Foorumin päävalikko
RekisteröidyHakuOhjeKäyttäjälistaKäyttäjäryhmätKirjaudu sisään
The Last Works of Anwar al-Awlaqi (or al-Awlaki)

Vastaa viestiin Foorumin päävalikko » Islam Näytä edellinen aihe
Näytä seuraava aihe
The Last Works of Anwar al-Awlaqi (or al-Awlaki)
Kirjoittaja Viesti
Abdullah Rintala

Liittynyt: 05 Kes 2010
Viestejä: 479

Lähetä The Last Works of Anwar al-Awlaqi (or al-Awlaki) Vastaa lainaamalla viestiä

These are a collected late known works by 'Anwar al-Awlaki -Rahiimahullah- who has helped Muslims worldwide in sincerity and conviction in Islam. One of the most remarkarble explanators of Siirah of Allah's Messenger (S) and Rightly-guided Caliphs, a vital opponent of World Orders of Taaghuut, lifestyles of baatil and eventually a mujahid against these vanities, he has brought the classic and contemporary jihadi scholars in the interest of a muslim youth today. A brother with strong eemaan in Tawheed, never even thinking to approve anything outside of the Kitaab and Sunnah, a never resting da'ii, always in attendance of Ummah in mosques, recordings, videos, writings and through satellite phones.

al-Awlaqi, an US citizen never suspected or convicted of any crime anywhere, left our world in a US drone attack -named in a khaariji manner as 'Hellfire' representing a Christian hostility- in Yemen in Shawwal 1432 (September 2011).

In an attempted US drone attacks last summer to take his life, he was refering jokingly to it saying 'It looks as someone was a bit angry with us this evening.'

These writings appeared in al-Malahim publications during 1431-1432 corresponding 2010-2011. Unfortunately extremely difficult to obtain (almost impossible), racing in time with Hypocritical Internet Adiministrators and "Anti-Terror Internet Intelligence," there is no reason to leave these writings by al-Awlaqi without attendance of the Ummah. The Upcoming al-Awlaqi Study announced a week before assasination, entitled "Targeting the Populations of Countries at War with the Muslims" has not been published.

Wa Salama.



Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki

If you have the right to slander the Messenger of Allah we have
the right to defend him, If it is part ofyour freedom of speech to defame
Muhammad it is part of our religion to fight you.

I would like to express my thanks to my brothers at Inspire for inviting me to
write the main article for the first issue of their new magazine. I would also
like to commend them for having this subject, the defense of the Messenger
of Allah, as the main focus of this issue.

This effort, the effort of defending the Messenger of Allah, should
not be limited to a particular group of Muslims such as the mujahidiin but
should be the effort of the ummah, the entire ummah. This is an issue that
should unite the efforts of the Muslims worldwide.

When I delivered a lecture in defense of the Messenger of Allah almost
two years ago, I anticipated that the cartoon controversies along with the
Muslim response to them were not going to be some isolated incidents that
would just fade away. My prediction was that the West
would continue escalating its attacks and would only
entrench itself deeper into blasphemy. I expected this,
because the hatred the West holds towards Islam and the
Prophet of Islam is a smoldering fire only waiting for
an opportunity, a chance, to vent itself through a "proper"
channel within the boundaries set by Western laws and

Outrageous slander, blatant smearing of Muhammad,
desecration of the Qur'an, and the insulting of over a
billion Muslims worldwide are done under the pretext of
"freedom of speech". They are never called what they really
are: a deeply rooted historic hatred for Islam and Muslims.
Yesterday it was in the name of Christianity; today it
is in the name of Democracy.

Allah says: (Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what
their breasts conceal is greater) [al- Imran: 1 18].
For these reasons, for this combined effect of an escalating
problem, I gave my lecture the title, The dust will never
settle down.

Today, two years later, the dust still hasn't settled down. In
fact the dust cloud is only getting bigger.
Whenever the affair calms down, someone somewhere in
the Western world is sure to flare it up again. From 2005
onwards the cycle of offense is unabated.

What the West is failing to realize is that these attacks are
also serving as a mobilizing factor for the Muslims and are
bringing more and more Muslims to the realization that
jihad against the West is the only realistic solution for this
problem along with a host of other problems that cannot
be cured without fighting in the path of Allah.

Muslims do love Muhammad and do want to defend
his honor and their methods of doing so are varying.
Muslims protested and demonstrated worldwide. They
burned flags and struck effigies. They boycotted products
manufactured by some of the countries involved. All of
these acts of good were a manifestation of the solidarity
of Muslims in defense of the Messenger of Allah. On
the other hand, there were some completely misguided
efforts such as those of some of the callers to Islam who
paid a visit to Denmark along with young Muslim boys
and girls to start a dialogue in order to build bridges of
understanding between the Muslims and the people of

It is not enough to have the intention of doing good. One
must do good in the proper way. So what is the proper
solution to this growing campaign of defamation?
The medicine prescribed by the Messenger of Allah g£ is
the execution of those involved. A soul that is so debased,
as to enjoy the ridicule of the Messenger of Allah,the
mercy to mankind; a soul that is so ungrateful towards
its Lord that it defames the Prophet of the religion Allah
3ft has chosen for his creation does not deserve life, does
not deserve to breathe the air created by Allah and
enjoy a life provided for by Allah. Their proper abode is

The Messenger of Allah called for the assassination
of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf and there are other incidents of his
companions killing those who spoke against him. There
was a blacklist of names of people in Makkah that were
to be killed even if found hanging on to the clothes of al
Ka'ba, the holiest site in Islam. This list included, among
others, women who sang poetry defaming Muhammad. Even though Muhammad prohibited the killing
of women who are non-combatants, these women were
an exception because of their unprecedented transgression.

There were some Muslim voices giving their interpretations
as to why the US has not been involved in Europe's
expression of hate. For myself it was only a matter of time
before the US joins in. Now America has entered into the
fray with full force. The 20th of May event overshadowed
all what preceded it. America was the one missing link in
the chain. The chain is now full circle. The West has started
this war and it will turn colossal. The West is awakening a
sleeping giant.

We, by the will of Allah will not back down from the defense
of our beloved. We will fight for him, we will instigate,
we will bomb and we will assassinate, and may our
mothers be bereaved of us if we do not rise in his defense.
It is the honor of the best of creation that is at stake and it
is not much to set the world on fire for his sake.
To my Muslim brothers everywhere especially in the West:
When the §ahaba, may Allah be pleased with them, came
back from a successful assassination mission against
one of their enemies, the Prophet gt met them on their
return with a beaming face and said: «May these faces
be successful». Who among you will be of those who will
meet the Messenger of Allah on the Day of Judgment
only to have him smile at you, pleased with your
action, and hand you a drink from al-Kauthar because you
rushed to his defense?

This is a golden opportunity to
have the honor of performing an
act in the service of Islam greater
than any form of jihad. Defending
the Messenger of Allah is a greater cause than fighting
for Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq; it is greater than
fighting for the protection of Muslim life, honor or wealth.
This is the pinnacle of all deeds and is waiting for the likes
of Muhammad bin Maslamah.

A cartoonist out of Seattle, Washington, named Molly
Norris started the"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day".
This snowball rolled out from between her evil fingers.
She should betaken as a prime target of assassination
along with others who participated in her campaign.
This campaign is not a practice of freedom of speech,
but is a nationwide mass movement of Americans joining
their European counterparts in going out of their way
to offend Muslims worldwide. They are expressing their
hatred of the Messenger of Islam through ridicule.
The large number of participants makes it easier for us
because there are more targets to choose from in addition
to the difficulty of the government offering all of
them special protection. But even then our campaign
should not be limited to only those who are active participants.

These perpetrators are not operating in a vacuum. Instead
they are operating within a system that is offering
them support and protection. The government, political
parties, the police, the intelligence services, blogs,
social networks, the media, and the list goes on, are part
of a system within which the defamation of Islam is not
only protected but promoted. The main elements in
this system are the laws that make this blasphemy legal.
Because they are practicing a "right"that is defended
by the law, they have the backing of the entire Western
political system. This would make the attacking of any
Western target legal from an Islamic viewpoint. The entire
Western system is staunchly protecting and promoting
the defamation of Muhammad and therefore, it is the
entire Western system that is at war with Islam. Assassinations,
bombings, and acts of arson are all legitimate forms
of revenge against a system that relishes the sacrilege of
Islam in the name of freedom.

Western freedoms of expression
guarantee the defamation of Islam
but do not guarantee the right
to speak about issues such as the
Holocaust. When the cultural editor
at Jyllands-Posten who posted the Muhammad
cartoons wanted to publish cartoons on the Holocaust,
he was placed on indefinite leave and the editor in chief
of the newspaper said that Jyllands-Posten under no circumstances
would publish the Holocaust cartoons.

Now, with the defamation of Muhammad reaching
the shores of America, I wonder whether the patriotic
American Muslim will still have the audacity to claim
that he enjoys the right to be a Muslim in America? Does
he understand that this right includes his duty to fight
against those who blaspheme his Prophet?

We invite Muslims worldwide to stand up in defense of
the Messenger of Allah and for their efforts to manifest
in all appropriate means.

May Allah make us of those who are honored with
playing a part in the defense of the best of creation,

Summer 1431 - 2010

Viimeinen muokkaaja, Abdullah Rintala pvm Sun Jou 25, 2011 8:47 pm, muokattu 2 kertaa
Sun Jou 25, 2011 3:20 am Näytä käyttäjän tiedot Lähetä yksityinen viesti
Abdullah Rintala

Liittynyt: 05 Kes 2010
Viestejä: 479

Lähetä Vastaa lainaamalla viestiä
Shaykh Anwar's Message to the American people and Muslims in the West

The following is a transcription of the Shaykh's message that was
originally sent to CNN.

All praise is due to Allah and may peace and blessings
be upon His Messenger Muhammad, his family, and his

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance.
To the American people I say:
Do you remember the good old days when Americans
were enjoying the blessings of security and peace?
When the word 'terrorism' was rarely invoked, and when
you were oblivious to any threats? I remember a time
when you could purchase an airline ticket from the
classified section of your local or college newspaper,
and use it even though it was issued to a different
name because no one would bother asking you for an
ID before boarding a plane. No long lines, no elaborate
searches, no body scans, no sniffing dogs, no taking off
your shoes and emptying your pockets.
You were a nation at ease.

But America thought that it could threaten the lives
of others, kill and invade, occupy and plunder, and
conspire without bearing the consequences of its
actions. 9-1 1 was the answer of the millions of people
who suffer from American aggression. And since then
America has not been safe. And nine years after 9-11,9
years of spending, and nine years of beefing up security,
you are still unsafe even in the holiest and most sacred of
days to you, Christmas Day.

So do you expect to transgress against others and yet be
sparred retribution?

Your decision makers: the politicians, the lobbyists, and
the major corporations are the ones gaining from your
foreign policy, and you are the ones paying the price for

Following 9-11, The American people gave George W.
Bush, unanimous backing to fight against the mujahidin,
and gave him a blankcheckto spend as much as needed
to fulfill that objective. The result? He failed, and he failed
miserably. So if America failed to defeat the mujahidin
when it gave its president unlimited support, how can it
win with Obama who is on a short leash? If America failed
to win when it was at its pinnacle of economic strength,
how can it win today with a recession at hand?
The simple answer is: America cannot and will not win.
The tables have turned and there is no rolling back of the
worldwide jihad movement. On the eve of 9-11 it was
Afghanistan alone. Today it is Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq,
Somalia, North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and the list
is growing.

How many body bags are American families willing to
receive? How much more can the US treasury handle?
9-11, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then
operations such as that of our brother Umar al-Faruq
which could have not cost more than a few thousand
dollars end up draining the US treasury billions of dollars
in order to give Americans a false sense of security. For
how long can the US survive this war of attrition? What
benefit is it to the American people to suffer for the
sake of supporting Israel, and what benefit is it to the
American people to suffer for the sake of the al-Saud
family and the gulf monarchs?

Our brother Umar al-Faruq Abdul Muttalib, has
succeeded in breaking through the security systems that
have cost the US government alone, over 40
billion dollars since 9-11.

Obama has promised that his
administration would be one of
transparency. But he has not fulfilled his
promise. His administration, tried to portray
the operation of brother Nidal Hassan,
as an individual act of violence from an estranged
individual. The administration practiced a control on the
leak of information concerning the operation in order
to cushion the reaction of the American public. Until
this moment the administration is refusing to release
the emails exchanged between myself and Nictal. And
after the operation of our brother 'Umar al-Faruq the
initial comments coming from the administration were
looking the same: another attempt at covering up the
truth. But al-Qa'idah cut off Obama from deceiving
the world again, by issuing their statement claiming
responsibility for the operation.

However, we are transparent and open in proclaiming
our message to the world. Our objective is to bring
back Islam to life. We seek to remove the tyrannical and
parasitical rulers of the Muslim world, and replace them
with men of God, who know the difference between
right and wrong, good and evil. We seek to apply the
rule of Qur'an and make the word of Allah 3ft supreme
over all other, and God willing, we will strive to achieve
these goals with all what we posses, and we will fight to
the last man against whoever stands in our way.

We, the Muslims, do not have an inherent animosity
towards any racial group, or ethnicity. We are not against
Americans for just being American; we are against evil,
and America as a whole has turned into a nation of
evil. What we see from America is the invasion of two
Muslim countries, we see Abu Ghraib, Baghram and
Guantanamo bay. We see Cruise missiles and cluster
bombs, and we have just seen in Yemen the death of
23 children and 1 7 women. We cannot stand idly in the
face of such aggression, and we will fight back and incite
others to do the same.

I for one, was born in the US, and lived in the US for
21 years. America was my home. I was a preacher of Islam involved in non-violent
Islamic activism. However, with the
American invasion of Iraq and continued
aggression against Muslims, I could
not reconcile between living in the US and
being a Muslim, and I eventually came to
the conclusion that jihad against America is
binding upon myself, just as it is binding on every other
able Muslim.

Nidal Hassan was not recruited by al-Qaidah; Nidal
Hassan was recruited by American crimes, and this is
what America refuses to admit. America refuses to admit
that its foreign policies are the reason behind a man like
Nictal Hassan, born and raised in the US, turning his guns
against American soldiers. And the more crimes America
commits, the more mujahidfn will be recruited to fight
against it.
The operation of our brother Umar al-Faruq 'Abdul
Muttalib was in retaliation to American cruise missiles
and cluster bombs that killed women and children in

It is true that we are facing the arsenal of the greatest
army on earth with our simple modest means, but
victory is on our side. Victory is on our side because
there is a difference between us and you. We are fighting
for a noble cause. We are fighting for God and you are
fighting for worldly gain. We are fighting for justice
because we are defending ourselves and our families
and you are fighting for imperialistic goals. We are
fighting for truth and justice and you are fighting for
oppression. You have your B52s, your apaches, your
Abrams, and your Cruise missiles and we have small
arms and simple Improvised Explosive Devices, but we
have men who are dedicated and sincere, with hearts of

And blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the

Americans need to stop looking at themselves from
their own lens but look at themselves from the lens of
the world. They will then see the ugly face of America.
America is not despised only by Muslims but by many
millions of people around the world and in America
itself. America may be obstinate in believing that the
animosity of a few million Muslims wouldn't really harm
them. They would say we have the most powerful army
in the world and we have the strongest economy in
the world. But don't you think that such a belief is a bit
outdated? Don't you think that such a belief was more
suitable to days of patriotism that swept over America
following 9-11 than it is now, with the American army
admitting its inability, and the American economy going
through intensive care? But imperial hubris is leading
America to its fate: A war of attrition. A continuous
hemorrhage that would end with the fall and splintering
of the United States of America.

If George W. Bush is remembered by getting America
stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's looking like Obama
wants to be remembered as the president who got
America stuck in Yemen. Obama has already started
his war on Yemen by the aerial bombings of Abyan
and Shabwa. By doing that, he has waged a publicity
campaign for the mujahidfn in Yemen, and within
days accomplished for them the work of years. As the
popularity of the mujahidfn in Yemen skyrocketed, the
popularity of Obama in American plummeted.

The corrupt Yemeni government officials and some of
the tribal chiefs who claim to be your allies are having
a ball these days. The word being passed around
among them is that this is the time to extort the gullible
American. Your politicians, military and intelligence
officers are being milked for millions. They are giving
you big promises and handing you big bills. Welcome to
the world of Yemeni politicians.

I would like to close my message to you with an
invitation to Islam. We were all created by God on this
earth to worship Him, and then after death it is either
Paradise or Hellfire for eternity. So the matter is not one
to take lightly. Jt is your future. I invite you to read the
book of Allah, the Qur'an. You do not have to take
anyone's word for it; decide for yourself whether it is the
truth or not.

To the Muslims in America I have this to say: How
can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful
coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the
tyranny and crimes committed against your own
brothers and sisters? How can you have your loyalty
to a government that is leading the war against Islam
and Muslims?
The Muslim community in America has
been witnessing a gradual erosion and decline in core
Islamic principles, so today many of your scholars and
Islamic organizations are openly approving of Muslims
serving in the US army to kill Muslims, joining the FBI
to spy against Muslims, and are standing between you
and your duty of jihad. Slowly but surely, your situation
is becoming similar to that of the embattled Muslim
community of Spain, after the fall of Granada.
Muslims of the West: take heed and learn from the
lessons of history. There are ominous clouds gathering
in your horizon. Yesterday, America was a land of
slavery, segregation, lynching and Ku Klux Klan. And
tomorrow it will be a land of religious discrimination
and concentration camps.

Do not be deceived by the promises of preserving your
rights from a government that is right now killing your
own brothers and sisters. Today, with the war between
Muslims and the West escalating, you cannot count on
the message of solidarity you may get from a civic group
or a political party, or the word of support you hear
from a kind neighbor or a nice co-worker. The West will
eventually turn against its Muslim citizens.

