The following are my notes on the following linked 3 MP3 Files. We ask that if you download, do so only once so that we can save bandwith. If abused we will have to use a member service & we don’t want that to happen
Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Kellers view on the Taliban: These mp3s are regarding a series of questions the Shaykh was asked about Jihad and the demise of the Taliban. This was given sometime in 2002 in London. It is outdated but much of the benefit in these brief lectures are still pertinent to today. It is his personal view and is not be construed as other than his. The Shaykh reminds the people that the Taliban were students. They were partially educated in Islām and their educational termed terminal. They were superior to the warlords and those before them. When they are gone, the people will wish they were back. In addition to praying for them and for the people of Afghanistan, it is obligatory for us to feed the Afghani people and do what we can for them.
The Audio Files:
Part 1: Click Here
Part 2: Cick Here
Part 3: Click Here
The Notes:
The Shaykh’s view is that the movement was blessed until they slaughtered the Shi’ites. This is contrary to the way of the scholars and Caliphs of the past. They never prevented the shi’ah from going to Hajj etc. The Taliban did not have the Sufic training to withhold their hands like that of our Beloved Nabi 
(alayhis salaam) did with his people, i.e. the Quraysh who attempted to assassinate him, fight him, murder him, torture his people. In the end, He pardoned them. “The Tragic Hero ends with a tragic fall.” A single life of a Muslim is a Big Deal, whether Shi’ah or something else. Not insignificant!
Hikmah, when it comes to serving a nation, is serving the Muslims; transportation, welfare, etc. Their perception of the shari’ah was not a holistic perception. It is not only enforcing the law.
He mentions the issue of the Taliban destroying the Buddha saying (in more or less words): The Sahaaba saw it and left it. They left it alone even though they have the greatest amount of fiqh (understanding). If the Sahabah left it, then there is a rukhsa (dispensation) for others to leave it, for we know not what the Sahaaba knew.
The RESULTof their wisdom? The Buddhists became Muslims as they saw the blessing and the adab of the Muslims.
Al-Ghawth Abu Madyan (radhiya Allahu ‘anhu) mentioned, “Don’t sit with the people of bida’ah, the result of their ill-fatedness will hit you, even after a time.”
The Taliban put their hands in the hands of the Wahhabis of Saudia Arabia. Saudis imported the idea of “beating women for having squeaky shoes and beating other peoples’ wives”. Such had never been seen before except in Riyaad under the Wahhabis. The Baraka left the Taliban because they got close to the Wahhabis. (Their da’wah being imported destroyed the Barakah)
In terms of shari’ah, it is obligatory upon us to help them with all we can. We further have to condemn it in our hearts. And those who side with the aggression are committing haraam. (noting it is haraam to be happy that the kuffaar attacked Muslims) Everything is purifying to the believer. Whether good or bad it is a blessing. The vengeance of Allah 
upon those rich nations that attack the poor, they will wish they had never even heard of Afghanistan.
If America wants to police the Middle East, the Middle East will become the West Bank for America!
The problem with the Taliban was the lack of education. Complete education includes the akhlaaq (character and conduct) of the Prophet, and not just whipping people etc. The Qur’an was sent too purify us (holistically). The failure of the Taliban is one of education. The success of the Taliban was in their intention and their love of Allah ta’alaa, and that they tried to do what others did not try to do.
He mentions the fact that Americans intentionally murdered Muslims in Afghanistan. We should demand that they apply the Geneva Convention that they signed on too. The Mu’min is optimistic in all conditions. If the Muslims are suffering it is because of the wave of Wahhabism that is destroying our lands.
The Shaykh mentions that the claim that the Wahhabis are the only one doing Jihād is questionable. But firstly mentions that what is for everyman regarding good deeds, is for himself, whether he be wahhabi or Sunni. He mentions many of the traditionalist Muslim movements that did fight and are struggling now to defend the lands of the Muslims; The original Shamil Basayev fighting the Russians, the Afghanis fighting the Russians (were originally Sufi), Uthman Dan Fadio (Qadiri Shaykh), Abdul Qadir Al-Jazaa’iri (Shadhili Shaykh), Darqawa in Morocco fought also, he mentions the Syrian Sufis training for the fight in Palestine. We could say that Jihaad is not the only fardh kifayaa (or ‘ayn). The Wahhabis are not teaching deen, they teach Tajheel (ignorance). Whereas the Sunnis are teaching Islam properly.
