time and energy.

Bottom line is the ideology of killing innocents is not in any of the works of these scholars. Salafi ideology is islamic ideology albeit we differ with it but we have to respect their opinion on issues. All the Salafi scholars i know within and outside Saudi have all spoken against Al qaeda.

In Egypt we dont have wahabism but we have people who share Al qaedas belief and are in no way salafi. Bro, in social science there are what we call multi spetra and multi faceted issues. We have to analyse issues indiviually and not lump groups together. It is only in the western media they tag al qaeda wahabism and wahabism equaling al qaeda. A muslim that does the same without analysing or understanding it is plain wrong.

Wahabism is term created by the opponenents of the teachings of Ibn abdul Wahab nothing more

first of all brother "Lagosboy",you have refrained from explaining to us the differences between alqaeda's ideology and the ideology of the wahhabis aka salafism.you said they are different.but you have not told us how different they are.please do if you can.

Lagosboy:

@LAgosshia

Please this will inshallah be my last response to you on the thread. We are having a relious discussion and as a muslim
the best place to reference for the definition of Wahabism and aqeedah is "infoplease.com" . This sums up my pereception of you.

examine the message not the messenger.

, O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.[Holy Quran 49:6]

Ibn Abdul Wahab RA and Ibn Tayimiyyah RA and even Sayyid Qutb RA could you please quote me a reference from their books where it is stated that innocent could be killed and murdered.

I dont want to go down into a sectarian discussion bro as i dont have the time and energy.

Bottom line is the ideology of killing innocents is not in any of the works of these scholars. Salafi ideology is islamic ideology albeit we differ with it but we have to respect their opinion on issues. All the Salafi scholars i know within and outside Saudi have all spoken against Al qaeda.

let us see if it is true that wahhabi/salafi doctrines by the founder(s) do not propagate killing innocent people based on their beliefs contrary to the Quranic verse which says "there shall be no compulsion in religion" (2:256) and "And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve (Holy Quran 18:29)


brother Lagosboy,i will start by giving you examples from the works of Ibn Taymiyyah since he preceeds both Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahab and Sayyed Qutb and the works of Ibn Taymiyyah are the basis for wahhabism:

First Ibn Taimiyah’s Fatwa - Those that reject Allah (swt)’s sitting on a throne should be executed

Ibn Taimiyah cascades the following teachings in his esteemed book Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 5, page 391:
"Imam Aba Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Khuzaima said: ‘Whoever does not admit that Allah is sitting on a throne above the seventh sky, is a Kafir and his blood must be shed. He must be made to repent. Otherwise his neck must be struck and thrown into the garbage.’'


Second Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa - Those that reject that Allah (swt) will be seen in the next world should be executed

We read in Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 6 page 500:
"Aba Abdillah said: ‘Whoever claims that Allah cannot be seen (by eye sight) in the hereafter, is a Kafir and has rejected Quran and replied Allah (sw). He must be made to repent. Otherwise he should be killed".

Third Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa - Those that recite Niya loudly during Salat should be executed

Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 22 page 236:
"To recite the intention (niya) loudly is not permissible according to the Muslim scholars, nor did the Prophet (s), Caliphs or Sahaba, Salaf or Imams perform it. Whoever claims it is Wajib, he must be taught the law and then to repent from that opinion. If he insists on it then he must be killed".


Fourth Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – You can kill or enslave your opponents

We read in Al-Seyasa al-Shari'a by ibn Taimiyah, page 159:
"Therefore the "Shari'a" ("divine law" ) made the killing of the disbelievers obligatory, but didn’t make obligatory the killing of those who are captured during fights or other than fights such as falling from a ship or getting lost or kidnapped. Thus, the imam decided that the best option is to be killed or enslaved".

Fifth Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – Those that don’t believe that Allah (swt) physically spoke to Musa (as) and Jibril (as) should be executed

Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 12 page 502:
Sheikh al-Islam, may Allah's mercy be upon him was asked:
"A man says that Allah didn’t talk to Musa by Himself but He created a voice from the tree’s side and Musa (as) heard from the tree not from Allah and also Allah didn’t talk to Gabriel by the Quran, but he (Gabriel) took it from the Guarded Tablet. Is he right or not?

He answered:
Praise to Allah, he is not right, nay, he is misguided and a liar according to the agreement of Salaf and the Imams. Nay he is a Kafir and must repent or otherwise be killed".