Hence, my advice to you is this: you have two choices:
either hijra or jihad. You either leave or you fight.
You leave and live among Muslims or you stay behind
and fight with your hand, your wealth and your word.
I specifically invite the youth to either fight in the West
or join their brothers in the fronts of jihad: Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Somalia. I invite them to join the new front,
Yemen, the base from which the great jihad of the
Arabian Peninsula will begin, the base from which the
greatest army of Islam will march forth. The Messenger
of Allah said:«An army of twelve thousand will come
out of Aden-Abyan and they will give victory to Allah
and His Messenger and they are the best between me
and them»

In closing I pray that Allah guides us to the truth and
grants us steadfastness on the Straight Path.
And may peace and blessings be upon His Messenger,
his family and companions.
Sun Jou 25, 2011 3:29 am Näytä käyttäjän tiedot Lähetä yksityinen viesti
Abdullah Rintala

Liittynyt: 05 Kes 2010
Viestejä: 479

Lähetä Vastaa lainaamalla viestiä
The New Mardin Declaration - an Attempt at Justifying New World Order

Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki

This article was written as a refutation of the new Mardin declaration by Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki and completed in April. However due to technical difficulties its publication was delayed.

It is important that we encourage Muslims to respect their scholars. It is to no one’s
benefit to put down the men of knowledge who represent the religion of Allah. But when some
of our scholars - no matter how knowledgeable they are - divert from
the straight path, we the Muslims, need to advise them. Everyone
beyond the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم stands corrected. Umar (may Allah
be pleased with him) asked from the pulpit: “If I divert away from the straight path what would you do?”
One of the companions replied: “We will put you straight with our swords.”
There is another incident were an old woman corrected Umar when he
was speaking. Umar said: “Umar was wrong and the woman was right.”
That is a healthy spirit that Muslims need to develop today. We respect
our scholars, but ours is a principle centered religion; it is not centered
on men. In April 2010, in the city of Mardin, a group of scholars gathered in order to re-interpret the fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah which was in response to a question sent to him pertaining to
the situation of the city of Mardin, where Muslims and non-Muslims lived and, at the time, it was being ruled by non-Muslims.

This gathering included the scholars Hamza Yusuf from the U.S., Abdullah bin Bayyah from Mauritania, Abdul Wahhab at-Tariri from Riyadh, Habib Ali al-Jifri from Yemen and many others.

The scholars meeting in Mardin issued what they dubbed as “The New Mardin Declaration” in which they declared the fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah unsuitable for our times and should
not be used by “extremists to justify violence”.

Following are excerpts from the declaration along with my

It is such a changed context that Ibn Taymiyya took into consideration when passing his fatwa, and that now
makes it imperative that contemporary jurists review the classical classification,
because of the changed contemporary situation: Muslims are now bound by international treaties through which
security and peace have been achieved for the entire humanity, and in which
they enjoy safety and security, with respect to their property, integrity and
Homelands. Has peace really been achieved for the entire humanity? Are Muslims
enjoying security and peace? Or they don’t really matter as long as Western
societies are the ones enjoying it? Are these scholars following the news?
If they think that they are enjoying peace and security, the majority of the ummah think otherwise.
I read the above mentioned statement and it made me ill at ease. I read it and reread it and just couldn’t come into terms with it. Coming from a Western politician such a statement
might be expected, but from a group of “eminent” Muslim scholars? I must say that with all the respect I try to have towards our learned ones, the above statement is an ignominy that would be bad enough if it was blurted out in an impromptu speech let alone a well deliberated and thought-out, written declaration. It is an insolent statement that shows no respect to the sufferings of our ummah. It is a slap on the face of the Palestinian widow and the Afghan orphan. It is disrespectful towards the
millions of Muslims around the globe who are suffering because of the international community which these scholars are crediting for bringing so much “security and peace”.

By such a statement they are not representing the ummah nor are
they reflecting its sentiments. They are speaking for none other than
themselves. Secondly, they claim that Muslims are “bound by international treaties.”
Why are the Muslims bound to them? Who bound them?
The international community they respect so much was born at the funeral of the last Islamic Khilāfah.
The Western powers came into domination after they exterminated the Ottoman Khilāfah and divided it amongst themselves into zones of influence. They destroyed the
Khilāfah, established control over the international community and then came up with these treaties; and we were not there at the table, we had no representation whatsoever, we
were completely and utterly ignored in the decision making process on the world stage. We were not even present at the signing ceremonies. So why are we bound to those
treaties? What kind of fiqh or logic would make such treaties binding
on us? We had no part and no say in any of these treaties. We only have
a presence in the crammed hall of the general assembly of the United
Nations, but not at the Security Council which is still off limits to the
50 plus Muslim states.

It needs to be noted that I am only describing the current state of affairs. By no means should it be understood to be an approval of Muslims states being part of the United Nations.

Probably they should read up a bit and refresh their memories with,
not wars of the past centuries, but the wars fought recently by these particular democratic nations they
are trying to protect. They should remember WWII, the most devastating war man has ever
fought; the war in which the greatest number of soldiers and civilians
ever died. It was also the first war in modern history were the number of
civilians killed was greater than the number of soldiers. About 30 million
soldiers and about 50 million civilians lost their lives in this brutal war.
Then came Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq and Afghanistan. For the last
fifty years the Palestinian dilemma has been a shameful chapter in the
book of humanity. Have we already forgotten the war of the Balkans
where Europe watched in silence the genocide of European Muslims?

So what exactly do they mean by “security and peace have been
achieved for the entire humanity?” Following are the conclusions the scholars have reached:

Ibn Taymiyya’s fatwa concerning Mardin can under no circumstances be appropriated and used as evidence for
leveling the charge of kufr (unbelief ) against fellow Muslims, rebelling
against rulers, deeming game their lives and property, terrorizing those who enjoy safety and security, acting
treacherously towards those who live (in harmony) with fellow Muslims or with
whom fellow Muslims live (in harmony) via the bond of citizenship and peace. On the contrary, the fatwa deems all of that unlawful, not withstanding its original purpose of supporting a Muslim
state against a non-Muslim state. Ibn Taymiyya agrees with all of this, and
follows the precedent of previous Muslim scholars in this regard, and does not deviate from their position. Anyone who seeks support from this fatwa for killing Muslims or non-Muslims has erred in his interpretation and has misapplied the revealed texts.

Overall the language used in this declaration is not that of Islamic
jurisprudence but is more a language of a combination of lawyers and
peace activists. One may understand that out of their desire of brevity
they did not include the textual evidence for their sweeping blanket
statements and conclusions but that wouldn’t be much of a problem if
these conclusions were in line with Islamic law, but they are not.
The statement declares that we cannot level the charge of kufr
against fellow Muslims, we are not allowed to rebel against rulers, and
we are not allowed to terrorize those who enjoy safety and security.
We are not allowed to level the charge of kufr against fellow Muslims,
which is true. But when a Muslim does commit kufr bawaĥ (open unbelief), the charge of kufr does
need to be leveled against him. Muslims should level the charge of
kufr against those whom Allah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم considered as
disbelievers, not more, not less. Concerning the rulers: if they are
Muslim, but oppressive, ahl as-Sunnah have two opinions: the first
is they are allowed to rebel against them and this was what happened
during the early generations: The revolt of al-Hussain against Yazid,
Abdullah bin al-Zubair against Marwan, Abdul Rahman bin al-
Ash'ath against Abdul Malik, Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah and
Zaid bin Ali against the Abbasids.

The second opinion: We are not allowed to rebel against the Muslim
ruler even if he is oppressive and this is the majority view. Our classical
scholars reached this conclusion after studying our early history. Their
view is that the rebellions against the oppressive rulers brought more evil
than the oppression of the rulers. However, and this is the crux of the
matter: If a ruler has committed disbelief then it is obligatory to
revolt against him. This is a matter of consensus among the classical
scholars of ahl as-Sunnah. The declaration goes on to claim
that we may not terrorize those who enjoy safety and security. To
throw out such a blanket statement that we are not allowed to terrorize
those who enjoy safety and security in light of the present state of the
world is another reckless statement. According to these scholars, we the
Muslims are not allowed to terrorize the Israelis, or the Americans, or the
British who are living in safety and security while millions of Muslims
are being terrorized by them. We are told to never mind the insecurity of
the Palestinian or the Chechen or the Kashmiri. Never mind them. We are simply not allowed to terrorize, period.

No. We do not agree with that. We do not agree with that because Allah جل جلاله

{And prepare for them what
you can of strength and steeds of
war that you may terrorize with it
the enemy of Allah and your enemy} [al-Anfāl: 60]

We say that whoever terrorizes us, we will terrorize them and we will do
what we can to strip them of their safety and security as long as they do us the same. They continue:

The classification of abodes in Islamic jurisprudence was a classification based on ijtihād (juristic reasoning) that was necessitated by the circumstances of the Muslim world then and the nature
of the international relations prevalent at that time. However, circumstances
have changed now: The existence of recognized international treaties, which
consider as crimes wars that do not involve repelling aggression or resisting
occupation; the emergence of civil states which guarantee, on the whole,
religious, ethnic and national rights, have necessitated declaring, instead,
the entire world as a place of tolerance and peaceful co-existence between
all religions, groups and factions in the context of establishing common
good and justice amongst people, and wherein they enjoy safety and
security with respect to their wealth, habitations and integrity. This is what
the Shari'ah has been affirming and acknowledging, and to which it has
been inviting humanity, ever since the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) migrated to Madina
and concluded the first treaty/peace agreement that guaranteed mutual
and harmonious co-existence between the factions and various ethnic/race
groups in a framework of justice and common/shared interest. Shortcomings
and breaches perpetrated by certain states that happen to scar and mar this
process cannot and should not be used as a means for denying its validity and
creating conflict between it and the Islamic Shari'ah.

The classification of abodes in Islamic jurisprudence is exactly that:
a classification. It is not some sort of innovative new law. It is simply
a classification based on the many textual references on the subject.

When Ibn Taymiyyah introduced his modified classification, that was based on the new situation of
Muslims living under non-Islamic rule; it was based on this new
circumstance but there was no changing of the rulings and it was
in line with Islamic teachings. It was simply, a change in the classification.
What we are presented with here in this declaration is not merely a
reclassification of abodes, but a thorough revision of usūl (Islamic
principle tenets or foundations) based on a new world order agenda.
“The existence of recognized international treaties…” They are
recognized by the ones who set them and not by us.
“…which consider as crimes wars that do not involve repelling aggression
or resisting occupation.” Not at all. The international community does
not consider the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to be a crime. It does
not consider the Israeli occupation of the land of pre-1967 to be a crime.
Nor does it consider China, India, or Russia as criminals in their respective
occupation of Muslim lands. It does not consider Spain to be criminal
in its occupation of Ceuta and Melilla (let alone considering it to
be criminal for occupying the entire Iberian Peninsula from the Muslims).
So what do they exactly mean by these international treaties?
This declaration is out of touch with the realities on the ground.
When they say: “…the emergence of civil states which guarantee, on the
whole, religious, ethnic and national rights,” The civil states referred to
here have banned the niqab and fiercely defended the right to defame
Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. They allow a very restricted form of personal worship
that does not truly accommodate for the comprehensiveness of
Islamic practice. The civil state has more authority over the wife and
children than the Muslim head of the household. The law of Allah is not
recognized by this civil state and the Muslim is forced to accept rulings of
courts of law that are contrary to the law of Allah. So, on the whole, the
modern civil state of the West does not guarantee Islamic rights.
Also, when they say: “…necessitated declaring, instead, the entire world as
a place of tolerance and peaceful coexistence between all religions,”
Islam can never recognize and live in peaceful co-existence with
worshiping a cow or an idol. Islam does not recognize shirk. Allah has honored us with guidance.
With this honor comes the added responsibility of sharing the light of Allah with the world.
I challenge these scholars to point out to me one - just one - Prophet
of Allah who lived in peaceful coexistence with the disbelievers?
From Adam (peace be upon him) all the way to Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, not one
of them, not a single one, lived with the disbelievers without challenging
them, opposing them and exposing their falsehood and resisting their
ways. Not one of them lived without a conflict with the disbelievers that
ended up with a total and final separation between the two camps:
a camp of belief and a camp of kufr. The disbelievers were then destroyed
either through a calamity or by the hands of the believers.
This is what the Qur’an teaches us about the Prophets. A cursory study
of the Qur’an would solve such confusion over what our relationship
with the kuffār should be like.

Amongst the priorities of Muslim scholars and Islamic academic institutions, there should be the
analysis and assessment of ideas that breed extremism, takfīr (labeling fellow
Muslims as unbelievers) and violence in the name of Islam. Security measures,
no matter how fair and just they may happen to be, cannot take the place
of an eloquent (scholarly) elucidation supported by proof and evidence.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of the ummah’s religious scholars to condemn
all forms of violent attempts-to-change or violent protest, within, or outside, Muslim societies. Such condemnation must be clear, explicit, and be a true manifestation of real courage-inspeaking-
the-truth, so as to eliminate any confusion or ambiguity.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم warned against the khawārij who represented
a manifestation of extremist belief and actions. There are two traits of
the khawārij that stand out: Firstly, they use to accuse Muslims of kufr
based on acts that are considered to be major sins and not acts of
disbelief. They considered the one who commits such sins to be
destined to an eternal punishment in Hellfire. So adultery, fornication,
drinking alcohol, and theft are all sins that commit a person to eternal
punishment. They have also accused the companions of the Messenger of
Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم such as Ali and Mu'awiyah of being disbelievers.

The second trait: They kill Muslims and spare the lives of disbelievers.
The khawārij have caused so much civil strife during the reign of the
Umayyads and the Abbasids and yet, they had no record of jihad
against the disbelievers. Therefore, the khawārij are a phenomenon
that manifests itself during Islamic rule and fades away, although not
completely, during times like ours. Yes, there still remains strains of
takfīr today that are similar to those of the khawārij of yesterday but the
problem of extremism is a problem that is most pronounced during
times of the strength of the ummah rather than moments of weakness.
In times like ours, it is the problem of the other extreme, irja`, that we
need to actively tackle. The Murji`ah went to the other extreme end of
the scale and considered that no act that a Muslim might commit would
take him out of the folds of Islam. For example, according to the Murji`ah,
if a Muslim legislates laws and implements them in place of the laws
of Allah, he is still a Muslim. What we need is the middle path; the
path of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and his companions; the path that
follows the Qur’an and Sunnah. That is the straight path that we invoke
Allah in every raka`āh of Şalah to grant us.

But sadly this is not what this declaration is about. This declaration does not represent the middle path. It represents a benign version of Islam that is friendly towards the
power holders of the day and stands against the changing of the status
quo. The declaration calls for a blanket condemnation of “all forms
of violent attempts-to-change or violent protest, within, or outside, Muslim societies.”
This might be the way of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, but it is not the
way of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم who said: "I was sent with the sword before the Day
of Judgment."

Islam does recognize changing through force and that is what fighting fī sabīlillāh is. Today we
cannot expect Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan to be freed again
except by force. Israeli and American aggression cannot be met with
pigeons and olive branches but must be met with bullets and bombs. It
is through the heroic acts of the Palestinian martyrs that Israel had
forsaken its dream of a greater Israel and retracted upon itself behind
walls and barriers. It is because of these operations that Ariel Sharon
unilaterally pulled out all Jewish settlements in Gaza. The strategy of
the Palestinian resistance succeeded in exhausting the enemy and forcing
it into giving concessions. It was not until internal differences within the
Palestinian rank that the tide turned again in favor of the Israelis.
The rule of “what is taken by force cannot be returned except through
force” is not only valid from a historical point of view but it is also
the statement of Qur'an:

{So fight, [O Muhammad], in the cause of
Allah; you are not held responsible
except for yourself. And encourage
the believers [to join you] that
perhaps Allah will restrain the
[military] might of those who
disbelieve. And Allah is greater in
might and stronger in [exemplary]
punishment} [an-Nisā’: 84]

What we see from the disbelievers today is not overtures of peace but
demonstrations of might. The āyah makes it clear that through fighting
and inciting the believers to fight – and not through concessions,
appeasement, turning the other cheek or even da`wah – is the might
of the disbelievers restrained.

At a time when American expenditure on its army is anything
but decreasing, these scholars are asking us to give up any form of
resistance and live as law – Western law that is – abiding citizens. They
are asking us to live as sheep, as pleasantly as a flock of tame,
peaceful, and obedient sheep. One billion and a quarter Muslims with
no say on the world stage, stripped from their right to live as Muslims
under the law of Islam, directly and indirectly occupied by the West, are
asked to live as sheep. Is that the role of scholars?

America is increasing its military budget not to fight Martians but to fight Muslims. On the other
hand, Iran is building the most powerful military in the region. The foundations of the empire of
the Shi'a are being laid in front of our own eyes. With some foresight,
one can see where this is heading. The area termed the ‘Middle East’ is
edging towards a war on a colossal scale. The ahl as-Sunnah up until
this moment are the weakest of the three conflicting parties. The Gulf
monarchs and the military juntas have completely sold us out. Our
heads of state have betrayed us at a critical moment in our history. The
last thing we need is for our scholars to follow suit. The ahl as-Sunnah do
not need more demoralization. They do not need scholars to tell them to
pull the shades over their eyes and live in peace in a “civilized” world
under the protection of “international treaties” when we, who are living in
the Muslim world, foresee that we are standing on the very battlegrounds
of the coming world war.

Dear respected scholars: please spare us your letting down. The Messenger
of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should either
say good or remain silent.”

In trialing times like these, we need to remind ourselves with this advice.
The declaration goes on to state: “Such condemnation must be clear,
explicit, and be a true manifestation of real courage-in-speaking-thetruth.”
Courage? Absolutely not. There is no courage in condemning Jihad.
There is nothing in it but cowardice.

Muslim scholars, throughout the ages, have always stressed and emphasized that the jihad that is considered the pinnacle of the religion of Islam, is not of one type, but of many, and actually fighting in the Path of God is only one type. The validation, authorization, and execution of this particular type of jihad is granted by the Shari'ah to only those who lead the community (actual heads of states). This is because
such a decision of war is a political decision with major repercussion and
consequences. Hence, it is not for a Muslim individual or Muslim group to
announce and declare war, or engage in combative jihad, whimsically and
on their own. This restriction is vital for preventing much evil from occurring, and for truly upholding Islamic religious texts relevant to this matter. The validation, authorization, and
execution of this particular type of jihad is granted by the Shari'ah to only those
who lead the community (actual heads of states).