There is a problem everywhere the Wahhabis go. They bring fitnah with them. It is better that they fight the Kuffar than fight the Muslims or else they will b e fighting the Muslims in the masjid about Allah being literally over the throne.
He mentions that blowing up civilians is Jihaad against the Muslims. It is Jihad without any knowledge. Stirring up the Americans against the Afghanis only to destroy the entire country, is Jihad without knowledge. Practice without knowledge does not have any Baraka in it. Anyone who thinks civilians can be killed is an ignorant person. Their (i.e the wahhabis) excuse is that anyone who pays taxes is helping the Kuffaar against the Muslims. Whereas the people are being forced to pay them. Where is the logic? Oh Boy! We blew up 300 or 800 here…or in Cairo we blow up a bomb and kill Egyptians! Is this Jihad?
In General anyone who has good intentions must have knowledge. The idea that “any” jihad is better than none, the Shaykh does not go with that. Jihad must be without killing civilians. Ignorance does not bring about anything good. And the Wahhabis are ignorant. And the Afghanis had the sharpest distaste for the Wahhabis during the 1980s in Afghanistan. Get your facts straight!
The Shaykh mentions the issue of these najdi wahhabis, and those influenced by them, killing women and children. For more on its forbiddance see: http://seekingilm.com/archives/48
I think the Shaykh made some incredible points. Why is it that anytime the wahhabis touch anything the Ummah goes sour. When they made khurooj against the Ottomans they weakened the Muslim forces. When the Wahhabis took back over the Hijaaz, after being defeated by the Muslims in the 1700s, they refused to allow people for some time to make Hajj. They further massacred Yemeni Hujjaaj, allowed the Jazeera to be overrun by pagan drunks and homosexuals. Furthermore, their baatil creed has misguided the masses, caused many to apostate, and caused many youth to do acts that scar and tarnish this Ummah’s people, future, and name. Just my thoughts though.
as salaamu alaykum
I know nuh keller was speaking about Taliban in particular but do you know if he thinks of Deobandis do be like wahabis? Im curious to know since some of the brewli believe deobandiyah are wahabis. Though i know ofcourse Nuh Keller is not brewli nor am i implying im just curious to know if he doesnt make that distinction. Barakallah feek
wasalam
wa alaykum as salam
The Shaikh has a long article on the Deobandi/Breilivi dispute. He also hosted Mufti Taqi Usmani in his home and has praised the Tabligh.
So nice to see the sheikh supporting “hand in hand” with shias, at the same time, refuting being “hand-in-hand” with the wahabis. For the kind information of the Sheikh, they were not “Wahabis” who deny taqleed or call everything shirk, they were hanbalis basically. The so-called “Wahabis” who claim to be “Ahlul Hadeeth” in that region, were kicked out because of their fitnah nature. As for destroying the Idols, then it’s stupid to say that the Sahabah saw them ,and didn’t destroy them. I wonder who destroyed Laat , Manaat, Uzza etc? the Wahabis? or the Taliban? Secondly, those Idols were no longer being worshipped, as a matter of fact, nobody even close to those areas was a Budhist, so to destroy them was an obligation, only if these kosher feeded so-called sufi sheikhs could understand it….
Originally I thought as you did when I was as mentally devoid of knowledge as yourself.
1) They were (are) wahhabis and Bin Ladin is a prime example of it. There defining tawassul as shirk is a key example of their wahhabi najdi da’waa, including their praising of the creed set forth in the arabian pennisula by the sons of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab.
2) The only thing stupid is that you can not make a distinction between the divine command given to the Nabi
(‘alayhis salaam) to destroy the idols – as no two religions can stay within the jazeerah – and the nafsi command of destroying the same idol that the Sahaabah left.
So why did the sahaabah leave it? Answer the question if your truthful! The fact that they were left shows the tolerance of the Muslims towards those who were under their command. You on the other hand only show your neglect of the way of the pious salaf.
It doesn’t matter if anyone was worshipping them or not. For over a thousand years no one was worshipping them, yet the Muslims left them. As the Shaykh said, if the salaf gave a rukhsa we should as well. Your baatil kalaam only shows your disdain for their manhaj.