Sixth Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – Those that believe that a traveler can perform the complete Salat should be executed

Majmo’a al-Fatawa, Volume 22 page 31:
"Who ever said that the traveler has to pray four raka, hence he is as the one who say that the traveler has to fast in Ramadhan, both of these (opinions) are misguidance, and contrary to the ijma of Muslims, the one who say it must to repent, if he doesn’t he must be killed".

Seventh Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – Those that believe that Qur’an is created should be executed

"Nay it is known from the Salaf Imams that Takfir be issued against anyone that says that Quran is created he must repent or otherwise be killed".

Eighth Ibn Taimiyah Fatwa – Those that believe in adherence to a particular Imam should be executed

“Anyone who believes that the people have to follow one particular Imam amongst those Imams not the others, must made to repent otherwise be killed”

Nineth Ibn Taimiyah actually killed those who disagreed with him

"We read in Al-Uqood al-Duria by Ibn Abdulhadi al-Maqdisi, Volume 1 page 197:
Sheikh Taqi al-Deen may Allah be pleased with him marched to Kerwanin in the beginning of Dulhujja in year 704 H and in his company was the prince Qaraqush.

Prince Jamal al-Deen al-Afram the deputy of the kingdom marched with the rest of soldiers of Damascus in the month of Muharam, in the year 705 H to invade them and exterminate them, and before he marched, there were some troops which had marched before him.

Thursday in 17th of Dulhujja, the deputy and soldiers arrived at Damascus after Allah granted them victory over the error party of Rafidah, Nusairia and those who held false beliefs. And Allah exterminated them from that lands, praise to Allah the Lord of worlds".


And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve (Holy Quran 18:29)

There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; (Holy Quran 2:256)

Contrary to this, ibn Taimiyah authored a single volume book "al-Sarem al-Maslool" comprising of 438 pages wherein he used:

-The word (kill) 978 times

-The word 'kafir' 56 times

-The word 'tourture' 48 times

-The word 'murtad' (apostate) 34 times

-The words 'his blood must be shed' 14 times

-The word 'behead' 8 times

-The word 'war' 7 times

In Egypt we dont have wahabism but we have people who share Al qaedas belief and are in no way salafi. Bro, in social science there are what we call multi spetra and multi faceted issues. We have to analyse issues indiviually and not lump groups together. It is only in the western media they tag al qaeda wahabism and wahabism equaling al qaeda. A muslim that does the same without analysing or understanding it is plain wrong.

Wahabism is term created by the opponenents of the teachings of Ibn abdul Wahab nothing more

brother,the biggest problem is the fact that wahhabis disguise as "ahlus-sunnah wal-jama'a (i.e. sunnis) and then spread their poisonous ideas amond sunnis.that is how extremism and un-islamic teachings that call for killing others spreads as you can see from the fatwas of Ibn Taymiyyah.

The fact that a group of people try to lay claims to a scholar does not mean the scholar sanctions their actions. Sayyid Qutbs ideology of replacing Jahliyyah sysytem with islamic system is no different from Imams khomeinis ideology of replacing a tyrant by islamic system. Sayyid Qutb said you could use a voilent means if neccessary, Imam Khomeinii used a voilent revolution against the shah.

to rise up against tyrants and oppression is part and parcel of islam.islam teaches us against injustice and to fight oppression and tyranny.that was perfectly exemplified when Imam Hussain (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) rise against the tyrant,Yazeed.to shock you,the wahhabis see yazeed as a legitimate ruler and believe Imam Hissain was wrong to have risen against yazeed.so if Ayatollah Khomeini rise up against the shah,it was justified.Ayatollah Khomeini is shia who see Imam Hussain (as) as his role model.wahhabis see the tyrant yazeed as legitimate-see here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98bK3V7JNfY .Ayatollah Khomeini led a revolution without passing takfir on anyone.and honestly Ayatollah Khomeini was not the man who started the revolution.the people did and he later returned from exile to lead his people.

on the other hand,the wahhabi teachings and even sunnis do forbid anyone from rising against the ruler.the only way the wahhabis justify rising up against the ruler is by passing takfir.

you surely do remember my article in the OP of this thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-616702.0.html

@OP, great piece! It closely reflects my view as well.

"A New Analysis of Wahhabi Doctrines"-by Muhammad Husayn Ibrahimi

http://www.al-islam.org/new-analysis-wahhabi-doctrines/

Al-Azhar and Sufi Leaders Condemn Salafis

At Hussein Mosque on Wednesday, Al-Azhar and Sufi leaders lashed out at the Salafis and accused them of tarnishing Islam.