This statement needs elaboration. There is no explicit evidence that
the permission of the Imam is needed for jihad. But the scholars
deducted such a requirement from other evidence and because jihad
is an act of worship with critical and encompassing consequences.
However, the scholars also mentioned a few exceptions to this
rule. The one exception relevant to our discussion here is in the situation
where there is no Imam or in the case where it is known that the Imam
does not promote jihad. In such a case, the scholars stated that both
the offensive and defensive forms of jihad should not be stopped but
should be carried out by the ummah. Ibn Qudamah stated that in the
absence of the Imam, jihad should not be stopped and the spoils of war
should be divided among the fighters according to the rules of shari'ah.
Ibn Rushd states that: “obeying the Imam is mandatory unless the Imam
orders the Muslims to commit a sin, then he should not be obeyed, and
preventing Muslims from fighting obligatory jihad is a sin.”

The basis of the legitimacy of jihad is that it is either to repel/resist aggression
(“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits;
for Allah loveth not transgressors” — Şūrah al-Baqarah, 190), or to aid those
who are weak and oppressed (“And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah
and of those who, being weak, are illtreated (and oppressed)?” — Surah al-Nisā’, 75), or in defense of the freedom of worshiping (“To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to
fight), because they are wronged; — and verily, Allah is most powerful for
their aid” — Surah al-Ĥajj, 39). It is not legitimate to declare war because of
differences in religion, or in search of spoils of war.

The justifications of jihad listed above are valid but not inclusive.
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “I
was instructed to fight mankind until they testify that there is no one worthy
of worship except than Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, they establish Şalah and they pay Zakah. Whoever does so have protected from me his blood and his
wealth” [Bukhari and Muslim].

This ĥadīth declares that the Muslims have a mission to bring Islam to the world and the application of this ĥadīth by the Saĥābah is the best explanation of it.

The first Caliph Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) fought against the apostates and against the two superpowers of his time, the Roman and Persian Empires. The war against
the apostates was to reestablish the acceptance and submission of the
tribes of Arabia to the law of Allah. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with
him) said if they refuse to give even a bridle they used to give to the
Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, he will fight them over it.
The wars with the Persian and Roman Empires were unprovoked and were
for the prime purpose of spreading the truth to humanity. The Muslim
messenger to the Persian leader said: “Allah has sent us to deliver the
servants of Allah out of servitude of one another into the service of
Allah, and out of the narrowness of this world into the vastness of
both this world and the afterlife and out of the oppression of religions
into the justice of Islam.” There is no conciliatory tone in this statement
and no inclination on part of its deliverer to live in “harmony” with
followers of different religions. It was clear to the virtuous Muslims
then, who had proper understanding of what their duties towards Allah
were and who had pride in Islam, that all religions were false, and that
all systems of government were oppressive, and that only Islam can
offer mankind salvation in both this world and in the Hereafter.
They understood that by approving others in their ways they are not
doing them a favor, and they are not acting tolerantly towards them but
they are doing them a disservice by not showing them the way of truth
that would save them from eternal torment. Exceptions were made for
the Jews and the Christians, where they were allowed to retain their
religious practices as long as they paid the jizyah in a state of humility.
They were made to know that their religious practices were false, that
Islam does not approve of either Judaism or Christianity, and that
they are considered to be misguided and are destined to Hellfire. The
early Muslims let the Jews and the Christians know this in the clearest
and most unambiguous manner. They did this out of concern and care
for them. Regarding their statement: “It is not legitimate to declare war because of
differences in religion, or in search of spoils of war.” This statement is false. The pagans of Arabia were fought because they were pagans, the Persians were fought because
they were Zoroastrians and the Romans were fought because they
were Christian. The great Muslim Sultan Mahmud Sabaktakeen fought
against the Hindus because they were Hindus and he personally led
his army in a risky campaign deep into the land of India with the sole
objective of destroying the most revered idol in all of India. He was fighting because of this “difference
of religion” our esteemed scholars of Mardin are discounting.

Allah جل جلاله says:

{And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah} [al- Anfāl: 39]

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “I was instructed to fight mankind until
they testify that there is no one worthy of worship except Allah”.

Fighting fī sabīlillāh can also be for the objective of spoils of war. Most
of the dispatches that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم sent from Madinah
were in search of spoils of war. Badr itself was an expedition headed by Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم himself in pursuit of a caravan of goods belonging to the Quraish.
In fact, the classical scholar Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali states that the purest and best form of sustenance for the believer is that of ghanīmah (spoils of war) because it was the source of living Allah has chosen for His most beloved of creation, Muhammad .صلى الله عليه وسلم
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “My sustenance was made to be under my spear”.
It is known from the sīrah that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم lived off the
fifth of the fifth of the spoils of war which was prescribed to him in the
Qur’an. Throughout our early history, the greatest source of income for the
Muslim treasury was through the revenue generated from fighting fī
sabīlillāh. Spoils of war, jizyah (a tax taken from the Jews and Christians),
and kharaj (a land toll taken from conquered land) represented the
most important sources of income for the Islamic treasury.

The issue of Fatwas in Islam is a serious one. It is for this reason that scholars have drawn up stringentconditions/requirements for the Mufti (the authority issuing fatwas). Of these conditions is that he must be fully qualified in scholarly learning/ knowledge. Of the conditions specific to the fatwa itself is having established the proper object of application (manat) according to place, time, and person, circumstance, and consequence/future outcome. The notion of loyalty and enmity (alwalā’ wa al-barā’) must never be used to declare anyone out of the fold of Islam, unless an actual article of unbelief is held. In all other cases, it actually involves several types of judgment ranging according to the juridical fivefold scale: permissible, recommended, not recommended, non-permissible, and required. Therefore, it is not permissible to narrow the application of this notion and use it for declaring Muslim outside the fold of Islam.

Yes, fatwa is a serious matter and should only be issued by those qualified. Hence, the Muslim masses today need to beware of any fatwa that calls for the re-interpretation
of well grounded, accepted, and valid fatwa's given by the classical
scholars of the past whom the ummah accepted and recognized as
righteous men of knowledge. We are living in a time when the West has
publicly stated that it will use Muslim against Muslim in the battlefield and
will use scholar against scholar in the battle for the hearts and minds of the
Muslim ummah. As one CIA official stated: “If you found out that Mullah
Omar is on one street corner doing this, you set up Mullah Bradley on the
other street corner to counter it”.

Abdullah bin Mas'ood (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Follow those
who have passed away because the living is not secure from fitnah (trials
that may cause a person to lose their religion).”
The early generations have formulated a framework for all the
issues covered in this declaration: jihad, extremism, rules of leveling
charges of kufr against a Muslim, and al-walā’ wa al-barā’. Therefore, there is no need to re-interpret these core tenants based on what is clearly nothing more than an approval of
a worldview as defined by those in power, i.e. the West.

In closing, one has to wonder as to why there was a great emphasis placed on the fatwa of
Ibn Taymiyyah on Mardin by the issuers of this declaration. The fatwa
of Ibn Taymiyyah was in-line with the opinions of the scholars before
him and after him. So to believe that somehow the mujahidin are so dependent on this fatwa and are
basing their jihad on it is not the case. Many, if not most, of the mujahidin have never even heard of it. The media has also showed interest in the “New Mardin Declaration.” Here are some of the headlines:

- Muslim scholars denounce Osama’s
- Fatwa rules out violence, scholars
- Osama bin Laden misinterpreted
jihad fatwa
- Muslim scholars recast jihadist’s
favorite fatwa

So why did the media in the West give this “New Mardin Declaration” more weight than it deserves? Is it some kind of breakthrough fatwa that would shake the foundations
of the jihad of today? Not at all. This declaration is pretty much
meaningless. Even the Mufti of Turkey, albeit for different reasons
than what I mentioned, stated that it is “incredibly meaningless.” This
comes from a Turkish newspaper covering the event:

But top Turkish religious leaders were notably absent from the gathering.
Members of local Mardin press outlets speaking with Sunday’s Zaman on the sidelines of the conference noted that many locals viewed the conference with suspicion before it even began. “People are worried that the conference sponsors are connected to the British government and that the whole thing is part of some sort of effort to use Muslims’ own religious texts and resources to tie their hands when it comes to issues of jihad as defense. They’re worried that the conclusion of the conference will be that jihad is no
longer valid in our day and age – and that this will rule out resistance even
under situations of oppression such as that in Palestine today,” one journalist said, speculating that the absence of some scholars could be due to their unwillingness to be associated with an event that might prove to be locally

However, the marketing schemes used for this “Declaration” were pretty fascinating. They gathered
from different countries and went all the way to Mardin, they held an entire conference to study the
Mardin fatwa, and then the itinerary for the conference stated that the
scholars were going to have a special session for the announcement of
the “New Mardin Declaration” with all the scholars signing it as if it is
some kind of great manuscript and then they are to pose together for a
“group photograph” for this historical moment!
The reality of the matter is that the “New Mardin Declaration” is probably
more relevant at scoring points for its signatories with the West, as is apparent by the Western media hailing it, than causing any change on the course of the modern jihad movement.

Closing Comments:

Our scholars should focus more on justice than on peace. A people who have their land occupied,
their resources plundered by major Western corporations, their kings and presidents are stooges who have authority to oppress and steal but no authority to act independently of
their Western masters, their children and women are fair play for American firepower; such a people do not need to hear needless sermons on Islam being the religion of peace. They need to hear how Islam will bring them justice and retribution. They want to hear how Islam can help
them bring an end to occupation, how Islam can allow them to live in
dignity under their own system of government, and ruled by their own people. They need to be empowered and encouraged. This is the message the Muslims are waiting to hear from
our esteemed scholars. The “New Mardin Declaration” is not worth the ink and the paper it is
written on. It is a disgrace for those who agreed to take part in it, and has nothing to do with the
ummah whom Allah described as being:

{...the best nation brought forth to humanity}.

Determining the path for the future of the ummah was not left to our whims but was already set forth for us by the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. He said: “A group of my ummah will continue fighting
until the Day of Judgment”. He also said: “I was instructed to fight mankind until they testify that there is no one worthy of worship other than Allah”.
We stand firmly by these statements of our beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and we will, by the will of Allah, fight to uphold them and call others towards them. We stand firmly
by the giant classical Imams of the ummah and we will not be deterred by the dwarfs of today, and we refuse all attempts of rewriting the Islamic shari'ah to kowtow to a New World Order
that doesn’t belong to us and must be challenged and changed.

Just as the khilāfah and the shari'ah rule were dismantled, we now see such dangerous attempts at dismantling the body offiqh of our early scholars. This call to discard the fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah should not be seen as merely a disagreement with ibn Taymiyyah on a particular point of legislation but as part of an orchestrated effort, under the sponsorship of the West, to discard the body of work done by centuries of scholarly work by the Imams of the ummah. But to put it that way is to put it
mildly. It is in its essence a covert attempt at abrogating all the verses of Qur’an and hadith that call for the establishment of Islamic rule, fighting aggression, and fighting for the spread of
the call of Islam. According to these scholars, these rules simply have no place in the modern world. According to them there is a New World Order that necessitates a New World fiqh. A fiqh of
submission, a fiqh of rendering what is unto Caesar to Caesar, a fiqh that would allow the cowards to live in peace. It doesn’t matter what quality of life they live as long as they are living.

Changing the status quo is not an easy task. Rocking the boat affects everyone. The Prophets experienced the consequences of challenging the status quo that was instituted and defended
by the powerful. They suffered, and their followers suffered. But that did not deter them from carrying on their mission. Today the status quo is fiercely defended by the powerful and
not everyone has the courage to go against it. If you defy it you suffer. You pay a price. Those who oppose the status quo see a powerful current and they are reluctant to cross it because,
in the eyes of many, to go against the tide in today’s world is insanity. Sadly, today many of our scholars have opted for the option of safeguarding themselves rather than safeguarding the religion. The problem is when this personal weakness is masked under the cloak of religion, and religion is used to justify a position that cannot be justified neither by our fiqh nor our

Jihad will continue in its various forms and fighting will continue until the Day of Judgment and will not be harmed or deterred by those who betray it.

Published in Fall 1431- 2010

Viimeinen muokkaaja, Abdullah Rintala pvm Sun Jou 25, 2011 7:27 pm, muokattu 2 kertaa
Sun Jou 25, 2011 3:41 am Näytä käyttäjän tiedot Lähetä yksityinen viesti
Abdullah Rintala

Liittynyt: 05 Kes 2010
Viestejä: 479

Lähetä Vastaa lainaamalla viestiä
The Ruling On Dispossessing the Disbelievers' Wealth in Dar al-Harb

Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki

All praise is due to Allah and peace and blessings on his Messenger Muhammad .صلى الله عليه وسلم

Islam stipulates certain conditions for taking the wealth of the disbelievers.
According to our classical scholars, it becomes permissible to take the
disbelievers wealth for jihad-related purposes even if one is without an
army or an Imam; and even within this there are restrictions. Due to the
unfamiliarity of some on this subject, I felt the need to clarify this.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,
“I was sent before the hour with the
sword, and my sustenance is under my
spear, and humility and belittlement
is the destiny of whoever defies my
Commands.” Narrated by Ahmad.

This great ĥadīth reveals some important aspects about our religion:

• Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was sent with the sword: The Messenger of Allah
صلى الله عليه وسلم and the mujahidin after him carried the light of Islam to
humanity by fighting in Allah's cause.

• The greatest form of income is that of the spoils of war and the
greatest profession is being a soldier in the path of Allah. The
income generated from booty taken by force from the enemies
of Allah is purer and more virtuous than income generated from
being a businessman, an engineer, a physician, or a farmer, simply because that was the source
of income that Allah destined for his Messenger Muhammad .صلى الله عليه وسلم
Working as a mujahid is sunnah.

• Eventually all the enemies of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and his
ummah would be shamed and humiliated.

It is narrated that some of the şaĥābah who moved to the land of
al-Sham for jihad began acquiring farms and cultivating them. These
were fertile lands with an abundance of water that they were not used to
seeing in their native lands of Hijaz. When the khalīfah Umar heard that,
he waited until harvest season and right before the şaĥābah started harvesting
their land. He then ordered that they be burnt to the ground. He
then assembled the şaĥābah and told them: "Farming is the role of
the people of book. You should be fighting in the cause of Allah." [Taken from the book, "The explanation
of the ĥadīth, 'I was sent before the hour with the sword…'" by Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali.]
Umar did not want the şaĥābah to be tied down to this earth by professions
that would hold them back from jihad in the path of Allah. They wanted to be free from restrictions
that would enslave them like the rest of humanity. The statement of Umar implies that the people who
are attached to this life, the people of the book, should do this menial work. But you, the Muslims, should seek your provisions by the strength of your swords.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم worked as a shepherd and then as a businessman
before Islam. But after he received the revelation he gave that up and devoted his entire time to spreading the message of Islam. So contrary to what many people
believe, Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم did not work after he became a prophet. When he
made hijrah to Madinah his provisions were from the spoils of war.
Some Muslims today might feel uncomfortable consuming money that
was seized by force from the disbelievers and would feel that income
they receive as a salary or from business is a better form of income. That
is not true. The best and purest form of income is booty. The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "…and the spoils of war are made halal for me…"Narrated by Bukhari.

I.Ghanīmah and fai’

These are the two types of wealth that are taken from the enemy. Following is the definition of each:

Ghanīmah is the money taken from the disbelievers by force by the
strength of the mujahidin and in a way that raises the word of Allah. [Al-Jurjani.]
Fai' is what is taken from the disbelievers without fighting. [Al-Sharĥ al-Kabīr by al-Maqdisi.]

Rulings of ghanīmah and fai’:

After ghanīmah is collected, one fifth of it is taken away in what is called "takhmīs" which I would refer to from now on as the "one-fifth rule". The rest (80%) is distributed among the
fighters. There is a difference of opinion on how the one-fifth is then distributed.
Some say it should be spent on jihad while others say it should be
spent on the needs of Muslims while others say a portion of it should be
spent on the scholars and judges of the Muslim state.
As for the money of fai', it belongs to the Muslim treasury.
So the difference between ghanīmah and fai' is that four-fifths of the
ghanīmah belongs to the mujahidin while none of the fai' belongs to

Can ghanīmah and fai’ be taken from the disbelievers in the West today?
To answer this question we would need to answer the following two questions first:

1.Are the nations of the West classified as dār al-ĥarb (land of war) or dār al-'aĥd (land of covenant)?

2. If the West is dār al-ĥarb, are the Muslims who live there bound by a covenant that prohibits them from harming their countries of residence?

The answer to the first question:

First of all there is no Islamic leadership authorized to enter into covenants
with the nations of disbelief in the present day. This is because the governments of the Muslim world
have lost their legitimacy for many reasons, among them:
• Governance according to manmade laws.

• Taking the disbelievers as allies.

• Fighting the awliyā' of Allah.

Therefore any agreements or treatise between the governments of
the Muslim world and other parties are
considered to be bāţil (illegitimate).

Second: Any nation that enters into war with the Muslims, or participates in invading
a Muslim land has by de facto become dār al-ĥarb. Therefore
all of the Western nations that have an active participation in the occupation
of Afghanistan or Iraq or any other Muslim land are considered to
be dār al-ĥarb.

The answer to the second question:

This is a critical issue and therefore would be covered in a separate
paper, In Shā’ Allāh. However, my conclusion on this matter is that Muslims
are not bound by the covenants of citizenship and visa that exist
between them and nations of dār al-ĥarb.

It is the consensus of our scholars that the property of the disbelievers
in dār al-ĥarb is halal for the Muslims and is a legitimate target for
the mujahidin. Again this is a matter of consensus so there is no need to
elaborate further on this point. In the encyclopedia of fiqh it states
that: "The property of the 'people of war' and their blood is halal for the
Muslims and none of that is protected. Muslims have the right to take
their lives and their belongings by all available means, because they do the
same to us. This is an issue of consensus among the scholars."

In the past, Muslim armies would march into the lands of the disbelievers
and would then confiscate their wealth and distribute it according to
the rules of shari’ah: If the wealth was taken after fighting, it is ghanīmah
and if it was taken without fighting it is fai'.

Now since the modern form of jihad is according to the guerrilla style of warfare rather than the conventional style that existed for the most part of our history, how does this affect the
rulings of ghanīmah and fai'?

Today jihad is more clandestine and is performed by underground networks.
The question that arises is: Can these networks of mujahidin use
clandestine methods to appropriate wealth from the disbelievers in dār alĥarb?