3) “Hand in Hand” with the shi’a? Anyone who listens to the lecture will clearly hear the Shaykh saying they are Ahlul Bida’ah, deviants, but Muslims. You on the other hand, as well as your evil wahhabi comrades, deem the blood of these Muslims Halaal. How many times have I heard the pseudo-salafis pronounce takfeer on ignorant Shi’i Muslims! Deeming their women, children, and wealth halaal upon whim. They are Muslim and are to be treated as such.
Its funny that you mention “hand-in-hand” with the shi’ah when it is the wahhabis that colloborate with the Americans to murder and fight Muslims globally. The Wahhabis, and their saudi sponsors, allowed the Muslim peoples of Afghaanistan to be bombed from the bases of America within the Jazeera! They are the betrayers. They are the curse upon this Ummah! And everywhere they go they bring fitnah and strife.
*Basically i think a person who has not really had an opportunity to see the issues first hand should refrain from making claims and passiong verdicts on people, especially the ones hated by many a so called muslim too. In the taalibaan rule many a shia were alligned to their rule and nothing ever happened to them. Those shia who opposed them and attacked them aided by the iranian government were the ones who suffered defeat at the hands of the taalibaan. Can proof be brought forward to say where and when these so called slaughtering took placw?? Is it the position of someone who does not have full information to pass verdicts or rather ask your fellow muslim brothers directly about it? Did not rasulullaah salallaahu alhhi wa sallam himself send the Saahaabah ridhwaanullaahi alayhi ajma3een yo go and destroy the idols after the fath of Makkah? Has Allah
not commanded us in the quraan :
يا ايها الذين آمنوا ان جاءكم فاسق بنبا فتبينو الآية
“oh you who believe , if any daasiq bring to you any information then varify it”
Was the any varification by sheikh before making this claim?
“The problem with the Taliban was the lack of education” was your qoute. SubhaanALLAH The likes of Mullah jallauddin haqaani is a great aalim who ran and insttute with over 2000 students studying under him.
One question – how many buddists were livng inbaamiyaan when the idol was destroyed? zero. So leave an idol to corrupt the beliefs of the muslim. Why were many catherderals changed into masaajid by the Sahaabah radhiyallaahu anhum?
Further to claim the taalibaan were not “sufis” or linked to mashaaikh is a blatant lie.Do you even realise who were the shuraa of the taalibaan.
My final question is – What would the stance of yours be regarding the handing over of sheikh usaama bin laadin daamat barakaatuhum to the american government .
Abul Layth, ahm, Im not a Wahabi………… ask sheikh h-adam. As for the knowledge, I prefer “first hand information” compared to mainstream media. I know that Nuh never went to Afghanistan during the time of Islamic Emirates, neither did he meet the ulama and the people in-charge there. Only believing on “conveyed” info is the act of a Liar. You may be a little fired up when I call the “Sheikh” with such handles, but reality bites. I also know that Nuh, neither did you ever had a chance to listen to Sheikh in person, or Dr. sahib, otherwise, such a blatant lie on them being Wahabis and killing shias would not be posed from your side… Khayr, enough said already, better answer Maulana Hoosein sahib’s questions, ’cause you don’t know me
Bismillah,
Inna Lillahi wa Inna Ilayhi Raji’un. It is so sad to see the current level of discourse among us. Everyone is so ready to impute their opponent with whatever suits their fancy.
With all due respect Maulana, I would like to comment on some of what you said and answer some of your questions, not in defense of Shaikh Nuh, for he is in no need of our defense, but in order to bring some other angles to the discussion. As for brother Usman, you say that you are not a Wahhabi, but the recklessness with which you malign Awliya and scholars like Shaikh Nuh indicates otherwise “Tashabahat Qulubuhum”.
First of all, why don’t we just ignore everything that Sidi Abul Layth wrote and focus on what Shaikh Nuh said?
1. Esteemed Maulana, you mentioned that people (in this case most likely referring to Shaikh Nuh) should refrain from passing judgments on people. What do you mean by that? He did not judge them to be Bid’is rather he affirmed their Sunnism, so where is the passing of judgments that we dont already agree with?
As for him having an opinion, he is entitled to one just as much as everyone of us is.
2. Regarding what Shaikh Nuh said about the massacre in Mazar e Sharif, either it did or it didn’t happen. Are you saying that there was no massacre, or are you saying that those that were targeted were only combatants?