“They know nothing of true Islam,” said Hassan al-Shafay, member of the Islamic Research Academy. “They only know of growing beards and marrying four women.”

Al-Azhar University Professor Ahmed Rabie opined that Salafism should be combated with moderate Sufism.

“Salafis want to bring the Muslim nations back to the days of sectarian strife,” said Sufi Sheikh Mohamed Ibrahim.

http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/425744

Salafists Challenge al-Azhar for Ideological Supremacy in Egypt

Publication: Terrorism Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 35
September 16, 2010 04:36 PM
By: Hani Nasira


Having emerged from a period of religiously inspired terrorist violence in the 1990s, Egypt has since been regarded as a regional bulwark against Islamist militancy in the Arab Middle East. However, a new ideological struggle is emerging between the religious scholars of Cairo’s al-Azhar University (Sunni Islam’s preeminent institution of scholarship and religious rulings) and Egypt’s growing Salafist movement, largely concentrated in the Mediterranean coastal city of Alexandria.

Recently, al-Azhar’s Shaykh (leader) equated the threat posed by Salafism to the danger posed to Islam by secularism, Marxism and Christian missionaries. Views expressed in a recent interview with current al-Azhar Shaykh Dr. Ahmad al-Tayeb were only one indication of the ongoing conflict between al-Azhar and Salafist movements in Egypt, especially with the attempts of al-Tayeb to revive al-Azhar's role as a central and effective player in the management and guidance of religious affairs not only in Egypt but throughout the Islamic world (al-Ahram Daily, July 10; al-Ahram Weekly, August 19-25). The interview included harsh criticism of the Wahhabi-based Salafist currents, with al-Tayeb declaring a campaign against Salafism, which he deems alien to Egypt and funded by foreign countries. Describing Salafists and their activities, al-Tayeb said, "In the absence of al-Azhar's role, Salafists and other foreign sects have become active, with Wahhabism trying to fill the vacuum, leading to the spread of Saudi fiqh [religious jurisprudence] at the expense of moderate fiqh.”

Raising the Ire of the Salafists

Al-Tayeb's interview provoked commentary from Salafist internet forums in Egypt, with one activist angrily stating, "How could you (al-Tayeb) put what you called Wahhabists in the same sentence with anti-Islam people like Christian missionaries and Marxists?" [2] Another activist in the same forum called al-Tayeb’s remarks a war on the rising Salafist currents in Egypt "expected from [an] al-Azhar Shaykh with Sufist inclinations." The activists further described both al-Tayeb and Egypt's Mufti, Dr. Ali Goma'a, as "advocates of turbaned scholars," whose popularity is diminishing compared to the rising fame of Salafist shaykhs such as the Alexandria School figures and Shaykhs Muhammad Hassan, Abu Ishaq al-Hoyaini and Muhammad Hussein Yaqub. [3] That argument deepened so much so that some rumored about al-Tayeb’s plan to expel scholars with Salafist inclinations from al-Azhar University. Al-Tayeb, however, denied that would be the case (al-Osbou Weekly, July 29).

It is vital here to point out that this was not the first time al-Tayeb has attacked Salafists since assuming his post as al-Azhar Grand Shaykh on March 19, 2010. He launched a scathing attack on them during an April interview with al-Arabiya News Channel. Al-Tayeb accused them of sophistry, saying Salafist thinking is alien to Islam, having a pedigree of less than 200 years. Al-Tayeb added during the TV interview that he was "concerned such thinking might spread in Egypt, as al-Azhar and moderate thinking dominate Islamic life in Egypt” (al-Arabiya, April 2).

The 200-year reference refers to the Wahhabist movement, which is the origin of all Salafist currents in Egypt and the Muslim world at large. This reference highlights the historical dispute between Wahhabism and al-Azhar, which has been growing since Ibrahim Pasha (1789-1848), son of Egypt's ruler Muhammad Ali Pasha and one of the most formidable generals of his time, destroyed the capital of the Wahhabists in the Arabian Peninsula in 1818 and captured Saudi rulers and scholars of Wahhabism, sending some of them into exile in Egypt and others to the Ottoman capital of Istanbul. [4]