And if yes, is it fai’ or ghanīmah or neither? Further, how is it distributed?
To the credit of our early scholars, even these issues have been answered
by them and are covered in our books of fiqh. So all praise is due
to Allah, we do not have to refer to many of the present day scholars
who are either trying to appease the apostate governments of the Muslim
world or are trying to appease the Jews and the Christians.
If one would research our classical books of fiqh, one would find that
out of the four madhab’s, the Hanafi School has covered such topics the
most. This is probably because the Hanafi School was the official state madhab for the longest period in our history compared to other schools. It therefore covers issues relating
to jihad in more detail because the foreign policy of the Islamic state was
jihad in the path of Allah. I would therefore start by quoting the Hanafi books of fiqh first:

The Hanafi position: Al-Natiqi narrates that Imam Abu Hanifah used to say: "If an individual enters alone into dār al-ĥarb and has taken booty and there are no Muslim soldiers in
that territory then it is not subjected to the one-fifth rule. That is the case
if they are less than nine men. If they reach nine then they are considered a
"sarīyah" (A combat group)."

So according to Imam Abu Hanifah, if the group is less than nine, what they
seize is not ghanīmah and therefore they are not obligated to submit onefifth
of it to the Muslim authorities.

When scholars talk about the one-fifth rule it means that the money is classified as ghanīmah.

In al-Hidāyah by Imam al-Mirghanani it states: "If one or two individuals
enter dār al-ĥarb without the permission of the Imam and they take
something, then it is not subjected to the one-fifth rule."

Here the author is stating that whatever is taken from the land of war
by individuals and not by an army is not subjected to the regular rules of ghanīmah.

Al-Zayghali in his commentary on al-Hidāyah entitled, "Naşb al-rāyah fī takhrīj aĥādīth al-hidāyah" explains the preceding statement by saying:
"This is because ghanīmah is what is taken by force and not by means of
theft or embezzlement and the rule of one-fifth only applies to ghanīmah.
Now if this individual or pair of individuals enter with the permission
of the Imam then there are two opinions. The most famous is that
what they seize is subjected to the one-fifth rule because the permission
of the Imam means that he is obligated to protect them by reinforcements
if they are endangered and thus they have a protection force and
(the author of al-Hidāyah states:) "If a group who has a force enters and
takes something, it is subjected to the one-fifth rule even if they didn’t seek permission from the Imam." This is because it is taken by force so it is considered ghanīmah and the Imam
is still obligated to protect them because if he doesn’t then that will
weaken the Muslims, unlike if only one or two persons enter then he is not obligated to protect them.""

Al-Zayghali is considering that what is taken is treated as ghanīmah if the
individual or group of individuals has a force to protect them. This is not
the case today with the mujahidin since there is no Imam or Islamic
authority to offer them protection. Similar statements are made in other
Hanafi references of fiqh such as "al- Mabşūt" and "Sharĥ al-Saer al-Kabīr"
both by Imam al-Sarkhasi.

Therefore the Hanafi School considers that the one-fifth that is taken
out from the booty and handed over to the Amir is in exchange of his protection. If this protection doesn’t exist then the individuals or group of individuals are not obligated to
pay anything. So if an individual takes wealth from the disbelievers in
the land of war and he does not use force but takes it by means of theft or
embezzlement, it is not considered ghanīmah according to the Hanafi
School. So then what is it? We find the answer in another Hanafi
reference, "al-Jawharah al-Nayerah" by Abu Bakr al-Abbadi who states
in his commentary on al-Hidāyah:

“If one or two individuals enter dār al-ĥarb without the permission of
the Imam and they take something, then it is not subjected to the onefifth
rule, because it is not ghanīmah since ghanīmah is what is taken by
force and not by theft or embezzlement. But if one or two persons enter
with the permission of the Imam then there are two opinions. The
famous opinion is that it is divided into five portions, four of which goes
to the ones who seized it. The second opinion is that it is not divided into
five portions because it was taken by means of theft. The first opinion
is the strongest because since the Imam permitted them, then they
have taken it under his protection and not by theft." He continues, “If
a group who has force enters and takes something, it is subjected to
the one-fifth rule even if they didn’t seek permission from the Imam,
because the group has strength and therefore what is taken by them is
considered ghanīmah. But if they are a group who doesn’t have a protection
force and they enter without the permission of the Imam then what
they take is not considered ghanīmah because ghanīmah is what is taken
by force and these people are similar to thieves because they steal secretly
and therefore it is not ghanīmah. Therefore, in this case what each
individual seizes is for him and no one has a share in it because it is considered
mubāĥ (permitted) just like hunting or wood gathering."

Notice here that Imam al-Abbadi compares this booty to hunting and
wood gathering. This is because wild beasts and timber in the forest are
not the "rightful property" of anyone. The reasoning behind comparing
booty to hunting and wood gathering is because the property which
exists in the hands of the disbelievers is not considered to be rightfully
theirs in our Islamic shari’ah because of their disbelief and when Islam
does give them the right to own it, it is an exception to the rule such as in
the case of ahl al-dhimma after they pay jizyah. This is why our scholars
say that Allah has called booty as "fai’" which means "to return", so they
say that the property of the disbelievers that doesn’t belong to them has
"returned" to the believer: its "rightful owner."

In "al-Sear al-Saqhir" (Hanafi) the author states: “If one, two or three men
from amongst the Muslims or the ahl al-dhimmah, who have no protecting
force, enter into dār al-ĥarb without the permission of the Imam and they
take booty and return with it to the land of Islam, then all of what they
take is theirs and there is no one-fifth taken from it.”

The situation of Muslims living today in dār al-ĥarb would be similar to the
above-mentioned case. The Muslims have no Imam to seek permission from, they have no protecting force, and what they can take would be by means of theft and embezzlement.
So according to the rules set by the Hanafi School, the money seized by
Muslims who are in dār al-ĥarb can be appropriated in its entirety by

However, I would like to note that even if a Muslim today is allowed to
do that, there are some points that need to be taken into consideration:
The Hanafi’s stated that a Muslim is "permitted" to steal money from the
disbelievers in dār al-ĥarb but they didn’t state that there is a reward in
doing so. They related that it is similar to hunting or wood gathering. In
other words it is similar to making a living using other halal methods.
However, we as Muslims should seek the wealth of the disbelievers
as a form of jihad in the path of Allah.

That would necessitate that we spend the money on the cause of
jihad and not on ourselves. We do not want such a fatwa to be misused by Muslims who are not
concerned with jihad and are just interested in improving their own
lot. The result of wide misuse of such a fatwa would cause authorities to
restrict Muslims and view them with suspicion, which would eventually backfire on the ones who would truly want to serve the cause through such a fatwa. The opinion of the other three
schools of thought: Ibn Hamam in "Fatĥ al-Qadīr" says: “The madhab of
al-Shafi'i, Malik and the majority of scholars is that what an individual
takes by means of theft, it is considered ghanīmah.”
He then says: “But we and Imam Ahmad - according to one of two narrations
attributed to him - refuse to call it ghanīmah because ghanīmah
is what is taken by force and not through theft or embezzlement. And
since what the thief takes is by means of deception, then this is considered
as a halal form of sustenance just like wood gathering or hunting.”
Imam al-Sarkhasi narrates that Imam al-Shafi'i said: "Ghanīmah is property
that the Muslims seize from the disbelievers by means of overpowering
them." Imam al-Shafi'i then says: "And overpowering them includes using
force openly or by deceiving them secretly since the Messenger of Allah
صلى الله عليه وسلم said that ‘war is deception’."

Therefore, according to al-Shafi'i, money that is taken from the disbelievers
using clandestine methods should be considered ghanīmah even
if the use of force is not involved.

In "Tuhfat al-Muhtaj fi sharĥ al-Minhaj" by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (Shafi'i),
he states: "Theft from dār al-ĥarb is ghanīmah."

In "Al-Minhaj" by al-Nawawi (Shafi'i), he states: "Wealth taken from dār alĥarb
by force is ghanīmah, so is what is taken by an individual or a group by means of theft."

In "Fatāwā al-Subkī" (Shafi'i) the author narrates the opinion of two of the most prominent Imam’s of the Shafi'i School: Imam al-Ghazali and Imam al-Rafi'i. He says: "Al-Ghazali
said that if a Muslim steals money from the disbelievers then the entire
amount becomes his property and the one-fifth is not taken from it.
Al-Rafi'i adopts the opinion that the thief owns four-fifths of it just like all
money of ghanīmah."

In "Al-Furū'" by Ibn Muflih (Hanbali): "If a group or an individual - even if
the individual is a slave - enter into dār al-ĥarb without the permission of the Imam, then their booty is fai'." Even though the majority opinion among the Hanbali school is that
what is taken is ghanīmah, the author above here mentions another opinion
and that it is fai’. It means that the entire amount needs to be handed
over to the Imam to be distributed according to his discretion.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah states in "Al- Fatāwā" that if a Muslim enters dār
al-ĥarb: "and kidnaps disbelievers or their children, or overpowers them
in any way, then the souls and the wealth of the disbelievers are halal
for the Muslims."

II.The issue of ribā in dār al-ĥarb

Imam al-Kasani from the Hanafi School says: "If a Muslim or a dhimmī
enters into dār al-ĥarb with a covenant and he enters with a ĥarbī in
a transaction of ribā or another form of illegal transactions in Islam, that
is permitted according to Imam Abu Hanifah and Muhammad."

However, we need to keep in mind that all of the other schools of
thought have agreed that taking ribā from the "people of war" in dār
al-ĥarb is not permitted for a Muslim.

That is also the opinion of Imam Abu Yusuf from the Hanafi school who
states that: "What is not allowed for a Muslim in dār al-Islām is not allowed
or him in dār al-ĥarb."

Note: Some Muslims living in the West today claim that since it is allowed to
take interest from the disbelievers then we are allowed to finance our houses
through mortgaging. These Muslims have been deceived by Shayţān and the
misguided scholars. The Hanafi School which these scholars quote to support
their opinion only allows the Muslim to "take" interest and not to "pay" it. The
reasoning of the Hanafi's is that taking interest from the disbelievers is taking
money that is halal for us to start with since their lives and property are halal for
Muslims. So how can we then use such a fatwa to claim that we are allowed to pay
them our money?!

III.In Conclusion

From the previous quotes of our early scholars the following can be deducted:

• All of our scholars agree on the permissibility of taking away the wealth of the disbelievers in
dār al-ĥarb whether by means of force or by means of theft or deception.

• Our scholars differ on how wealth taken by means of theft and
deception should be divided. The majority believes it is ghanīmah.
So one-fifth of it should be paid to the Amir to be spent on jihad.
Alternatively, the Hanafi’s consider it to be a source of income
that belongs in its entirety to the ones who seized it. Finally, there
is a minority opinion that it is fai' and therefore should be distributed according to the discretion
of the Amir.

Implications on our present day work: Every Muslim who lives in dār
al-ĥarb should avoid paying any of his wealth to the disbelievers whether
it be in the form of taxes, duties, or fines. If a Muslim is allowed to deceive
the disbelievers to appropriate their wealth then he is also allowed
to deceive them to avoid paying them his wealth. Even though it is allowed to seize the
property of individuals in dār al-ĥarb, we suggest that Muslims avoid targeting
citizens of countries where the public opinion is supportive of some
of the Muslim causes. We therefore suggest that the following should be targeted:

• Government owned property
• Banks
• Global corporations
• Wealth belonging to disbelievers with known animosity towards Muslims
In the case of the United States, both the government and private citizens
should be targeted. America and Americans are the Imam’s of kufr
in this day and age. The American people who vote for war mongering
governments are intent on no good. Anyone who inflicts harm on them
in any form is doing a favor to the ummah.

Careful consideration should be given to the risk vs. Benefit (i.e., maslaĥa) of any specific operation.
Because of the very negative implications of an operation that is exposed,
it is important that the benefits outweigh the risks.

For Muslims who are associated with groups that work for jihad, we
recommend that the decision to involve oneself in any illegal activity
to acquire money from the disbelievers be taken by the Amir and
the shūrā of the jamā'ah. We say this because since there is a liability on
the jamā'ah, the decision needs to be made by the jamā'ah. We also recommend
that the decision on how to spend the money be left to the Amir
and the shūrā. We need to mention however that if the jamā'ah adopt
the view that what is seized is considered ghanīmah, then if a percentage
less than 80% is to be given to the ones who seized it, that needs
to done with the agreement of the participants of the operation because
according to the rules of ghanīmah they are entitled to the full 80%. The
same is said if the jamā'ah follows the Hanafi opinion.

It is recommended that Muslims who are not associated with groups
that work for jihad and who acquire wealth from the disbelievers by illegal
means to donate all that money to the cause of jihad unless if they are
in need then they can take from it accordingly but not to exceed 80%.
Islamic work cannot depend on volunteers. In order to support brothers
who are willing to work full-time for Islamic causes, their income can be
taken from wealth seized from the disbelievers. This should be one of
the categories in which appropriated money is spent. This is especially
important with jihad oriented groups because it is the work chosen only
by the best of the best and therefore there is only a small pool of human
resources that exists. So it is important to have as many brothers as possible
devote their time to the work rather than spend their prime time
seeking a living and only giving their spare time for the work. They should
follow the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and live off of ghanīmah.
This is especially important for brothers who are in positions of leadership
in their jamā'ah.

Since jihad around the world is in dire need of financial support, we
urge our brothers in the West to take it upon themselves to give this issue
a priority in their plans. Rather than the Muslims financing their jihad
from their own pockets, they should finance it from the pockets of their enemies.

In the end I would like to respond to what some weak Muslims might say
that such fatāwā would "tarnish the image of Muslims in the West" and
are "not good for the da’wah”.

In response to the claim that such fatāwā would "tarnish the image of Muslims in the West," I would say:

• Since when did the West have a good image of Islam and Muslims to start with? The West has
always held Islam and Muslims in contempt. Just look at Western literature and to the portrayal of
Muslims in the Western media.

• The only way for them to have a good image of you is to become
like them. Allah says:

{The Jews and the Christians will not be pleased with you until you follow
their way} [2: 120].

• Allah says about His awliyā':

{They do not fear the blame of the blamers} [5: 54].

Therefore you should not be concerned about what the disbelievers
think of you but you should be concerned about what Allah, His
Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, and the believers think of you.

• The West has been plundering our wealth for centuries. Now
is the time for payback. In Shā’ Allāh, the chickens will come home to roost.

In response to the claim that such
fatāwā are "not good for da’wah", I say:

• The best thing for da’wah is the sword. And such fatāwā are
going to support the sword. So eventually it is good for da’wah.
When the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم was giving da’wah in Makkah for
thirteen years, only a few hundred became Muslim. When he
made hijrah to Madinah, within ten years, over a hundred thousand
became Muslim. So how come his da’wah in Madinah
was much more fruitful than his da’wah in Makkah? That was
because he was using a superior form of da’wah in Madinah and
that is the da’wah of the sword.

• Jihad today is farđ 'ayn (individually obligatory). It therefore
supersedes da’wah in importance because da’wah is sunnah
mu'akkadah (recommended act) or farđ kifāyah (communal
obligation) at most. So anything that supports jihad should take
precedence over things that support da’wah.

Dear brothers: Jihad heavily relies on money. In Qur’an, the physical jihad
is associated with jihad with one's wealth in eight verses. In every verse
but one, jihad with wealth preceded the physical jihad. That is because
without wealth there can be no jihad. Our enemies have realized that.
Therefore they are "following the money trail" and are trying to dry up all the sources of funding "terrorism".

Our jihad cannot depend wholly on donations made by Muslims. The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم sent many armies for the sole purpose of raiding caravans of the disbelievers. Not
only was jihad financed by booty but also throughout our early history the
Islamic treasury itself was mostly dependent on income generated from
jihad. A tax called kharaj was placed on land opened by Muslims, enslaved
POWs would be sold, and the people of the book paid jizyah. All of these
sources were generated through jihad.

Zakah and Şadaqah represented only a small portion of the income of
the Muslim government. It is about time that we take serious
steps towards securing a strong financial backing for our work rather
than depending on donations.

May Allah grant us the high status of the mujahidin and forgive us all.

Safar 1432 - January 2011.

Viimeinen muokkaaja, Abdullah Rintala pvm Sun Jou 25, 2011 7:29 pm, muokattu 1 kertaa
Sun Jou 25, 2011 3:51 am Näytä käyttäjän tiedot Lähetä yksityinen viesti
Abdullah Rintala

Liittynyt: 05 Kes 2010
Viestejä: 479

Lähetä Vastaa lainaamalla viestiä

As-Salam ‘Alaykum. I would be much obliged to receive a few minutes of
your time as you respond to a few questions/comments that I have
for your media, movement, and ideological stance. I am a student
studying your cause and am trying to understand your point of view.
Please understand that I disagree with your use of sensational mass
media publication, and the actions of the group you support- Al Qaeda;
however, I hope that your respect for my curiosity and zeal to learn will
allow you to thoughtfully respond to my inquiries. I have three major
questions and points of interest that I hope you would consider and reply
with a coherent response which fairly represents the entirety of your

1) Does your news agency have internal conflict in balancing your
need for sensational reports and the integrity all reporters strive for in
reporting the truth to the people? In other words, what is it that forces
you to distort the news and the views of the West? Is it that you believe
what you are reporting is truth? Or has your hatred for the West
potentially clouded your judgement in reporting? For example, your latest
issue of Inspire condemns the lies within the American media, however,
you too confuse your reporting in writing that “Obama is deceiving in
claiming that his war is a war against al Qaeda rather than Islam.” This is a
lie from your own end. America has seven million Muslims who live in
peace here with no conflict with the government or public.

2) Would you agree that there are contradictions not only within your
office and agency but within the very characteristics of your organization?
You play our video games, watch our movies, enjoy our entertainment,
use the Wests' form of communication (your well done magazine), and
allow our culture to infiltrate yours through these means. Is this not a
contradiction? Eradicating our military presence from the Middle East is
one thing, but cleansing our influence in your lives is another; how do
you compensate for this?