That in 98, the Shia Hazaras were massacred in large numbers by the Taliban (for whatever reason), is something that is well known. There were thousands of eye witnesses that stated the same details when entering Pakistan as refugees. Are we to suggest that all of them were lying just because they were Shia? If so, then would that not suggest that we should also deny the occurrence of the holocaust against the Jews? After all, arent the Shia but a branch of the jews in their origin?
3. Is it not true that many of the Deobandis (including the Taliban) do make unrestricted Takfir of the Ithna Ash’ari Twelver Shia? If this is the case, then it is worth discussing, how the Hanafi scholars in the Arab lands came to different conclusions regarding that.
4. Regarding the statement of Shaikh Nuh where he said that the Taliban didn’t have education, if you listen to the whole clip, it becomes clear what he meant by that. He said that overall, they were still students, and by lack of education, he meant a holistic, well rounded approach to Islamic knowledge, and not just the outward enforcement of the Shariah (which the Shaikh did not criticize mind you).
5. Regarding the Idol, it was already defaced and there was no need to destroy the whole structure. All it did was cause more problems for the Muslims in general. It is interesting to note that it was the Wahhabis that suggested to the Taliban to do it, the same people that would just as quickly–if not quicker–demolish the green dome over the grave of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was sallam) if they had the chance, or if not that, destroy the burial sites of the Awliya in Afghanistan.
6. Who said that there were not Sufis among them?
7. It is clear that there was a Wahhabi influence on the Taliban towards the end especially. For us to deny the numerous statements, reports, and eye witness accounts of the internal debates is disingenuous. There were internal debates among the senior Taliban leadership regarding what was perceived to be the increased influence of the “Arabs” (and we all know who they mean by that).
In fact, there were outright Salafis in the ranks of the Taliban, albeit, very small. An alleged Salafi member (and before anyone jumps on my case, I said “alleged”, was the former foreign minister; Abdul Wakil al-Mutawakkil, not to mention the minister of mining; Abdul Raqib.
But truth be told, there was no love lost between the Afghani Ahl al-Hadith Salafis,and the Taliban. Everyone knows that there were loads of them in the ranks of the northern alliance.
The Salafis the Taliban got close to were the Arabs. Some may allege that they were Hanbalis, but that claim would only hold (light) weight regarding the Saudis among them. The bulk of them, the Egyptians, are definitely not Hanbalis.
And, also, how can anyone claim that there is/was no Arab influence, when in the first time in that region, we have Afghanis doing suicide bombings and “volunteering” to be sent to the west to kill civilians? Is this approved by the Akabir of Deoband? What is their view on such calls?
8. Regarding your question to Abul Layth regarding bin Ladin, may I ask, what is your opinion of him? Do you believe that he ordered or help plan the 9/11 attacks. If yes, do you believe that it was permissible in our Din?
Jazakum Allah
khaira Maulana.
As Salam Alikum
Just for my knowlodge Sidi Abul Layth, does not an opinion exist amongst the Sahaba that destroying idols was an obligation in Islam?
“The Messenger of Allah
( صلى اللَّه عليه وآله وسلم ) deputed men from the Ansaar to level every grave and destroy every statue..”
أن يسوي آل قبر وأن يلطخ آل صنم”] “, Musnad Imaam Ahmad, from the Musnad of Ali]
Upon this, Ali ( عليه السّلام ) wished to weigh “Maslaha” as these people are doing against the order of the Prophet ( صلى اللَّه عليه وآله وسلم )
in the following narration from Imaam Ahmad’s Musnad:
“I do hate to enter the homes of my people, so send me if you come across any (idols)”
To this “Maslaha” approach of Ali, the Prophet ( صلى اللَّه عليه وآله وسلم ) replied,
“O Ali, do not try to be comely, nor vain, and do not trade in other than trade which is good. For
these (aforementioned) are the ones who procrastinate in their acts.”
يا علي لا تكونن فتانا ولا مختالا ولا تاجرا إلا تاجر خير فإن أولئك مسوفون في العمل“] ” Musnad Imaam Ahmad, from the Musnad of Ali bin Abi Talib]
Brother , Ibn Ajibah, it should not be forgotten that Nuh Ha Mim Keller did pass out remarks without first hand information reaching him. He just plainly believed the media, that’s the wrong he did. It should not come by surprise to you if I tell you how biased the media has been towards Taliban and the Muslims in that region.