It is safe to say that the relationship between al-Azhar and the Salafists has been antagonistic since the beginning. In the 1930s al-Azhar teachers expelled Saudi student Abdallah al-Qusaymi (died 1994) for Wahhabist inclinations and criticism of one of al-Azhar’s scholars. Until the early 1970s, there was only one Salafist scholar teaching at the Faculty of Theology at al-Azhar University. Shaykh Professor Muhammad Khalil Harras (died 1975) was the first Salafist to present a Ph.D. thesis to al-Azhar University’s then Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah (1263-1328), an inspiration to the Salafist movement. Harras was also head of the Salafist Ansar al-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyah Society (founded 1926) for some time and also worked as a teacher in Saudi Arabia. Harras was one of Ayman al-Zawahiri's direct mentors, as mentioned by al-Qaeda's second-in-command himself in his work The Aquittal, wherein Bin Laden's lieutenant said he used to visit Harras constantly in al-Gharbiya Governorate in Egypt's Delta. [5]

Mapping Salafism in Egypt

Salafist expansion in Egypt was not feasible before the late 1970s. But the so-called “Islamist Awakening” following the 1967 Arab defeat at the hands of Israel saw some Egyptian youth, especially in Alexandria, following the teachings of Saudi scholars and advocates of Wahhabism, while focusing on following in the footsteps of the Salaf, the “pious ancestors” (i.e. the first three generations of Islam). Other influences include the works of Ibn Taymiyyah on the principle of tawhid (the unity of God) and the teachings of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his successors.  The core message of these teachings seeks to purge Islamic faith of Ash’ari theologies, the Sufist sanctification of saints and the practice of visiting graves of holy men in search of intercession. The movement is committed to fighting doctrines and sects with messages believed to be deviant in the view of the Wahhabists. [6]

The leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, after being released from prison in the late 1970s, were able to contain many of the youth radicalized by the Islamic Awakening in Cairo and Minya, attracting them to the ranks of the Brotherhood instead. The case in Alexandria was different, however, as the Islamist youth there refused to join the Muslim Brotherhood, deemed too moderate and Ash’ari-based by the radical youth. The same happened with the newly born jihadist brigades represented by the founders of al-Gama'a al-Islamiya (GI - Egyptian Islamic Group) in Upper Egypt and the jihadist group, led by Muhammad Abd al-Salam Farag, that assassinated President Anwar al-Sadat in 1981.

While the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadists share the same goal of establishing an Islamic state and applying Shari'a, the main concern of the Salafists is correcting the Islamic faith and purging from it heresies and practices alien to Islam. Salafist youth have sought religious knowledge at the hands of Salafist preachers in Saudi Arabia (Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, Muhammad bin Saleh ibn Othaymein, Rabie' bin Hadi al-Madkhali, Abd al- Rahman al-Barak, etc), in Jordan (Nasredeen al-Albany) and in Yemen (Muqbil bin Hady al-Wadi'y). Books written by Salafist scholars have been supported by the Saudi government to the extent that some works are given away for free.

The imprisonment of jihadists in Egypt during the 1990s and the constant search of the Muslim Brotherhood for political gains have given the latter movement the chance to expand its presence and gain more ground across the country, especially in the northern and middle governorates. The presence of Salafists in Upper Egypt is still weak due to the strong domination of Sufism there.

The Salafist presence in Egypt has been further cemented lately through Salafist religious satellite channels such as al-Rahma (Mercy), al-Annas (People), al-Majd (Glory), al-Hikmah (Wisdom) and al-Fajr (Dawn). [7] In addition, Salafists have been using other methods including establishing mosque-based social groups with a Salafist nature, such as the Ansar al-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyah Society, founded in 1926 by Shaykh Muhammad Hamid al-Fiqy (1892-1959), and al-Gam'ia al-Shar'ia, established by Shaykh Mahmoud Khattab al-Sobky in 1912.

However, the most remarkable emergence of Egyptian Salafists affected by Saudi Wahhabism occurred in Alexandria in the late 1970s when the Alexandrian Salafist School was established, with some of the most prominent Salafist scholars in Egypt hailing from it. Some of these scholars are students of the Wahhabi call in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, including Shaykhs Muhammad bin Ismail al-Moqaddim, Yasser Burhamy, Sa’id Abd al-Azeem, Ahmad Farid and Abd al-Moneim al-Shahhat. [8] These scholars have been taught by shaykhs such as Yemen’s Muqbil bin Hady al-Wadi'y and Saudi Arabia’s Abd al-Aziz Ibn Baz and Muhammad bin Saleh bin Othaymein.

Additionally, individual Salafist advocates, such as Abu Ishaq al-Hoyaini, have also been active in spreading Salafist theories throughout Egypt. Al-Hoyaini studied under the late Shaykh Nasrideen al-Albany (died 1999), considered one of the pillars of the contemporary Salafist call, with many Salafist schools in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen bearing his mark and following his teachings. [9] Al-Hoyaini is the most famous among al-Bany’s followers in Egypt.