3) In terms of your personal ideology, how do you account for the fact that
your legitimacy within the Islamic community is not only called into
question but nearly non-existent. Most Muslims condemn the actions
that you commit, Alĥamdulillah. I understand your takfiri ideology but
what gives you the right to judge the rest, even Muslims? It seems to me
that you enjoy the power of playing God and determining who is good
and evil. Nowhere in the Koran does it give authority to man to judge and
determine the life of a man. Lastly, I hope to establish contact
from your end more for further questions that I may have. I have studied
your organization for years out of books, but I look forward to hearing
from you-- the source.

I look forward to your response.
Imran Khan

E-MAILED RESPONSE by Anwar al-Awlaki

Dear Imran, Wa ‘Alaykum as-Salam.

We appreciate you taking your time out to write your questions to us.
If you have any further questions, please ask. It’s better to talk to the
source than to rely on what others say.

1) If we understood your question correctly, you asked us why are we
spreading lies, especially about Obama being against Islam when
the Muslim population in his country is evidence that he isn’t since there
are no major conflicts of any sort between the American Muslim community
and the status quo?

Firstly, news is something which specifically deals with events like
politics, economics and such. For us to say that Obama is waging
war against Islam, this doesn’t fall under the news category; it is our
worldview, which is actually shared by millions of Muslims across the
globe who are not associated with al Qaeda or any jihadi groups. There’s
a difference between what a person believes in, and what they report
as news. So in our reports – which are actually limited to local events
here in Yemen (which are released via our Arabic internet statements)
- we mention what occurs in the operation(s) or local event. As for our
beliefs, you will find it in nearly every page of our Inspire Magazine.
As for the claim that millions of Muslims live in America and that
therefore Obama is not waging a war against Islam, we fail to see the connection. If you’re implying that since Muslims in America are living peacefully and are not being mass
slaughtered by Obama, then we say to you: Obama doesn’t have to kill
all the Muslims in America or even a single one for you to say that he’s
against Islam. Rather, Obama can say things like, “the terrorists want
shari’ah law,” “they want a global caliphate,” “they don’t practice the
true Islam; they are not Muslims,” and so on, and that would by default
put him at war with Islam because he wants a type of Islam that Allah didn’t
choose for us to follow. He wants an Islam empty of jihad, shari’ah,
wala’ wal bara’, khilafah, and such; in fact, it’s not only him but the entire
American administration from top to bottom. Therefore, they are at war
with Islam. Allah says,

﴾And the Jews and Christians will never be pleased
with you until you follow their form of religion﴿ [2: 120].

The Arabic word used in this verse is millah. Millah
here implies a type of religion which they are pleased with. So Allah has already
told us, over fourteen hundred years ago, that the disbelievers will
not be pleased with us; so we should expect them to play games to fool us
into believing that they are our allies, friends and helpers.
We’ll give you an example. The British Colonialist rule upon the Muslim
world was a horrible page in our Islamic history. When the British
ruled our lands, did they carry out a mass slaughter on every last Muslim
they could find? No. Yet they waged war on Islam. How? By intending to
control us, and eventually dividing us into many nation states. They were
responsible for the destruction of the last remains of an Islamic Caliphate
in March of 1924. And how were they able to do that? By the use of pawns
in the Muslim world, people who don’t have any honor for the sake of
the religion. For them to destroy it and replace it with completely un-
Islamic puppet governments is an act of war through the means of deception.
Today, America has invaded two Muslim lands and goes around
sending missiles on Muslims in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Do you
not feel any shame for saying that Obama is not at war with Islam when
he’s slaughtering your Pakistani brothers and sisters with his drone
attacks? It has been proven in numerous media reports that the majority
of those killed in the attacks are not Taliban or al Qaeda fighters, but ordinary
Pakistani citizens.

We as Muslims are to always look at the world from a religious point of
view if we are truly interested in success in the afterlife.

2) If we understood you correctly, you’re saying that if a Muslim uses
modern technology for Islamic purposes, this is a contradiction with al Qaeda beliefs? Or if Muslim plays a video game or watches a movie, he is
contradicting al Qaeda values? This is incorrect. In al Qaeda, we do not hate
the West for their technology, inventions, and such. We only hate the
West for their foreign policies upon the Islamic world. They invaded our
lands, killed and continue to kill our people, and subjugate our ummah
through various means, including the media. So we hate them for it and
fight them because of this. Al Qaeda is reacting to Western arrogance
in the Islamic world, and was not formed out of of hatred for Western
freedoms and developments. There is nothing in Islam that restricts a
Muslim from using modern technology, even from their enemies. In any
case, the Americans do not have a monopoly over technology. Technology
is sprouted from companies and research institutions, and not entirely
from governments.

3) Regarding your question of our ideology being nonexistent in
Muslim communities, we say what the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said regarding the
ghuraba’ (strangers). They will come with an Islam that will appear strange
to the people, but - as the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said - “glad tidings to the strangers.”
This is a very famous hadith and many Mosques in the West are
named after al-Ghuraba’. Also, we do not care what the people say about
us; we will continue doing what pleases Allah and displeases shayţan.
Allah says,

﴾And they do not fear the blame of the blamer﴿ [5: 54]

in reference to the victorious people. As for the issue of takfir, then I would
recommend you research this issue in your spare time as it is an
important and vast topic. You can do a simple Google search for “The
conditions of shahada” or “Takfir in shari’ah” to start this research. In
brief, takfir is forbidden to make on a Muslim unless if he commits an act
that nullifies his Islam. So for example, if a Muslim comes up to you and
says, “I am a Christian now,” do you say he’s a Muslim? No, as Muslims
we are obligated to make the truth apparent and declare the truth as it is
so that he is treated as a non-Muslim. Additionally classical Islamic scholars
have agreed that there are acts that if a Muslim were to commit, he would
have left the religion. These are known as “nawaqiđ al-Islam” or “The Nullifications of Islam.”

As for the issue of judging others, we will give you a hadith. But before
that, it is important to note that the Qur’an is not the only form of law
and guidance; there is also the sunnah or the statements of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم.

After the Battle of Badr, Ibn Abbas was one of those
captured by the Muslims as a prisoner - even though he converted to
Islam in Makkah previously. When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم came to him, Ibn Abbas
asked why he was of those that was tied up along with the disbelievers.
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم replied, “What was apparent was that you were against
us.” Meaning, Ibn Abbas was on the side of the army of the disbelievers.
So the meaning of this is that what is apparent is what we judge by, and
every Muslim has this right. However, in takfir there are many restrictions.

We don’t just assume someone is an apostate without clear evidence. The
other thing is who can implement the ruling once one is determined
to be an apostate. In today’s world, there is no Caliph nor Islamic Caliphate
to properly pass the judgment. So within that we find a whole other
topic in fiqh concerning the implementation of ĥudud without a state.
In brief, if the individual has apostatized publicly, and his apostasy is
clear, then this person’s blood and wealth is not protected from the
Muslims due to the hadith narrated by al-Bukhari, “Whoever changed his
Islamic religion, then kill him.”
Our ideology is not takfiri; the non-Muslims as well as their puppet
governments made that up to make the people condemn us. Our ideology
is the ‘aqidah of ahl as-sunnah wal jama’ah. We are openly against extremism in takfir and seek a balance. Because we implement the Islamic rulings - something which
the West hates as well as the fake Governments in our lands - we are
condemned as takfiri’s.

We recommend you to read the book by Shaykh Abu Muhammad
al-Maqdisi, “This is our ‘aqidah”. An English copy is available as a PDF
download on the internet if you run a search.

Your brothers at al Qaeda in the Arabian

E-mailed Question:

As-Salam ‘Alaykum. I live in the West and greatly desire hijrah to the lands
of jihad such as Afghanistan or Yemen. I have the money ready and
have an idea of where to go. The problem is that I don’t have any contact
to meet the mujahidin. What do you recommend that I do?

Jazakamullahu Khayran,
Anonymous Inquirer


Wa ‘Alaykum as-Salam, we hope and pray that Allah opens for you a way
to the gate of shahada’. Amin. Your situation describes the same
position that many other brothers in the West are going through; they
are ready to march forth but don’t have the concrete steps to meet their
mujahidin brothers. What we recommend is that you focus on planning
out attacks in the West. The brothers in the West should
remember the fiqhi ruling that jihad becomes farđ ‘ayn when the leaders
of jihad say it is; and when they say they have sufficient support and no
longer need outside help, the jihad is dropped down to the level of farđ
kifayah. So the ruling, aside from other things in the fiqh of jihad, is
based on the need of the leadership. Similarly, the mujahidin leadership
are today asking the brothers in the West specifically to attack Western interests
in the West instead of coming here to Yemen for example. Again,
this too is based off of the need of the leadership. However that doesn't
mean the jihad here in Yemen isn't farđ ‘ayn.

The foreign brothers that join the mujahidin, many amongst them, conclude
that it would have been better for them to return to the West and
launch operations. This is because killing 10 soldiers in America for
example, is much more effective than killing 100 apostates in the Yemeni
military. Usually the brothers coming to the lands of jihad from the West
don't have this mentality until they spend some time with their mujahidin
brothers. The realization kicks in, the desire burns, but by that time it's
too late to return. So we are asking our brothers in the West to come to
this realization. This is the chief reason as to why we started placing the
translation of Abu Mus'ab al-Suri's works on the theory of individual

With that said, based on your ability,
you choose the target. Your pool of targets are large, so make sure to
think of all of the available options. An example of something local, easy
and effective is attacking an army recruiting center, nightclub, highway
or busy shopping mall. Targets of greater difficulty, like the stock
market, well-guarded individuals or intelligence agencies, will naturally
require you to scout the enemy and area of attack thoroughly such as his
movements, the cameras, security guards, secondary exits and so on.
One of the most effective things to do is to study past operations that
failed and were done by individuals and small groups. Noting all the
reasons for failure will tremendously help you plan your course of action.
You will also need to decide on what you want to do with the operation
itself. Do you want to keep repeating operations or do a martyrdom operation?
We have noticed that the year 2010 alone saw the most arrests in the
West for homegrown jihadi operations. Most of those arrested were
arrested in groups, one connected to another. Sometimes the enemy
would even set up the brother in a sting operation, fooling him into believing
that he was working with the mujahidin. Keeping that in mind, we
have witnessed that operations done by lone individuals has proven to be
much more successful. So what can we learn from this? Group operations
have a greater tendency of failing than lone operations due to the idea
(of the operation) escaping the mind and tongue to other individuals.
Even if those individuals are trustworthy in your eyes, there is still that
1% chance that someone from the intelligence agencies are listening in
and paying attention to your groups’ actions or that the person you are
talking to might be working for the enemy or that he might be pressured at a later period to give information to them. With lone operations however, as long as you keep it to yourself,
nobody in the world would know what you’re thinking and planning.

That’s why individuals like Taimour, Roshonara, Nidal and others have been successful, even if they were ultimately arrested. The fact that they were able to pull off their operations
without being halted by authorities is a great success.

Finally, if you are incapable of carrying out operations in the West, and you decide that traveling to the lands of jihad is the best choice for you but
there is no available contact, then make sure to save up enough money
to reside in that country for sometime until you find someone.
Finding the mujahidin is in itself a great test and trial from Allah. It will
test your patience and steadfastness upon the path.

There are quite a few mujahidin in Yemen for example, who had absolutely
no contact with al Qaeda, hardly spoke the Arabic language, yet are
now with us due to the blessings of Allah upon them. All that we can advise you on this
matter is to always put your trust in Allah; don’t ever panic, even if the situation doesn’t go in your favor.

Your brothers in al Qaeda in the Arabian

Published in Rabi al-Awwal 1432 - March 2011

Viimeinen muokkaaja, Abdullah Rintala pvm Sun Jou 25, 2011 7:33 pm, muokattu 2 kertaa
Sun Jou 25, 2011 3:57 am Näytä käyttäjän tiedot Lähetä yksityinen viesti
Abdullah Rintala

Liittynyt: 05 Kes 2010
Viestejä: 479

Lähetä Vastaa lainaamalla viestiä
Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki

One could only imagine the feelings of Hosni Mubarak watching his huge
portrait, which watching over the great hall where his ministers of government
would meet, was brought down and solemnly moved out of the
hall, ending a legacy of oppression, corruption and a life of apostasy.
It was the 6th of October 1981 when the world was shocked with the
greatest and most spectacular event of its time: the assassination of Anwar
Sadat. Thirty years later the people of Egypt surprise the world again
with their toppling of the next in line, Hosni Mubarak.

Not ruling in accordance to the law of Allah was a sufficient enough reason
for the removal of Sadat but his signing of the peace accord with Israel
added urgency to the mandate of his removal. His assassination marks
the first large-scale operation by the modern jihad movement.

Hosni Mubarak proved to be no better. In fact he proved to be an eviler
version of his predecessor. He went further with the persecution of the
Muslim activists and mujahidin, and he furthered the process of turning
Egypt into a client state of the West and Israel.

Corruption increased under his rule and the gap between the rich
and poor widened even more. This time he was removed, however, not
by a selected few but by the entire population of the largest Arab state.

Eighty million spoke with one voice and said “leave” to the ally of America and Israel.
For a long time the Muslim world has not suffered from such stagnancy in
its forms of government. Mubarak, Gadhafi, Ben Ali, Saleh, Assad and
the kings of Morocco, Jordan and the Gulf have been a scourge on
the ummah and many were seeing no end in sight. It was becoming an
accepted, albeit an unwanted, reality that Mubarak would be followed
by his son just like Bashar followed his father and just like every other
system of government in the Middle East, whether it was a monarchy or
a republic, was there to stay, was there forever. This spirit of defeatism
was widespread but was not universal.

There were those who wanted change and believed that it was not
only possible but soon. Muslims who understood Islam never accepted the
rotten systems of government that were wrapping the area in a cloak of
tyranny. They wanted change and they worked for it. They paid the
price for their struggle and defiance by losing their lives, living in exile and
being imprisoned.

Even though many aspired for change and believed that it was near,
no one saw it coming from Tunisia.
But then when it came from Tunisia, no one saw it happening in Egypt.
So leaving the expectations of what might or might not happen in the future, let’s take a look at how this Tsunami of change has already benefited
the ummah. The first and probably most important
change that this monumental event brought is a mental one. It
brought a change to the collective mind of the ummah. The revolution broke the barriers of fear in the
hearts and minds that the tyrants couldn’t be removed. After the Algerian crises of the past decade when the elections brought victory to the Islamists, a civil war ensued that
resulted in large scale bloodshed and caused many to think that any attempt
for change would bring with it more tyranny than what they want to
remove. This led to a widespread belief that changing the client regimes
in the Muslim world which have the entire Western world backing them
politically, militarily and economically is unrealistic in this period of our
struggle. The events of Algeria which came after unsuccessful attempts
by the Islamic movements in Egypt and Syria spread a spirit of defeatism
amongst the ummah. The long lives of the tyrants along with their amazingly
long rule led to the belief that there was no hope in change. Twenty
three days in Tunisia and eighteen days in Egypt were enough to shatter
that deep and long held belief. The Tunisian and Egyptian people proved
to us that it can be done.

It appears that the West was taken by surprise by the current events. This
left them scrambling in their reactions and gave an impression of a
Western leadership that is confused, worried, and unhappy for the departure
of some of its closest and most reliable friends, but yet willing to
betray them and ride on the wave of change that is sweeping the area.
The Western leaders realize that it would be unwise to reveal their true
feelings of what is happening. The West knows that it would be unwise
to stand by their friends when the masses have spoken out and asked
for freedom, a principle the West claims that it stands for. But it seems
that the West either does not know what is awaiting them or does know
but wants to put on an optimistic face. Let’s take a look at some of what
the Western leaders and experts have been saying:

Hillary Clinton claims that: “The success of peaceful protests discredited
the extremists and exposed their bankrupt arguments.” Robert Gates
thinks that the Arab protests represent a major setback to al Qaeda. Fareed
Zakaria asserts: “there is an interesting debate on whether the events
in the Middle East are good for the United States, the West, good for
peace and stability, but I think there can be little dispute about whom
they are bad for: al Qaeda. In fact the Arab revolts of 2011 represent a total
repudiation of al Qaeda's founding ideology.” Peter Bergen who sees
that al Qaeda would be watching the events with a mixture of glee and
despair only sees the glee in the fact that al Qaeda would be happy to see
the current regimes gone but would mostly view the events with despair
because: “whatever outcome there is in these different revolutions and
revolts, I think it is very unlikely that a Taliban style theocracy is going to replace the regimes that are fallen.”

The statements of the U.S. State and Defense Secretaries prove that
either the intelligence reports these guys are reading are misleading or
that they are just trying to justify the stance that they are forced to take in
support of the Arab masses, by claiming that they are bad for al Qaeda
when they know very well that the opposite is the case. In the case of
Fareed Zakaria, well, he is wrong this time just like he, and his cabal of neoconservatives,
are wrong every time they speak about an issue pertaining
to the Muslim world.

But for a so-called ‘terrorism expert’ such as Peter Bergen, it is interesting
to see how even he doesn’t get it right this time. For him to think
that because a Taliban style regime is not going to take over following the
revolutions, is a too short-term way of viewing the unfolding events.
We do not know yet what the outcome
would be, and we do not have to. The outcome doesn't have to be
an Islamic government for us to consider what is occurring to be a step
in the right direction. Regardless of the outcome, whether it is an Islamic
government or the likes of al-Baradi, Amr Mousa or another military figure;
whatever the outcome is, our mujahidin brothers in Tunisia, Egypt,
Libya and the rest of the Muslim world will get a chance to breathe
again after three decades of suffocation.

The crackdown that the Islamic movement in Egypt witnessed at
the out-start of the Mubarak regime and that continued for the following
thirty years would not be possible again in a post-revolution Egyptian
government. The anti-Islam secular government of Tunisia that was the
only Arab state to go as far as banning the niqab would be impossible
to repeat in a post-revolution Tunisia.

In Libya, no matter how bad the situation gets and no matter how
pro-Western or oppressive the next government proves to be, we do
not see it possible for the world to produce another lunatic of the same
caliber of the Colonel. By the will of Allah those days are gone. Even if
the upcoming governments wanted to continue with a policy of appeasing
the West and Israel, they would not have the strength and depth
of power that the previous governments had developed over the past
three decades. In addition to that, it would be difficult for a government
that came into power, in order to fulfill the aspirations of the people for
freedom, to restrict their freedoms even if it wanted to and was pushed
by the West to do so. If the West is counting on an Animal Farm scenario
to follow the revolution, they are definitely mistaken.