This is what Maulana said that one should rather be quiet if he doesn’t have first hand knowledge about his Muslim brothers, but Nuh Keller sahib just loves to comment.
2. Can you enlighten about the “details” of that massacre? there was a battle, a combat. There were no Women and Children(a pathetic excuse) killed by Taliban , for that is an act strongly punishable in the Islamic Emirates.
3. It is not true that Many Deobandis make Unrestricted Takfir of Ithna Asharis. Actually, almost all Deobandis(Ulama) make Takfir of the Ithna Asharis, the exceptions are mere political. But calling someone Kafir does not make his blood halaal on us. As for other scholars in Syria or other countries NOT making takfir, then ask them. Their deed is not Hujjah upon us.
4. Ask yourself, “what was the point of saying that Taliban did not have complete knowledge of religion?especially on this occasion?” SHould be clear to the audience that he wants to make a claim that the mistakes they made were because they didn’t have enough of it.
5. I wonder where do people get such information? May I ask “why” it was NOT a need to destroy the statues when a) the face was demolished and b) no one was worshipping them? the Funnier part is saying that “Sahabah (RAA) saw them, and left them” , as if the speaker was sitting with his Binoculars watching “nobody praying to them” and still the Sahabah (RAA) left them. I hope you got my point.
7. Abdul Wakil al-Mutawakkil, hmm,….. first time hearing this name. Are you by Chance referring to Maulana “Wakeel Ahmed Mutawakkil”? if so, did you ever have a chance to meet him? and know where he studied? Get the names right bro, you’re already proving my point “Never went there, never met them, never talked to them, believed the media”.
As for the Ghair Muqallideen being present, maybe these people are lost or something. Ask any Ghair Muqallid around in Pakistan , they simply hate Taliban, one of their clerics, a shia in disguise, Talib HUssain Zaidi AKA Talibur Rahman Zaidi, simply calls Taliban “Mushrik”, and he admits that Taliban actually shut-down the Madaris and masajid that were spreading the fitnah of Ghair Muqallidiyat (pseudo-salafism) there.
One can’t expose himself on the internet too much, but for the benefit of the masses, let me tell you that much of this is “First hand” information from my side. I’ve actually met many people from the so-called “Ahl e Hadeeth” Jihadist group called “Lashkar-e-Tayba” nowadays known as Jamaatud Daawa, they simply did not goto Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban because they believed they were Sufis, and wrong, and killing “innocent” people.
There should be a line between propaganda and the truth.
I think Im pretty much done with this stuff here. Just a reminder though, Nuh Keller is just one scholar, can he be wrong? And probably some might consider Nuh Keller to be among the “Awliya Allah
”, while others may not, that’s not a reason to just call someone outrightly a “Wahabi”. Maybe if Ali Shirazi (RA) opposed Taftazani(RA), then who was a “Wahabi” then?
assalaaamu alaykum
As i was directly addressed by sidi ibn ajibah , i herewith post my response.
1. ” As for brother Usman, you say that you are not a Wahhabi, but the recklessness with which you malign Awliya and scholars like Shaikh Nuh indicates otherwise “Tashabahat Qulubuhum”.Quote
Actually, this observation is quite dangerous because it fits exactly on sheikh nuh as well. On speaking against the Taalibaan , He has spoken against the likes of dr Nidhaamuddin as shamzai shaheed rahimahullaaah who happened to be the grand mufti of the taalibaan.Is that not showing disrespect to the awliyaah? ( for your information Sheikh was made shaheed 2 years ago)
2.”Regarding what Shaikh Nuh said about the massacre in Mazar e Sharif, either it did or it didn’t happen. Are you saying that there was no massacre, or are you saying that those that were targeted were only combatants?”-quote
Do you know what happeed in mazari sharif? Is this what you are quoting from the shia kaafir refugees nnot exactly what I was trying toempkasise concerning taking from fussaq/kuffar or as sheikh nuh states mubtadi’a?