Other individual Salafists include Shaykh Muhammad Hassan and Muhammad Hussein Yaqub, both very famous preachers in Egypt, with experience in teaching and preaching in some Gulf countries. [10]

One of the leading Salafist currents in Egypt is based on the thought of Saudi Shaykhs Muhammad Aman al-Gamy and Rabei' bin Hadi al-Madkhali. This current believes in absolute obedience to political authority and rejects political activities by religious groups, especially the Muslim Brotherhood. Advocates of this current, concentrated in the Mediterranean coast Buhayra Governorate, criticize Islamic political movements and attack their practices and beliefs. Prominent within that current is Shaykh Mahmoud Lotfi Amer, head of the local Ansar al-Sunnah branch.

Conclusion

Naturally, all the Salafists have rejected the criticism of the Shaykh al-Azhar. In general, we may summarize the Salafists’ own criticism of al-Azhar under three headings:

• Al-Azhar adopts the Ash’ari doctrine and rejects the Salafist doctrine.

• Some of al-Azhar's Shaykhs have Sufist inclinations, notably the current Grand Shaykh (al-Tayeb).

• The (limited) tolerance of religious minorities such as the Christians and Shi’a, as reflected in the authorization given by the late Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut (Shaykh al-Azhar, 1958-1963) for the Shiite Ja'afary doctrine to be taught at al-Azhar alongside the four Sunni doctrines and the fatwa issued by the late Shaykh al-Tantawy legalizing donations by Muslims for churches. [11]

For the above reasons, Salafists refuse to acknowledge al-Azhar as the supreme Sunni institution of religious scholarship. They even call on al-Azhar to abandon the Ash'ari doctrine and espouse the Salafist doctrine in response to al-Tayeb's criticism of Salafists. [12] Some individual Salafists, like al-Hoyaini, have attacked the institution harshly, describing al-Azhar as "dead" because of the actions and behaviors of the late and current shaykhs. [13] All in all, Salafist advocates and activists are furious at al-Tayeb's statements, declaring that such criticism is only another ring in the chain of war against Islam and Salafism, whose influence is growing in Egypt.

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=36865&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=5431f73fbc

tbaba1234:

Reflections of my own view!!

Thoughts on the Death of Osama Bin Laden by Shaykh Yasir Qadhi

Osama bin Laden is dead.

And once again, in this Manichean good-versus-evil, us-versus-them, black-versus-white, world that we are told we live in, we are expected to take ‘sides’, and either jump for jingoistic joy as we thump our chests screaming, ‘USA! USA!’, or else mourn the death of a ‘martyr’.

And once again, many people, myself included, will have to take a deep sigh and wonder whether we can ever successfully explain, to an increasingly polarized world, the complexity of our stances and the nuances of our positions.

The fact of the matter is, contrary to what both bin Laden and his one-time nemesis Bush propagated, we don’t live in a stark black-and-white world. We live in a very colorful, very multi-faceted world. Because I refuse to see everything in black-and-white, my position is neither one of sorrow nor one of elation.

It is not one of sorrow because I never viewed bin Laden as someone worthy of my reverence. He was a reactionary who lacked wisdom and who had no long-term vision. His response to Western imperialism was a visceral rage expressed in the language of a false pseudo-jihad – an understanding of ‘jihad’ that he himself invented, and not one that the trained scholars of our glorious religion shared with him. He helped formulate and propagate ideas that caused more bloodshed in Muslim lands, and more civil war, than any non-Muslim invasion in the last decade. Suicide bombers claiming allegiance to him cheerfully bombed men, women and children in bazaars in Baghdad, in shrines in Karachi, in sky-scrapers in New York, and in markets in Kabul.

Through his rhetoric of takfir, hundreds of people who were deemed ‘co-operating’ with the enemy were considered permissible to slaughter, and if a few thousand innocent bystanders needed to be killed in order to get to those handful, so be it. This was to be a permissible form of ‘collateral damage’ – one that seems to provoke only a fraction of the ire from those who harp on and on about Western collateral damage. (For the record, both are evil, and both need to be condemned; and again for the record, the ‘collateral damage’ of Muslim extremists groups is far more severe than the ‘collateral damage’ caused by Western drone attacks). His death was expected, for his own words and deeds called for action against him from a powerful military and a mighty country.