If one would trace back the roots of today’s jihad movement, one would
see clearly the strong influence of the Egyptian Islamic movement. It was
Sayyid Qutb and then the Egyptian Jihad that represented the ideological
basis for today’s jihad work. For the scholars and activists of Egypt to
be able to speak again freely, it would represent a great leap forward for the

One should not consider the rule of Mubarak as being successful in crushing
the jihad movement. What he has done was to spread the movement
all over the world. The pressure on our mujahidin brothers in Egypt was
the cause behind them moving into Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen,
Europe, and the United States. This exodus brought with it the proliferation
of the jihadi ideology. Therefore, so to speak, Hosni did not solve the problem; he just spread it all over the place.

Another important lesson is the American response. Hosni Mubarak
has been a staunch ally of America, as America wishes to call him or an
American stooge as we view him. He has stood firmly in the face of popular
opposition from the entire Muslim world when he continued with the
peace process with Israel. His support for the American invasion of
Iraq in the first Gulf War was indispensible for America. He persecuted the Islamists in his country, filled the prisons, tortured, and killed, all for the sake of America. He did the dirty
job for the Americans. In spite of that, how did the Americans treat him at
his moment of need? They trashed him. He was conned by America. He
was tricked, swindled, cheated, or as Malcolm would have liked to say: He’s
been bamboozled. America duped him and then dumped him.
Now the important question is: Are the rest of America's servants, littering
the scene from Morocco to Pakistan, paying any attention?

The fruits of what happened in Egypt are not exclusive to Egypt. In fact we
might probably witness the greatest effect of what is happening in Egypt
outside of Egypt. One such place might turn out to be Yemen. Yemen
already has a fragile government and the events of Egypt are only going to
add pressure on it. And any weakness in the central government would
undoubtedly bring with it more strength for the mujahidin in this
blessed land. Yemen would also represent another great opportunity for
the West to show their hypocrisy of calling for freedoms while supporting
a dictator just because they do not want Muslims to be ruled by Islam.
Another place might be Libya. Omar al-Mukhtar had left the Libyans with
a legacy of jihad against the West and as such Libyans have featured
prominently in jihad work ever since. Al-Gadhafi has filled the Libyan prisons
with thousands of our mujahidin brothers. With turmoil in Libya,
these brothers will have a chance to regroup again and connect with their
brothers in the Maghreb. With the events in Tunisia, Libya and Algeria,
the jihad in the Islamic Maghreb is witnessing a new dawn.
Then there are the great expectations of what will come out of the Arabian
Peninsula when the revolts reach the shores of the Gulf. Does the West
not realize that there are thousands and thousands of mujahidin in Saudi
prisons and elsewhere in the Arabian Peninsula? Doesn’t the West realize
how the jihadi work would just take off as soon as the regimes of the Gulf
start crumbling?

Peter Bergen believes that al Qaeda is viewing the events with glee and
despair. Glee yes, but not despair. The mujahidin around the world are going
through a moment of elation and I wonder whether the West is aware
of the upsurge of mujahidin activity in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen,
Arabia, Algeria, and Morocco? Is the West aware of what is happening or
are they asleep with drapes covering their eyes? Or is what is happening
too much for the West to handle at the moment and they are just bidding
for time while attempting to prop up some new stooges who
would return the area to the prerevolution era?

America, since 9-11, has been focused on the fight with the mujahidin
in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and now Yemen. It has devoted its
resources and intelligence for the “fight on terror”. But with what is
happening now in the Arab world, America would no doubt have to
divert some of its attention to the unexpected avalanche that is burying
its dear friends. America has depended on these men for the
dirty work of protecting the American imperial interests. They acted as
point men that saved America the effort of doing it themselves but now
with their fall, America would have to divert huge amounts of effort and
money to cultivate a new breed of collaborators. This would force America,
which is already an exhausted empire, to spread itself thin, which in
turn would be a great benefit for the mujahidin. Even without this wave
of change in the Muslim world, the jihad movement was on the rise. With
the new developments in the area, one can only expect that the great
doors of opportunity would open up for the mujahidin all over the world.

Published in Rabi al-Awwal 2011 - March 2011

Viimeinen muokkaaja, Abdullah Rintala pvm Sun Maa 03, 2013 7:14 pm, muokattu 2 kertaa
Sun Jou 25, 2011 4:00 am Näytä käyttäjän tiedot Lähetä yksityinen viesti
Abdullah Rintala

Liittynyt: 05 Kes 2010
Viestejä: 479

Lähetä Vastaa lainaamalla viestiä
Ouestions Answered by Anwar al-Awlaki


As-Salâm `Alaykum,

I want to know how do the mujahidin view the events in Bahrain? Do they
support the Shi’a Bahrani calls for more freedoms?




Wa `Alaykum as-Salâm,

We do not support the Shi`a in Bahrain nor do we believe that they are entirely
innocent from Iran. Indeed Iran has made statements of condemnation
against the tawaghit of Bahrain and Saudi, in support of the Bahraini protesters.
This means that Iran’s interests are conflicted with when they see the
Shi`a’s demands unmet. Furthermore, Iran has never condemned Yemen’s
or Syria’s presidents, for example, for taking physical action against the Sunni
protesters; this is because the Sunni uprisings are not only less important in
their eyes than the Shi`a uprising, but that the Shi`a protests open a potential
door for Iran to have greater influence and/or special relationships with more
Shi`a’s in a Sunni-majority region.

With a fledging Iranian Shi`a support in
Northern Yemen, East of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq and now Bahrain, this
will only signal disaster for the ahl as-sunnah in the region. This is not an
attempt on our part to cause ‘sectarian divisions’ for no reason. Rather we are
spelling the reality of the situation on the ground. The Houthi’s have a direct
connection to Iran as do Hezbullah in Lebanon as do the governing Iraqi
Shi`a leaders and gangs (like the Mehdi Army). One similar trait amongst them
is that they all have their own organized militaries.

Anyone can revisit the events of the Shi`a uprisings in Makkah in the 70’s to
see just what a frail yet extremely dangerous Shi`a minority can do. This uprising
was directly connected to Iran and its Shi`a scholars. One can only imagine
what a well-organized, state-backed, advanced Shi`a Rafidha authority can
do. Interestingly, even the tawaghit in the Arabian Peninsula have recognized
this threat and are calling on America to help them. This is partly why America
has taken such a strong stand against Iran as their interests lay open.


As-Salâm `Alaykum,

There is a lot of talk recently about the banning of niqab in Europe and we're
finding some of our Imam's defending this decision of the tawaghit arguing
that the niqab is neither a farđ nor sunnah, thus making it completely invalid
in Islam. How do we respond to such?



Wa `Alaykum as-Salâm,

It is unfortunate to see some Imam's backing the racist decisions of the
tawaghit against our sisters using unsubstantiated claims, as we shall
demonstrate. This is another subject by itself and its ruling is clear to those who
know about supporting the enemy kuffar against the Muslims in word and opinion.

It is true that the issue of niqab has been a long-time debated topic, but there has always been some fundamental agreements between the two dissenting
parties. This includes that the niqab is an Islamic practice as opposed
to a mere cultural adoption. There was never a voice (until now) stating that
the niqab is "un-Islamic".

Those who argue on the side of the ĥijab usually use the aĥadith concerning
the covering of everything except the hands and face; these aĥadith are
known to be demoted to the level of đa`if (weak). As for the side of niqab,
there is actually no disagreement that the wives of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم covered
their faces; the debate is what was practiced by the women after them (i.e.,
is the niqab likewise applicable to those other than the Prophet's صلى الله عليه وسلم wives?).

Sometimes there is also misinterpretation in aĥadith due to erroneous
translation. For example, in the aĥadith found in Şaĥiĥ al-Bukhari concerning
the women who tore off their muruts (a piece of cloth) to cover their heads, one
will find in some translations the word faces; this is incorrect as the word faces
is nowhere to be found in the original Arabic text.

Shaykh Nasiruddin al-Albani's research on this topic concluded that the niqab
is not wajib but sunnah. However, it is widely agreed upon that wearing
the niqab is more rewarding than the headscarf as it covers more and is an
emulation of the ummaĥat al-mu'minin (the mothers of the believers).
There are plenty of scholarly works on this subject and we urge the student
of knowledge to research both sides of the argument before coming to an
educated judgment.



There are many Western analysts – such as Fareed Zakaria - asserting that the
protesters want jobs, better living conditions, justice etc. and not a global
Caliphate. They thus conclude that al Qaeda is irrelevant to the Muslim
masses. What do you have to say?



Wa `Alaykum as-Salâm,

It is true that the protesters want jobs, better living conditions, justice in all
spheres of life and the likes, as any normal person living under tyrannical
rule would yearn for such. The analysts' misapprehension is in what the
shari`ah offers and what the people want. Everything that the protesters
want is available in the shari`ah – from freedom to a dependable economy.
Due to ignorance and misperceptions about the shari`ah - such that it merely
focuses on capital punishments and deterrents - these analysts are unable to
see where the people meet and where the shari`ah meets.

Further, the protesters have never protested against the shari`ah nor
have shown displeasure with it. That's because they know the shari`ah is Islam
and to reject shari`ah is to reject their own religion.

Those who argue that the protests hurt al Qaeda are quick to forget that the
protesters have their eyes on Palestine just as we have our eyes on Palestine.
Does America have its eye on liberating Palestine from the Jewish occupation?
Far from it. The call of the protesters for democracy are in actuality calls
for basic rights and freedoms that the shari`ah provides; it doesn't have much
to do with democracy per say. Now that they have eliminated the ruling tyrannical
parties, the obstacles have become less for the pavement to the path of
shari`ah. All in all, our shared interests are much greater and momentous than
America's supposed claims that the protests help them.

Published on Shaban 1432 - Summer 2011

Viimeinen muokkaaja, Abdullah Rintala pvm Sun Jou 25, 2011 7:35 pm, muokattu 2 kertaa
Sun Jou 25, 2011 4:03 am Näytä käyttäjän tiedot Lähetä yksityinen viesti
Abdullah Rintala

Liittynyt: 05 Kes 2010
Viestejä: 479

Lähetä Vastaa lainaamalla viestiä
A New Video featuring al-Awlaqi:

And still available for viewing and downloading al-Malahim Media Interview:

Sun Jou 25, 2011 4:05 am Näytä käyttäjän tiedot Lähetä yksityinen viesti
Abdullah Rintala

Liittynyt: 05 Kes 2010
Viestejä: 479

Lähetä Vastaa lainaamalla viestiä
What is your analysis on the riots that took place across the United Kingdom?
John Brave


After studying the issue at hand for sometime, it appears that it was a
mixture of issues that caused the riots to sweep across the country.
It's important to know this because it exposes to the world
the frailty of one of the world's leading democracies. That is, how
can the UK government dare fight to change Afghanistan into
a democracy (minus shari`ah, of course) when their own backyard
is in a mess? It's quite paradoxical of them to do so.

The British citizens rising up is not a surprise considering the
complaints of the average people there. The student protests that
occurred earlier this year confirms the largely discontented sentiment
of the masses; they are simply fed up with their government.
The intriguing thing is that a lot of these problems stem from the
role the family units play in their homes and societies. Because the
government has imposed a handsoff policy on the parents towards
their children, it takes away the natural right of a mother or father
to discipline their child accordingly. The child can dial the number for
the police and land their parent(s) in jail should he/she lay a hand on
them. When the right to discipline the child is taken away, it gives way
to criminality.

There is also the issue of high divorce rates amongst the parents
which in itself has a lot to do with adultery; a much encouraged act
in Western societies, incidentally. When parents divorce, it almost
always leaves a negative effect on the children who then turn to
illegal and harmful stimulants to take them away from the pain. The
sale and usage of drugs amongst the youth in the UK for example,
is an embarrassing statistic for any government to have.

So government interference in the family sector is certainly a
cause for such behavior. Another cause is related to the injustices
of the state and police. The police especially have a history
of imparting injustice towards the people. Due to the numerous
complaints, they changed their policies and behavior towards
the people recently, resulting in a punching bag approach; that was
best displayed during the riots as the youth felt immortal from the
police's grip for once.

Additionally, the issue of the social classes and poverty played a
role. The overall majority of those youth were not from the well off
communities; rather, many of them came from backgrounds
where they have to make ends meet everyday.

Last but not least, the hip-hop thug culture - which is applauded in Western media - has a major effect on the way its followers think. Its music, which is the focal point of this culture, is the voice
of the criminals (and criminal wannabes) in society. Some may
argue that that's an overstatement. The utter reality is that the better
part of their music is filled with criminal slogans of murder, gang
allegiances, references to women as sexual objects, and the advocacy
of the superiority of scantily clad women. From associating oneself
to this thug way of life, nine times out of ten, a rebellious youth is
born with detestable ethics.

So all the social evils that Islam has the solution to, are the problems of
the British society. A return to the fundamentals of what is virtuous
and immoral is a good place to start.
Equally, it can be argued that the politicians calling for law and order
to fight corruption are the slowest in doing the same for what goes
on in the upper levels of major corporations and government



What is your take on al-Jazeera's series "9/11 Decade"? Do you agree to everything stated in it?
Rafiq Islam


There were a few things we disagreed with. For example, their
equating of al-Zarqawi's decaptation of "civilians" with America's
helicopter incident leaked by Wikileaks, suggesting that both
sides lost the media war in Iraq, is not politically correct. Firstly, the
prisoners in al-Zarqawi's hands were not "civilians" but those who
were actively participating in the building of America's empire. The
ones killed by America however, had nothing to do with anything.
Secondly, there is no statistic evidence to suggest that al Qaeda's
support waned after the decapitations. As a matter of fact, al Qaeda's
support has only grown throughout the past few years.

Another thing was that they admitted that they held back on showing some of Shaykh Usama's tapes because of it being full of religious discourse. By doing that, they actually alter the image of al-Qaeda since we are all about religious
discourse; everything we do, say and plan is from religious backing.
So his tapes would give the masses an idea of how he came to
his political conclusions of taking up war against the West.

Finally, throughout their series, they tend to look at the past ten or
so years in light of the revolutions taking place around the Muslim
world, concluding that al Qaeda is no longer relevant and that the
clash of Islam and the West is a concept that's going downhill. We
argue that their understanding of the revolutions is erroneous by
placing it over the events of jihad.

We say that the revolutions and the global jihad are events that
are both growing together on the same level. With the people
struggling to remove the tyrants, this only makes our job of da`wah
easier. With some of the tyrants gone, the ruthlessness of their
aggression against Islam and the Muslims also vanishes.
Al-Jazeera has seem to forgotten that we are an Islamic movement
and that anything that is in the benefit of Islam's establishment is
what we wholly support. Shaykh Ayman al-Zawahiri, for example,
called to sparking revolutions in Egypt years before they actually
occurred; this is more than enough evidence that we support activities
that further helps the cause of Islam, even if jihad is not used.

The clash of civilizations is far from over unlike what al-Jazeera
presumed. To assume that this idea is going downhill is to live in
a fairytale world. A glance at the recent protests in Egypt against the
Israeli embassy is a proof of this. Do such protests benefit America or
their archenemy, the mujahidin? Also, are the Muslims worldwide
now going to forgive and forget everything America has done in
the past? We highly doubt that especially when their aggression
on the Muslims continue.

Lastly, we have seen images on Press TV — an Iranian channel —
of Egyptians burning American flags at the protests and chanting
anti-American slogans. Why does al-Jazeera fail to display these
images? We believe it's because they have an agenda.

Published in Shawwal 1432 - September 2011
Sun Maa 03, 2013 7:18 pm Näytä käyttäjän tiedot Lähetä yksityinen viesti
Abdullah Rintala

Liittynyt: 05 Kes 2010
Viestejä: 479

Lähetä Vastaa lainaamalla viestiä


by Shaykh Anwar al-'Awlaki

Inspire magazine has announced that it would be
holding a video session with myself to answer the questions
we receive from our readers. The most frequently asked
question was about the legality of targeting non-combatants in
countries that are at war with the Muslims. This issue is surrounded
with confusion and because of its importance and relevance to today's
jihad, I would devote this article to answering it based on the
evidence from Qur’an and Ĥadîth as well as the actual practices of
the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, his companions and the consecutive
generations of the mujahidin. We will also look into the realities of
today's jihad and what methods of war are needed for its success (fiqh
al-wâqi`). This is the summary of the fiqh of the issue at hand:

• The scholars have divided the people of dâr al-ĥarb into combatants
and non-combatants.

• The scholars agree that all combatants may be targeted. With
the category of non-combatants it is more complex.

• Scholars agree that women and children should not be intentionally

• The scholars differed however on the ruling concerning the elderly,
farmers, merchants and slaves.

• But they all agree that if women, the elderly, farmers, merchants
or slaves participate in the war effort against Muslims either by
actual participation in fighting, financial contribution or opinion,
they become legitimate targets.

• If combatants and non-combatants are mixed together and
integrated, it is allowed for the Muslims to attack them even if
women, children, the elderly, farmers, merchants and slaves
get killed but this should only be done with the intention of fighting
the combatants.

• If Muslims kill non-combatants in fighting there is no liability on
the Muslims. There is no retribution, no blood money to be paid
and there is no sin on the Muslims in the eyes of Allah.

• If Muslims get killed unintentionally or by mistake during the
fight with the disbelievers, there is no sin on the Muslim who killed
him but there is a kaffârah which is fasting two months or feeding
sixty poor persons. There is a difference of opinion whether
blood money should be paid.

• Non-combatants should not be executed if they fall into captivity.

• Islam does not allow the enemy to use our rules against us and
to use our rules to our disadvantage.

• The consideration of the continuation of jihad and the victory of
the Muslims should always take precedence when the scholar
gives a fatwa on a matter relating to jihad. The following are aĥâdîth that prohibit the killing of non-combatants:

• Ibn Umar narrated that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم prohibited the
killing of women and children.
1 Bukhari and Muslim.