3.”Is it not true that many of the Deobandis (including the Taliban) do make unrestricted Takfir of the Ithna Ash’ari Twelver Shia? “-quote
For your information i encourage you to read “tuhfa isna ash’ariyyah by the renouned muhaddith of hind shah ismail shaheed rahimahullah the renouned son of the great shah waliyullaah muhaddith ad dehlawi rahimahullah and more recent the book that is named the iranian revolution bymoulana manzoor nu’maani rahimahullaah. If you do then you will understand my next statement. The ulema od deoband ijmaa’an make tafkeer on the 12′ers except for the shuzuz of some.
7. It is clear that there was a Wahhabi influence on the Taliban towards the end especially. For us to deny the numerous statements, reports, and eye witness accounts of the internal debates is disingenuous- quote
Are you aware that the pseudo bareilwi sufi call the deobandi “wahhaabi kaafir”? Yes we will never allow tawaaf around a grave nor sujood on the grave that these pseudo’s do. As for the thalafies , they are a bunch of fools. Those who advised about the destruction of the idols were definitely not thalafies. Many of the thalafies were alligned with ahmad shah masood and the likes of abdur rab rasool sayyaf who happened to be the interim pm for afghanistaan after the taalibaan withdrew.
“The Salafis the Taliban got close to were the Arabs. Some may allege that they were Hanbalis, but that claim would only hold (light) weight regarding the Saudis among them. The bulk of them, the Egyptians, are definitely not Hanbalis”-qoute
.
May i ask who said they were salafy? Majority of them are on math hab. Being Arab is not synonymous to salafiyat!!
As for sheikh Usama bin Laadin i respect him and love him for the sake of Allah
jazaakumullaah
With all due respect Maulana, you didnt answer any of my questions except for number three.
With all due respect brother Ibn Ajibah, please read the response just before him.
Hello there Ibn Ajibah,
Nice to see you here.
I was wondering If I asked you a number of questions about your friends back at kufr infested deenport, a number of questions about your best friend’s website http://www.masud.co.uk/, specifically about this sunni section here http://www.masud.co.uk/sep11.htm , and a number of questions about your immortal Abul Hakim Murad, will you be willing to answer any?
Will you deceive the masses by playing the traditional sunni traditionalist name game and any other names you can find?
Why is it Ibn Ajibah, that on every forum, every blog, and every medium that you can comment through, you want to dictate and monopolize every issue?
You and your other traditional sunni traditionalists sufi awliyah friends want to be an authority on everything, even though if it has nothing to do with you.
You want to
[1]be an authority on what is tawassul and what isn’t
[2]be an authority on the taliban,
[3]be an authority on murabitun,
[4]be an authority on the deobandis,
[5]be an authority on iraq,
[6]be an authority music,
[7]be an authority on niqab,
[8]be an authority on suicide bombing,
[9]be an authority on US foreign policy,
[10]be an authority on which muslim should go to jail (every salafi according to your best friends at traditional sunni traditionalists deenport)
In addition to all this, there is a stench in your writing and writings of other sunni traditional traditionalists, that the works and opinion of deobandi ulama, if not aligned with the ulama of the east, are not valid anymore.
This is just a minute sample of the venom that emits from your finger tips and your comrades back at pro-bikini deenport.
Kindly explain to me if you are willing to answer all questions I pose to you in the future.
I have never hated women so much like after i started visiting deenport. The level of intellect and analytical skills of traditionalists are already at the lowest point in human history, but when you factor the women genes in, the discussions seem to violate every rule of logic.
If you wish to be vague in your reply, and pull the “to each his own”, then I don’t want a reply from you. Those replies would be much more enjoyed back at pro bikini-hijabis olympics deenport.
al-Salam Alaykum Abu Huraira.
You have built up a very big straw man here. What do you intend to do with it? What masses are you talking about? Are you speaking of a mass of people that follow you, complete with their torches and effigy straw men ready to burn?
I am like anyone else among the Muslims. I have just as much right to comment on a forum, blog, etc as you do. If you differ with me or anyone else, you are free to offer your critique or comments.
Regarding your long list of things you say I “consider myself an authority on” then;
1. Does that mean you are an authority on Jihad and Fiqh of Jihad? What about foreign policy? Because that is all you seem to ever talk about, so can I flip the question around on you?
2. If you are, then good for you. May we know your qualifications for that?
3. If you are not, you are still free to voice your opinion in those matters–but that also means that others have just the same right to differ and discuss.