So I feel no personal grief at his death. After all, he was already largely irrelevant in the Arab and Muslim world. What good did all of his fiery rhetoric ever do for the Palestinians he claimed to have been fighting for? And what impact did he have amongst the Arab masses as they all rallied together (and continue to do so) against their brutal dictators? From the alleyways of Benghazi to the maydans of Cairo, and from the mosques of Damascus to the streets of Sana, not one protestor waved the flag of Osama or chanted slogans of al-Qaeda. It was the people who brought about real change, not Osama with his anti-American rage and calls for violence.

Yet, I cannot cheer his death either. Why?

Firstly, because the intentional taking of another human life is not a cause for cheering. Even if a murderer is legitimately executed (qisas) by the State for his crimes, it is not in our religion to rejoice at such a death; therefore how much more so when the death was caused in this fashion? (By this I mean that I would have preferred a live capture and public trial – but then again, at this stage we do not know the circumstances of his death).

Secondly, those who looked up to bin Laden for inspiration were not motivated to become suicide bombers and radical terrorists because bin Laden managed to brainwash them. The grievances that all such radicals recite are political and social (I have discussed these in other articles at length). Bin Laden was but a figurehead, and his death will actually feed into the whole martyrdom mythology that these movements weave around themselves. As Jeremy F. Walton, professor of Religious Studies at NYU, wrote on his blog today,


“I do not mean to denigrate the persistent grief of the families of 9/11 victims, or, for that matter, the pain that countless Americans continue to experience when they recall or witness the indelible images of that infamous Tuesday morning. But make no mistake: last night’s celebrators, and all those whom they represent, have no comprehension of the political history, quotidian violence, and post-colonial frustration over increasing global inequities—to gesture to but a few factors—that made Osama bin Laden and his network possible. Political theorist Mahmood Mamdani, for one, has vigorously argued that a reckoning of the American role in the creation of jihadist violence during the Cold War is indispensable to understanding al-Qaeda itself. Acknowledgement of this neglected political history is even more crucial in the wake of bin Laden’s death.”

Therefore, the real question for me is not whether we should rejoice or not. The real questions are far more profound and difficult to answer.

Now that we have killed bin Laden, will his death extinguish his ideas and truly make the world a safer place?

Now that we have killed bin Laden, will the anger that millions of people around the world feel towards our foreign policy simply dissipate into thin air?

Now that we have killed bin Laden, will that justify the trillions of dollars that we have spent on our two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hundreds of thousands of dead since 9/11?

Now that we have killed bin Laden, will our infamous ‘War on Terror’ finally come to an end, and will we discontinue drone attacks in far-away lands and draconian policies back home? (And on that note: can we finally travel with our toothpaste and without having to be sexually assaulted by TSA officials?!)

Now that we have killed bin Laden, will the hysteria being propagated by the Right and the Islamophobia that is rampant across Europe and America subside?

Now that we have killed bin Laden, will we start concentrating on far more important domestic and international issues?

I guess the bottom line is: now that we have killed bin Laden, has status quo really changed all that much?

I don’t have answers to all of these questions, but these are the questions that need to be asked before we rush to celebrate his death or, as some overzealous Muslims are doing, label him a shahid. (And on a theological note, I remind our readers that only Allah assigns Heaven and Hell to anyone, so let us not challenge this right of Allah by proclaiming anything about any individual’s fate in the Hereafter).

It took America – the most powerful and technologically advanced country on earth – a full ten years to find this one man. How great it would have been if we had managed to capture the perpetrators of 9/11 back then! But our own reactions to 9/11 created a whole list of new issues, both domestic and international, that the killing of bin Laden will not solve. And to make matters even worse, in that decade a new generation, a young generation, has come of age – a generation for whom 9/11 evokes barely a memory. For this young generation, the death of bin Laden does little to solve its own problems.

If we have learned anything from the Arab protestors across the Middle East, it is that change has to begin from within, and the best way to fight for the change that you believe in – even if that fight be against powerful regimes – is through nonviolent means. Killing your enemies doesn’t solve problems; working proactively and productively to gain the world’s sympathy when clear injustices have been committed does.

A blogger friend of mine wrote that it is as if America is playing a game of chess with a small group of radical Muslims. We are not playing this game ourselves, for we are spectators. We understand both players very well, and both have made ridiculous moves in the past that have caused many unnecessary pieces to be lost.

America has just made its latest move.

‘Check!’

everything that needed to be said was said here. there was no need for anyone else to comment.