• The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Do not kill an old man or a child or a woman.” 2

• The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم found a woman killed in one of
his battles and said:
“She is not a fighter.” 3

2 Narrated by Abu Dawood with an agreeable chain of narration.
3 Narrated by Abu Dawood and al-Hakim and is Şaĥîĥ.

Our scholars have used the terms muqâtilah and ghayr muqâtilah which translates into “combatants” and “non-combatants” respectively
to classify the disbelievers who are at war with the Muslims.
It is the consensus of the scholars that Muslims should not kill the
women and children of the disbelievers intentionally. It is the word
“intentionally” that should be explained here because it qualifies
the above statement and a lack of understanding this rule is what
leads to the confusion that surrounds this issue today. What is
meant is that women and children should not be singled out for killing;
women and children should not be killed if they fall into captivity
and if they can be separated from the combatants in war they should.
But in no way does it mean that Islam prohibits the fighting against
the disbelievers if their men, women and children are intermingled.
This understanding is very dangerous and detrimental to jihad
and awareness on this issue is very important. To stop the targeting of
disbelievers who are at war with the Muslims just because there are
women and children among them leads to constraints on today’s jihad
that make it very difficult, and at times, impossible to fight and
places the Muslims at a great disadvantage compared to their enemy.
To properly understand this issue let’s look at the statements
of the scholars regarding attacking the enemy in their dwellings
and laying siege to their towns. During the time of the Messenger
of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم there was a form of fighting called bayat. This is when
the enemy would be attacked at night under the cover of darkness.
The attackers would ambush the enemy in their tents and houses
and engage them in fighting. This would lead to the deaths of men,
women and children who were in the tents or homes because of the
difficulty in distinguishing the difference between man, woman
and child. So is this form of fighting allowed in Islam? The answer is
yes. The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم was asked about the ruling concerning
the women and children who get targeted in bayat. The Messenger
of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said in an authentic narration

“They belong to them.” Which means that the ruling of the women and children is the same as that for the combatant men whom it is allowed to kill. The Messenger
of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم permitted his companions to engage in this form of
fighting even though, at occasions, entire families would be killed.
Salamah said: “I myself have killed the inhabitants of nine houses.”4
4 Mu`jim al-Tabarani.

Imam Ahmad was asked about bayat. He said: “And is the fighting
against the Romans but bayat?”
5 Al-Mughnî, Ibn al-Qudamah.

In other words, Imam Ahmad not only approves of bayat but also
states that it is the most common method of war employed by
the Muslims against the Romans. There is no difference in ruling
between bayat and detonating a bomb in a populated center in
a nation that is at war with the Muslims. Just as the swords of
the companions and those who followed them could not distinguish
between man, woman and child and yet were allowed to
engage in bayat, why should we ban bombings of populated areas
in disbelieving countries? The matter of bayat is agreed upon
to the extent that Imam Ahmad said: “We do not know of anyone
who discouraged bayat.”
6 Ibid.

The other method of fighting which is relevant to our discussion
is setting the catapult or mangonel against the cities of the disbelievers.
The scholars of sîrah mentioned that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم
set up the mangonel against al-Taif and that Amr bin al-Aas used
it against Alexandria in Egypt. The mangonel would strike its missiles
against the city and did not distinguish between man, woman
or child. The ruling on using the mangonel against the enemy is
summarized by Ibn Rushd who states that: “It is the consensus of
the jurists that it is allowed to set up catapults against the forts of
the disbelievers whether there are women and children in them
or not because of what was narrated to us that the Messenger
of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم set up the mangonel against the people of al-Taif.”
7 Bidâyat al-Mujtahid.

Imam al-Shafi’i says: “It has been reported to us that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم set up the mangonel against al-Taif. So if it was necessary
for the Muslims to not target the disbelievers because of the existence
of children amongst them, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم would
have prohibited that because their cities and fortresses are not
without women, children, elderly, (Muslim) prisoners, and merchants.
This narration from al-Taif (that he used the mangonel) and others
is well preserved and well known from the sunnah of the Messenger
of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and his sîrah. It has also been the practice of the Muslims
and the righteous predecessors from the companions of Muhammad
صلى الله عليه وسلم to be as such in regards to the fortresses of the disbelievers
before us and it has not been reported to us that any one of them
stopped targeting a fortress by mangonel or other forms of weaponry
just because of the existence of women, children or others who
should not be killed among them.”

After mentioning that it is allowed to use the mangonel, Imam al-Mawardi says that: “The prohibition of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم of killing women and children applies to when they fall captive since they are booty for the Muslims. But when the women and children are in the land of war they can be targeted as their men because the land of war is a land that is permissible
(to target its people).”
8 Al-Umm.

But even with the mangonel, the scholars allowed its use against civilian targets based on the need. Imam al-Shafi’i states that if the Muslims are at a distance from the fort or the town they should fire only at the walls
and not at the homes of the disbelievers.9
9 Ibid.

However, if they are close to the walls then they are
allowed to fire at the homes. Again, with the mangonel just
as with bayat, it leads to the loss of lives of non-combatants. A
mangonel missile that strikes at a city and which is by no means an
accurate weapon is no different than bombing a city of a nation
that is at war with the Muslims. Therefore from the above two
pieces of evidence it becomes clear that Muslims are allowed to
target the populations of countries that are at war with the
Muslims by bombings or firearm attacks or other forms of
attacks that inevitably lead to the deaths of non-combatants.

Notice that I haven't even brought up the evidence of treating the enemy
as they treat us. With all the aggression the West is committing
against the Muslims this additional evidence leaves no room for
those who argue on behalf of the general populations of the West.
It is important to look into the foundations, which our classical
scholars based their fatâwâ on concerning jihad to see why they
came to different conclusions compared to many scholars of today.

• Imam Abu Zakaria al-Ansari:

“It is allowed to set up the mangonel on a fort even if it would
strike (the non-combatants) so that they do not use that as a
way to disable jihad or as a ruse to keep their fortresses and in
that is great evil.”
10 Asna al-Maţâlib

• Imam al-Nawawi: “If there is in the town or the fortress a Muslim,
a (Muslim) prisoner, a merchant, a disbeliever who is given
peace, or a group of the aforementioned, is it allowed to target the population with fire or mangonels and what is similar to
that? There are different ways in the madhab (school of thought).
First, if it is not necessary to strike them then the stronger opinion is that it is not recommended to do so but it is not prohibited. This
is so that jihad does not become disabled because of a Muslim who is among the disbelievers. If it is necessary to strike them due
to fear from harm that would befall the Muslims from them or because the fortress could not be opened in any other way, then
there is no doubt that it is allowed to strike them. The second
way in the madhab is that there is no consideration for necessity.
If striking them would lead to the death of a Muslim they should not strike them otherwise there are two opinions.
The third way, and this is mentioned by the author of al-Shâmil, is that
if the number of Muslims among them is equal to the disbelievers
we should not strike them but if they are less, then we can strike
them because most of the harm would not be on the Muslims.
The official position of the madhab, and this is what is stated in
al-Mukhtasar, is that it is allowed to strike them even if it is known that it would inflict harm on theMuslims (among the disbelievers) because the sanctity of the Muslims on our side is greater than the sanctity of the Muslims who are among them. If some Muslims do get killed they are
11 Rawdat al-Țâlibîn.

• Imam Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi:
“If they (the enemy) shield themselves in war by women and children
and others who should not be killed, it is allowed to target
them with the intention of killing the combatants. This is because
the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used the mangonel even though there were
women and children among them. It is also because if the Muslims
seize attacking them this would lead to the disablement of
jihad since the enemy would use this shield to protect themselves
whenever they feel threatened by the Muslims. It is allowed to
strike against them whether the battle is raging or not because
the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not wait to
strike only at the times when the
battle was underway.”
12 Al-Sharĥ al-Kabîr.

• Imam Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi also says: “It was reported by Ali bin Abi Talib that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم set up the mangonel against the people of al-Taif; and flooding the enemy with water is similar to that. If there are Muslims among them and we can conquer the enemy without using such methods,
then we shouldn’t because it would lead to the shedding of
blood without any necessity but if we cannot conquer them unless
we use such methods then it is allowed because prohibiting
that would lead to the disablement
of jihad.”
13 Al-Kâfî.

This is just a sample of quotations from our classical scholars to show
that the continuation of jihad takes precedence over other considerations
and that whatever would lead to the disablement of jihad
should be abrogated. Many of the modern scholars have placed
a set of rigid rules that if followed would make jihad impossible or at
least put the Muslims in a position of disadvantage compared to an
enemy who has no morals when it comes to its war against Islam.
Some of the restrictions placed on jihad by some of the modern
scholars include:

• Jihad should not be fought without the permission of the
king or president

• Martyrdom operations are not allowed

• Any operation that leads to the death of disbelieving women
and children is not allowed.

The first restriction by itself would lead to the complete abandonment
of jihad because none of the kings or presidents (who are
apostates to start with) would allow jihad for the sake of Allah. The
only type of war they would allow is a war that benefits them personally
and protects their power. They would care less about a war that is
for the sake of Allah, the promotion of Islam or the defense of Muslims.
The other two restrictions rule out most of the operation methods
available for the mujahidin today.

Imam Ibn Rushd says that it is the consensus of the jurists that fortresses
could be struck with mangonels whether there are women
and children in them or not.

Imam al-Shafi’i says: “It has also been the
practice of the Muslims and the righteous predecessors from the
companions of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم to be as such in regards to the fortresses of the disbelievers before us and it has not been reported to us that any one of them stopped targeting a fortress by mangonel
or other forms of weaponry just because
of the existence of women or children or others who should not
be killed among them.”

And Imam Ahmad said: “And is the fighting
against the Romans but bayat?”

It has been the practice of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم in his battles
to attack populations of the disbelievers even if women and
children get unintentionally killed; it has been the practice of the four
righteous Caliphs, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ayyubids, the
Muslims in Spain and the Mamluks in their wars to ambush the Romans
in bayat and to use mangonels against them; and it has been
the practice of the Ottomans to use artillery in their sieges against
the disbelievers’ towns and cities. So can we throw away 1,400 years
of war methods out of the window and come up today with new unfair
rules for our jihad? What the Muslims didn’t do is kill them intentionally
or kill them when they surrendered and fell into captivity.
A sound understanding of this issue is very much needed today in
order not to restrict our jihad or put our brothers at jeopardy by banning
them from feasible targets just because it would lead to the
deaths of non-combatants, and only allow them to attack military targets that are more protected.

Modes of operation that would be allowed according to the above evidence:

• The use of explosives against populated areas in nations that
are at war with Muslims is allowed. Explosive devices are
similar to the effect a mangonel would have. Mangonel missiles
were either stones which would fall and kill by impact or
by shrapnel caused by them or containers that are filled with an
incendiary material which would kill by burning. Some scholars
have equated explosives to the use of fire against the enemy,
which isn’t exactly accurate.14
14 The scholars are using the (authentic) evidence that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم banned the use of punishing the enemy with fire.

It is true that explosives do produce high temperatures but most
deaths are caused by shrapnel and by the detonation wave. The
heat of the explosion causes the least number of casualties. This
is the case with most explosive materials. But whether the death
is caused by heat or by shrapnel, explosives are similar in legislation
to the use of the mangonel.

• The use of firearms in operations such as that of Mumbai,
which is targeted at the general population, is allowed and is
similar to the bayat method of war discussed above. The shooter
can fire randomly at crowds but should avoid the execution
of women or children when the target is clear.

• The use of poisons or chemical and biological weapons against population centers is allowed and is strongly recommended due to its great effect on the enemy.

Regarding the importance and permissibility of using such
weapons, the classical scholars have said the following:

– Imam al-Mawardi: “The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم set up the
catapult on al-Taif when he laid siege to it following the opening
of Makkah. It is allowed to attack the enemy (in the place
where they live such as their cities or villages) when they are
not aware, like what the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم did with Bani
al-Mustalaq, and it is allowed to attack them at night and set
fire to their homes and throw on them fire, snakes or scorpions,
demolish their homes with them inside, release floods onto
them, cutoff their water supply, and do onto them all what
would lead to their destruction without refraining just because
of the women and children that are among them, even if
that would lead to the deaths of their women and children.
This is because the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم did not stop from
attacking Bani al-Mustalaq or al-Taif because of their women
and children. The instruction of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم not
to kill women and children is when they are intentionally executed;
also when they fall as booty they should not be killed.
However when they are residing in dâr al-ĥarb, it is ĥalâl to
target them and they carry the same ruling as their men.”
15 Al-Ĥâwî al-Kabîr.

– Imam al-Sarkhasi (a Hanafi scholar) quotes Muhammad ibn
al-Hassan from Sharĥ al-Sayr al-Kabîr: “It is allowed for the Muslims to burn the fortresses of the disbelievers with fire, to flood them with water, or to put
blood, feces or poison in their water until they contaminate it
because Allah commanded us to subdue them and break their
strength and all the methods of war which we mentioned that
would lead to their weakening would be fulfilling the commands
(of Allah) and would not fall under disobeying (of Allah). All of this also damages the enemy and that is a way to obtain rewards.
Allah says: ﴾Nor do they inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness﴿
[9: 120].
None of the mentioned (methods of war) are prohibited if there is among them Muslim prisoners of war, people
who are given peace, young or old, men or women even if we
know that, because there is no way to avoid them and at the
same time fulfill the commands of subjugating the disbelievers
and whatever is not possible to avoid is forgiven.”

– Imam Ibn Farhoon (a Maliki scholar): “The enemy is fought
in every way, and with fire if there is no other means if we
fear harm from them. If we do not fear harm from them then
there are two opinions. […] It is not disputable that we are allowed
to strike their ships and fortresses with the mangonel
even if Muslims are therein.”
16 Tabsirât al-Ĥukâm.

– Imam al-Kharshi (a Maliki scholar): “It is allowed to fight
the enemy if they do not respond to what we call them to with all forms of war. It is allowed to cut off water from them to kill them from thirst, to release
floods on them, to drown them according to the famous opinion,
or to kill them with weapons such as a blow from a sword, a
stab from a lance, a missile from a mangonel or other weapons of
17 Sharĥ Khalîl.

– Imam al-Shafi’i: “If the enemy protects himself in a mountain,
a fortress, a trench, with thorn trees, or with any form of protection
it is allowed to strike them with mangonels, catapults, fire,
scorpions, snakes and all what harms them. It is allowed to flood
them with water to drown them, or to get them hampered in mud.
That is whether women, children and priests are among them or
not because the land (of war) is not protected with Islam or with
a covenant. It is also acceptable to burn their fruit trees or other
trees, to destroy their buildings and all what doesn’t have a soul
from their belongings.”
18 Al-Umm.

– Imam al-Bahuti (a Hanbali scholar): “It is also allowed to
strike them (the disbelievers) and put fire, snakes, or scorpions in
the scales of the mangonel, to fill their tunnels with smoke, to release
floods on them in order to drown them, and to destroy their
fortresses and buildings. But if we can defeat them without the
use of fire then we shouldn’t use it.”
19 Kashf al-Qinâ.

– Imam al-Shawkani: “Allah has commanded us to kill the disbelievers without specifying the methods of doing so. Allah did not command us to do this or not do that. Therefore there is no preventing from killing them with
every means of killing whether it is shooting, stabbing, flooding,
demolishing buildings on them or throwing them from heights.”
20 Al-Sayl al-Jarrâr.

These statements of the scholars show that it is allowed to use poison
or other methods of mass killing against the disbelievers who
are at war with us. In addition to that, there are many other important
insights in their statements that the reader may benefit from.
The populations of the nations that are at war with the Muslims and
especially those who are at the lead such as the U.S., Britain and France
should be targeted by the mujahidin in operations that employ explosives,
poisons, firearms and all other methods that lead to inflicting
the greatest harm on them and this is among the greatest deeds a
Muslim can worship Allah with in our day and time.

Published Shawwal 1432 - September 2011

Sun Maa 03, 2013 9:15 pm Näytä käyttäjän tiedot Lähetä yksityinen viesti
Abdullah Rintala

Liittynyt: 05 Kes 2010
Viestejä: 479

Lähetä Vastaa lainaamalla viestiä

- al-'Awlaki revealing his side of the Story -

I have had experiences with the US government at quite a young age that most of you would not have in a lifetime. I have seen the other face of America. Many of you might feel that this is strange to come from America, the beacon of freedom and liberty. I do not blame you because all what you are seeing is one face. The public face. You will not see the other face until they start perceiving you as a threat.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said to Waraqa:

Will they drive me out? (I.e. would they do that?) Waraqa said:

Yes, Never came a man with the like
of what you have brought but met hostilities.

Now for some time for a light hearted experience: The FBI is putting out a lot of information about myself, some true, most lies. But they are blacking out some parts of the record. One of them is that I have been to Afghanistan in 1991. I traveled from JFK and back to JFK. The FBI is not interested in mentioning this part of my story.

• Put under close watch from early on.

• Supposedly close relation and had closed door meetings with two of the 9/11 hijackers.

• Crossing state lines and then let go?! They then said I vanished like air coming out of a balloon?!

• Passport fraud: Rescinded just one day before my arrival? The custom officials were quite baffled at the situation and didn’t know what to say. I got an apology from one of them with a weird face on him. Actually I myself was shocked and asked them:

Is that it? They said, yes sir, that’s it. You are free to board!

• Spent extended periods of time in the UK and could have been arrested there, on request of the US government if they wanted to arrest me, but they didn’t.

This story just doesn’t add up. And then there is one more bit of my story that needs to be inserted here and which the FBI know very well about but nevertheless do not want to talk about:

• My visit in 1991 to Afghanistan.

So, here goes my side of the story:

When I finished high school in Yemen I was accepted on a scholarship to study in the US. But there were two problems: I was an American citizen and these scholarships are only for foreign students and number two the scholarship was to study agriculture and I wanted to study Engineering. My father at the time was a Minister of Agriculture and the Americans were happy to make some exceptions for him.

The US government through its programs of scholarships for foreign students has created for itself a pool of cadres around the world. From among these are leaders in every field, heads of state, politicians, businessmen, scientists, etc. They have one thing in common: They were all students in American Universities. The US government connects with some of these students while they are in the US directly and connects with some of them indirectly while it may not connect with some of them at all. Some end up working with the CIA or other intelligence agencies. These programs have helped the US bolster its strength worldwide and spread out its control. The way the US is managing an empire without calling it an empire is one of the great innovations of our time.