4. I am just a Muslim from the Muslims who has been around. If you differ with my views, then please show me how they are wrong. Contrary to what you might believe, people do consider other information if presented to them in a manner that is condusive to thought and analysis.
Regarding you question about the Deobandis, obviously, I am not a Deobandi, although one of my teachers is (and from Bannu of all places). If you feel that it is ok for you to differ with non-deobandi scholars, then others have equal right to differ with Deobandi scholars.
Although I will admit that some of the criticisms against them are overly harsh. That has nothing to do with me.
Beyond this, you didn’t ask me any questions. Whatever you intend to ask me, you should understand that you are asking only one person, and in no way does it necessarily represent anyone else’s views.
What is your intention for wanting to ask me anything?
If your looking for “dirt” or for something to further you anti-sunniforum crusade then ask someone else.
Bismillah…
Brother Juba, May Allah
bless you and us, and guide us aright always. Ameen!
The “problems” that you have with us or whoever your vendetta is towards are all ridiculous. You criticize others for claiming “authority” when it is your likes that claim the same thing you criticize others for. Bottom line: Remove the plank from your own eye before looking at others’ (as you perceive them).
Shaykh Nuh voiced his opinion regarding the Taalibaan, and it is just that, His opinion. Feel free to disagree. No one is “forcing” any of the opinions we have stated on this site upon anyone. If you want to hold that samaa’ is haraam; fine with me and everyone else. Seriously, we care less for your opinions than you care for ours. Sultaan-Al-’Ulamaa Al-Izz ibn Abdus Salaam, An-Nawawi, As-suyuti and many others believe that samaa’ is permitted. Who are you and who are your ‘Ulamaa’ in their shadows? No your place and stop acting like the foolish pubescent ignoramous your acting like.
As for music and Niqaab, read the articles on this site, if you find anything lacking, then respond like a mature Muslim with proofs and with decent ettiquette in those posts. I understand that is a lot to ask from someone like you, but it is our right upon you that you treat us with respect and honour.
Regarding all of this attack on the person of Shaykh Nuh, then know that it falls upon deaf ears. I would like to remind some of the brothers that Shaykh Nuh did not attack the Taliban. He praised them, loves them, and supports them with du’aa and clearly states this in his lectures. He criticizes them, for what HE SEES to be ettiqutte lacking completed Sufic training. If you disagree, feel free too, but do so respectfully as Muslims.
Jazaakum Allahu khairan
-Abul Layth
Asalaam Alaikum,
This was a very interesting discourse mashallah. The only poster other than Juba who held a crude tone was dear brother Usman. I can understand if you disagree with SHAIKH Nuh (yes, SHAIKH), but some respect should be there. If Mufti Taqi Uthmani and other Deobandis can respect him, then surely laymen like us should be careful with our tongues. Plus if one has such a problem with his statements, I doubt it’s that difficult to contact him and get a clearer answer. In the end, I pray Allah
guides us all and showers us with mercy.
I honestly believe that the brothers have misunderstood Shaykh Nuh. It could have been due to my notes. He clearly praised the Taliban and praised their knowledge. I do not think that this difference should really be a big deal.
May Allah
bless you all and grant you all His tawfeeq aameen and ameen to your du’aa Seekers.
As far as I can see the Taliban have more knowledge than this sufi nad he calls himself a scholar he is an innovator pure innovator.The taliban-allahuma ansurhum ya rabl-alameen allahuma arhamuhum, wa alyka bi a’daihim.AMEEN.
Assalamu’alaikum,
.
UmmAbdullah…even the Taliban calls Nuh Ha Mim Keller a sheikh and as mentioned by others, he is respected as an ‘alim by such individuals as Mufti Taqi Usmani…who in the world are you to disclaim Sheikh Nuh as scholar and accuse him an innovator? Have you no shame? The scholars of haq have full right to express their views and are not subjected in pleasing the emotions of ones like you..let us have some degree of taqwa and avoid from bashing the awliya of Allah
SubhanAllah, UmmAbdullah you have the ikhlaq of a Khawraj!
Salaam,
have mercy upon his soul.
Brother abu layth. I agree with you that this salafi mess that is linked with aale-sa’ud, I think you need to make a distinction between the rulership and the various jihadists out there in the world.
The problem here is throwing people into crude groupings.