It is a unique and unprecedented method of choosing the indirect over the direct, the covert over the overt and implicit over the explicit. And that is what allowed the US to practice its policy of … denial and fool the world for so long. Coming from a privileged family in Yemen, son of a father who was a high government official and a former US student himself, being a student at a private school were all of the sons of influential people went to, and graduating with scores among the top twenty in the country, has probably made me of some interest to my sponsors. I was feeling the flirting of the Office of International Students at my university. They were being very helpful and wanted to extend the relationship with me beyond business to a personal level. Even though I was not fully practicing back then but I had an extreme dislike to the US government and was very wary of anything concerning intelligence services or secret orders. Thus, I was cold when it came to my relationship with the Office of International Students (which in my belief is a front for recruitment of international students for the government
and is also a front from spying on them and reporting on them to the authorities). I also received an invitation to join the Rotary Club which I turned down.

The invasion of Kuwait took place followed by the Gulf war. That is when I started taking my religion more seriously and I took the step of traveling to Afghanistan to fight. I spent a winter there and returned with the intention of finishing up in the US and leaving to Afghanistan for good. My plan was to travel back in summer, however, Kabul was opened by the mujahedeen and I saw that the war was over and ended up staying in the US.

When I came back I perceived a complete shift in the behavior of the Office of International Students towards me. Shortly after that my scholarship was terminated. I enquired for the reason behind such a drastic step. The answer I got was that my grades were dipping too low. It is true that my focus has now shifted away from school and my grades suffered because of my travel to Afghanistan and my role as head of the Muslim Student Association on campus and I ended up missing a large proportion of classes on campus, but why talk about rules now when we have been breaking them all along from the start of my scholarship. I wasn't supposed to be awarded this scholarship from the beginning. However, word came to me from a connection at the US Embassy in Sana’a, that they have been receiving reports about my Islamic activities on campus and the fact that I have traveled to Afghanistan and this was the single reason for the termination of my scholarship. That is something that the Office of International Students never mentioned or even eluded too. Anyways, the plans to have me as one of the many thousand men and women around the world who have their loyalty to the US did not go through. I wasn’t suitable for that role anymore. I was a fundamentalist now! Plus, I ended up staying in the US rather than going back to Yemen. After graduation I became an Imam in Denver for a year. Then I moved on to San Diego, California were important chapters in this story unfolded.

The main mosque in San Diego was Abu Bakr masjid or San Diego Islamic Center. However, a group of students rom Saudi and the Gulf states were not happy with how things were run at the mosque. They perceived it as too liberal so they established a new mosque, Masjid al Ribat. I was invited to be its Imam. Even though I only moved in years after the mosque was built but I was the first full time Imam at the mosque. The community at the mosque was very close nit which would have made it extremely difficult for the government to infiltrate. It would have been easier for the Saudi's or some other Arab states to gain access to the private running of the mosque than it would have been for the US government. There was nothing happening at the mosque that would fall under the loose category of what we today refer to as terrorism but nevertheless, it is my firm belief that the government, for some reason, was actively trying to plant moles inside the mosque. There were some people who would just show up from nowhere who would try to mingle and fit in the mosque's community in suspicious ways. When things do not work out well with them they just disappear, only for someone else to take their place. These people would deal with me in particularly peculiar means that makes me wonder if they were really being send over by the government.
Couldn’t they afford to send anyone better?

So a more aggressive means was employed. In 1996 while waiting at a traffic light in my minivan a middle aged woman knocked on the window of the passenger seat. By the time I rolled down the window and before even myself or the woman uttering a word I was surrounded by police officers who had me come out of my vehicle only to be handcuffed. I was accused of soliciting a prostitute and then released. They made it a point to make me know in no uncertain terms that the woman was an undercover cop. I didn’t know what to make of the incident. However a few days later came the answer. I was visited by two men who introduced themselves as officials with the US government (they did not specify which government organization they belonged to) and that they are interested in my cooperation with them. When I asked what cooperation did they expect, they responded by saying that they are interested in having me liaise with them concerning the Muslim community of San Diego. I was greatly irritated by such an offer and made it clear to them that they should never expect such cooperation from myself. I never heard back from them again until in 1998 when I was approached by a woman, this time from my window and again I was surrounded by police officers who this time had go to court. This time I was told that this is a sting operation and you would not be able to get out of it.

I decided that I have had enough and it is time to leave the US for good. But I was so entangled in life in the US, It took me three years and September 11 to finally unwind myself from this web and leave the United States. But I did take one step very soon after what happened in San Diego. I left San Diego for Washington. I believed that if the issue in San Diego was with local government I should be safe from it if I move somewhere else. September 11 was a Tuesday. By Thursday the FBI were knocking on my door. The questions revolved around the attacks. They visited me again but this time they were asking for cooperation which I made it clear that they shouldn’t expect and the third meeting which was the last I had my lawyer attend the meeting. This is what I know about the US from experience and you want to tell me to vote for these people?! For those who believe Obama is the savior. Do you think he can rein in the FBI, CIA and the other alphabet soup of intelligence agencies that have been carrying on with their behind the scenes plots since the day of their inception while presidents come and go? Do you really believe he can reform the US foreign policy that has been consistent on issues that concern us for decades? If Obama tries to go against the tide, the tide will engulf him. JFK was killed on American soil by an American citizen.

So am I justified in my dislike of America? I believe if you ask Dr Ali Tamimi, Dr Rafil Dhafir, Imam Jamil al Amin, Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, the Palestinian activists, and Humaidan al Turki they would all express similar sentiment. Probably not, because they are incarcerated in the lion’s den. However for me, Allah has blessed me with freedom so I can expose this satanic government for what it is.

**** THE END ****
Sun Maa 03, 2013 11:08 pm Näytä käyttäjän tiedot Lähetä yksityinen viesti
Abdullah Rintala

Liittynyt: 05 Kes 2010
Viestejä: 479

Lähetä Vastaa lainaamalla viestiä



Q: With regard to the ruling on killing non-combats:
Sheikh 'Uthaymīn says that it is allowed to kill non-combats if they kill our non-combats, because of the ayāt that say, that we can do the same to them as they do to us, but some say that this is incorrect, because if the kuffār rape Muslim women, we can still not rape their women.
What do we say to these people?

A: First of all, some things need to be made straight:

It wasn't the Muslims who dragged in civilians into this war. It was the Americans, and on a scale that is astronomically different than ours. They killed millions of Muslim civilians in cold blood during the embargo of Iraq which was before 9/11.

Secondly, it is amazing how the West wants to go about its imperialistic greedy oppressive business of occupying, colonizing and plundering the wealth of the Muslim world, supporting a racist and brutal occupation in the heart of the Muslim world, Palestine, and then does not
expect any retaliation whatsoever from the Muslims. And with all insolence,
paints the Muslims who are defending themselves as the aggressors. I mean this is something that could never pass if the West did not have the tools to pass on such a lie and such an
unbelievable distortion of history, but the West does have such a tool and
that is the media. The media succeeded in distorting the facts and presenting
wrong as right, evil as good.

Now back to the topic of targeting the populations of countries that are at war with us. Is it allowed or not? Well, first of all, why is the West so concerned about this issue,
why do they talk about it a lot? This emphasis on this form of war is proof that it hurts them. It hurts the West when we target their civilians and it concerns them and worries them, and this is why they are spending so much effort in trying to scare us off from adopting to such measures.
Because for those who understand how a democracy functions, when a group starts targeting the population of a democratic nation rather than its army you could end up opening a Pandora's box that the political elite fail to control. You do not know how the masses would react. In Spain for
example, after the Madrid bombings they kicked out the Aznar government. A population in a Western country may start asking questions if they feel endangered, they might start asking, "Why are we fighting wars 1000s of miles away? Why are we supporting Israel? What benefit to us a society as a nation do we get from supporting Israel? Is it worth the price? These
are questions the political elite in Western countries do not want their populations to ask, and therefore, they want to keep their populations at sleep and ironically, it is the operations of the Mujahideen, that are targeting these populations, that might wake up these populations and make them ask the questions that are important for them and that they should be asking.
But if the attacks don't wake them up and end up making them more resolved to carry on with supporting their governments in their anti-Muslim policies, then fine, they have received what they deserve as voters and tax payers who are participating in the war against Islam with their wealth
and vote.

Therefore, if you ask me as a tactic, is targeting the civilian population of the West a good thing to do? I would say yes, because it is much more potent and powerful. Soldiers are expected to die anyway. That's why they sign up for the army, to fight and kill or be killed. So a soldier is at risk anyway and that risk is factored into his job.

But a civilian is not. So when you hit the civilian you hit them where it hurts most and that is what our tactics are about. I would also want to say to my brothers that we want to understand what is the objective of our operations: The primarily objective is not to achieve the most deaths but to achieve the most effect, the most leverage.

So an operation such as the parcel bombs did not actually kill anyone but it achieved an effect that may surpass an operation where tens of people get killed. That is because the parcel bomb operation, which the enemy calls foiled parcel bomb plot and we call Operation Hemorrhage and consider it to be successful by all means, will end up costing the enemy billions of dollars in added security measures, billions of dollars in lost revenue because of stricter security measures, a xenophobic knee jerk reaction by the Obama administration that introduced mandatory new security measures in all US airports which would cost money and most importantly aggravation it would cause to the American people.

It is interesting how the American government claims that we attack America because of its freedoms and then use our operations as excuses to curtail the freedoms of the American
people. Civil liberties in the West are a self-inflicted casualty of war.

America and the West along with it are on their way out. Our brothers need to realize that their operations against the West are critical at this stage of our war because they would reveal that the war on terror was in fact a failure and a mistake and that war against the Muslim world is not the way to defend the West.

But first we need to look into whether this is halāl or harām.

We look into two situations from the time of the Messenger. Bayāt and the mangonel.

Bayāt was where the enemy would be attacked at night, ambushed, and
during the fighting inevitably women and children and elderly get killed
because of the darkness. Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم was asked about permissibility of killing women and children during bayāt and he allowed it. This is in authentic narrations from Imām Muslim and others.

Imām Ahmad was asked about the permissibility of using bayāt during his time he said, "And aren't our incursions against the Romans but bayāt?" The matter is so agreed upon
that Imām Ahmad says, "I do not know of anyone who has discouraged bayāt." The mangonel was used by the Messenger of Allāh during the siege of At-Tāif and was used by the generations of Mujahideen following that.

Ibn Rushd says: The general body of scholars agree that it is allowed to strike forts with the mangonel whether there are women and children in them or not. Imām Abu Hanifa says that if the Muslims lay siege to their enemy and the enemy stands on the walls with the children of Muslims used as shields we should strike them with arrows and mangonels but with having the
intentions of not attacking the Muslim children.

Imām al Shāfi' says:

That has been the tradition of the Muslims and the righteous predecessors from the companions of the Messenger of Allāh صلى الله عليه وسلم in regards to the fortresses of the enemy and it has not been narrated to us that anyone of them stopped short
of attacking a fort by mangonels or other forms of weaponry just because there are women and children among them or because there are those that shouldn't be killed among them.

Do we throw out 1400 years of war methods out of the window and suddenly come up with new rules? That's how they did it. Rasūlullāh ,صلى الله عليه وسلم the sahābah, the khulafā al rashidūn, the Ummayads, the Abbasids, the Mumlūks and the Ottomans all used catapults and later on artillery to bomb cities. That's what a catapult does, it throws a missile whether it is a rock or a container filled with combustible material into a city and it could hit a woman or a child just like it could hit a man. That is exactly what placing a bomb in Washington or London or any other Western city is. It is no different than what our predecessors used to do for 1400 years.

On the other hand, we know of the hadīth that prohibits the killing of women and children, so how can we combine what was mentioned below with such hadīth. The answer is that women and children should not be singled out, should not be specifically targeted and if they fall as prisoners of war it is not allowed to execute them. Throughout our history whenever
women and children would fall captives there lives were spared unlike with the crusaders for example who slaughtered thousands of Muslim prisoners or the Moguls who wiped out the entire populations of numerous Muslims cities. However when men, women and children are mixed and
integrated such as in a city or village there is no doubt that it is allowed to target them while carrying the intentions of not specifically targeting the women and children. Therefore, an attack on a population center such as a US, British, French or German city with a bomb or a firearm attack is
definitely allowed.

Then we should look into the other issue which was mentioned in the question and that is that we are allowed to do to the enemy what they do to us. You see war is a matter that takes place between two parties. So you cannot set up rules that restrict yourself while your enemy does not
agree to abide too. The US, Britain, France, are all guilty of horrendous human rights abuses against Muslims so who are they to lecture us on ethics of war. And who is this Muslim who has the audacity to tell us that we are not allowed to retaliate against America or its allies when American
drones have attacked Pakistan over 100 times in 2011 alone! And we all know
who are the casualties of drone attacks.


Q: My question is not an unusual one, many of our brothers have askedsimilar questions before. I have a desire to give my life in the Way of Allāh S.W.T. and get martyred in His Way and confront with enemies in the phase of 'bil yadd' (by action). But we're not given this opportunity due to some security problems which our brothers are facing because of the difficult time
that we're going through. Secondly, if a person has an urge to fight in Allāh
S.W.T's Way and he has no channel through which he can approach the brothers on the battlefield, what shall he do? He cannot find anyone who can lead him to join the brothers but has a deep urge to fight in Allāh's Way and give his life for Allāh S.W.T., what shall he do? Plz answer these questions to me as I'm not able to find anyone.

A: Whether the brother has a channel to join the brothers or not it is better for him to perform his duty of Jihād in the West. On the battlefield, you are just another soldier, but in the West you are an army on your own. When Nu'āim bin Mas'ūd came to Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم as mentioned by the narrators of
sīrah, Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم told him: with us you are only one man but go back to them and weaken them as much as you can. Our advice to you is: Among us you are just one man, remain where you are and weaken the enemy from
within as much as you can. If we have brothers bringing the battle to the US, France, Britain, Germany, Denmark, Australia, that would have much more effect in weakening the enemy than having brothers join us from those countries. The West brought us war and destruction let's give the West back what it gave us.

Sheykh Anwar al-'Awlaqi propably gave answers to these questions during summer 2011. May Allah have mercy on him and accept him as shahiid. Aamiin.


Tor Hei 31, 2014 1:24 am Näytä käyttäjän tiedot Lähetä yksityinen viesti
Abdullah Rintala

Liittynyt: 05 Kes 2010
Viestejä: 479

Lähetä Vastaa lainaamalla viestiä

Here we come to the end of the questions answered by Sheikh Anwar Al-'Awlaki - may Allāh accept him - in the program 'Send your questions to Sheikh Anwar Al-Awlaki' advertised in Issue VI
of Inspire Magazine. I ask Allāh to accept the Sheikh's Da'awah and
Jihād and raise his status among the martyrs.


Q: Should we continue doing da'wah in the West, sharing pamphlets making lectures and so on? As you know there are many different manhaj in da'wah in the West, so please ya sheikuna can you tell us the right way to make da'wah? Should we be harsh towards every kafir, should we demonstrate, call for Shari'ah, make lectures, should we focus on Muslims who have forgotten their deen or the kuffār who dont know Islam?

Yes da'wah should be done to Muslims and non-Muslims. The various tools of da'wah can be employed whether it is a pamphlet or a lecture. But da'wah should not be done to the
exclusion of Jihād. The West is at war with the Muslims now. It is devoting enormous effort towards the objective of preventing the Muslims from living by Islam and establishing Shari'ah so our relationship with the West has to reflect this reality.

Q: Should we call people to Jihād?
If yes, how do we do it? Is it better not to say anything because I might expose the callers and their plans?

Brothers who are planning on performing Jihād work in the West
should not publicly declare the da'wah because it would put them under
watch of the authorities. Brothers who are already known to prescribe
to the call of Jihād and everyone else should make da'wah.

Q: If one gets caught should he then deny everything in front of the kuffār?
Can he lie to his family and Muslims and tell them that he didn't do
anything, or is it best to tell them the truth?

A prisoner is a person who is held against his will and is therefore in a state of coercion. Therefore, it is allowed for a Muslim under such circumstances to conceal any information that would lead to their harm and to deceive the disbelievers.
In regards to one's family and friends then if the person is planning on doing physical Jihād then the utmost secrecy is needed and that includes family and friends, but if the person is practicing Jihād with the tongue then he should start with da'wah to his family and friends.

What do we say to a person, who uses low imān (faith), as an excuse for not participating in Jihād?

This is an excuse similar to that of the munafiqeen during the time of Rasulullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم. This is an invalid excuse and is a sign of hypocricy. If the imān of this person is weak and he wants to strengthen it, then he should go to Jihād. If a person has many sins then he should also
go to Jihād as Ibn Taymiyyah stated that if a person has many sins then the best way to wash them away is to go to Jihād.

When a brother decides that he wants to go to Jihād, and there
opens an opportunity for him to go, should he first stay and collect
money or should he just depart? And if staying is better how
long should he stay? Maybe shaytan will say to him that it isn't
enough and therefore his chance may slip from him.

He should stay long enough to get what is needed for his journey and not delay after that. But he needs to first look into whether it is better for him to fight Jihād where he is or should he travel.

Finally ... Sheikh Anwar rahimahullāh writes:

I was born in the West, I lived in the West, and I used to give da'wah in the West. I personally did not go through any experiences that would cause what you refer to as hatred. But as a Muslim, when I see gulf war one, gulf war two, the invasion of Afghanistan, continued American support to Israel what would you expect my reaction to be? The only price I paid was a year and half in jail which I don’t really classify as a bad experience because I consider it to be a great blessing from Allāh, it provided me with a chance for study and contemplation.
The true suffering has been that of the Palestinians, the 'Irāqis and the Afghāns. Now the matter is one of duty and not revenge. America is leading a war against Islam and Muslims and every Muslim whether he has suffered personally from American aggression or not needs to take a stand.


Kes Tam 07, 2015 1:18 am Näytä käyttäjän tiedot Lähetä yksityinen viesti
Näytä edelliset viestit:    
Vastaa viestiin Foorumin päävalikko » Islam Kaikki ajat ovat GMT + 2 tuntia
Sivu 1 Yht. 1

Et voi kirjoittaa uusia viestejä tässä foorumissa
Et voi vastata viesteihin tässä foorumissa
Et voi muokata viestejäsi tässä foorumissa
Et voi poistaa viestejäsi tässä foorumissa
Et voi äänestää tässä foorumissa

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Design by TMCrea