As for the shi’a, i agree that we shouldn’t necessary throw them into one crude group as well, doing takfeer on all of them. The point still stands however, that those who curse the two blessed shaykhs, Abu Bakr and Omar, and place their structure of Tawagheet as the following:
1. Omar
2. Abu Bakr
3. Shaytan
are clearly kuffar. As for the issue of what is to be done about them, there have basically been two responses. One has been a da’wah based system on al-’iraqiyyah tv, which has lead to the conversion of near 1 million Iraqi shi’a to Sunnah. The other prong of this response was basically launched by abu mus’ab az zarqaawi, may Allah
The point that i am trying to make here is this: The issue of the shi’a is relative to their response to us. For example, generally speaking some Iraqi shi’a, such as sistaani and his like have always been seen for what they are, colluders with the occupiers. Muqtada as-sadar, however was given a neutral response generally, until he clearly sided with the occupiers.
The final point that I would like to make is this: Shaykh Nuh may well have a point that the shi’a weren’t genearlly attacked throughout history.
The point however has some important historical exceptions, namely the struggle of salah ad deen and the fatimid shi’a in Eqypt. Not only did he fight and defeat them before taking on the Crusaders, after defeating them, they actually converted to sunnah! The question we should ask ourselves is, would salah ad deen ever have been able to take back Jerusalem?
Jazakallah khayr for the reply
One thing to note if what is attributed to abu musab al-zarqawi of his links to al-qaeda then indeed he was upon a wrong manhaj. This person who defended in the bombing in Jordan made some major errors in the supposed Jihad. Bombings that were done in market places, the attacks on just regularly shias on the street was injustice. Nothing will be accomplished if we do not strive with the sunnah.
he has ties to ibn laden and ayman dhawahiri who are known to be takfiris. No doubt Jihad is a big part of our din. No one is denying this and no one is denying that muslims have the right to defend themselves when attacked no matter if its the Big ‘Saint’ America or other devil nations that feast upon the muslims. However, the method should always be in line with the Quran and sunnah. Our emotions should not cause us to make wrong moves.
Just look at the noble sufis that continue to fight in jihad and before in the past. Today there are many sufis fighting in chechnya , some afghanistan, some even in iraq, and other places. However, we must note that Jihad is not just something we rise up and fight lawlessly. We are restricted to following the code of ethics not of the geneva conventions but the ethics of Allaah ta ala. Praise be to Allaah who has gave us a din that encompasses every part of our lives.
As far as salah ud din rahimahullah then we must note that he was an ashari, and thus a deviant according to the Salafis, rather that be salafis, salafi jihadis, or others. They call asharis nullifiers of the sifaat. They charge the asharis with what the jews did with the tawrah. My point is these people salafi jihadis are not the ones that will save this ummah. Rather those who follow truely the way of the Ulama and awliya, shuhadah, and anbiya alayhum salam will be those who will strike against the baatil with the Haq all in the name of Al-haqq who Has delivered the Divine Law upon the Noblest and best and beloved of all creation , Muhammad al mustafa salalahu alayhi wa salam.
I used to be one who would defend the chechen take over of the children school , but now today as i have calmed I ask myself the question of Would the Nabi
Muhammad ar rahmati salalahu alayhi wa salam like this? Would he condone this?
With every act if we think about how Allaah ta ala would view it and His noble Prophet salalahu alayh iwa salam we would see that many have strayed who call themselves Salafi jihadis.
May Allaah ta ala preserve you and us and keep us alive long enough to earn His Pleasure
Amin
Allaahumma sali ala muhammadin wa ala ali muhammad
من أين أتيت ياعالم الأخبار وياعالم التاريخ والتأريخ أبو الليث المهلهل بهذه الوقائع والأحداث عن جزيرة العرب؟
ومتى قامو الوهابيه بقتل الأطفال والنساء؟
ومتى منعوا الناس من الحج؟ ولا وقتلوهم أيضاً ماشاء الله!!
تحدث بدليل أو لا تتفوه بأي شي لا تفقهه.
أسامه بن لادن لا يتبع منهج أهل السنة والجماعه.
وقد تبرأ منه ومن أفعاله كل المشائخ عندنا وقالوا منهجه غير صحيح ومن اتبع منهجه في تكفير أولياء الأمر والخروج على الحكام فإنه من فكر الخوارج الذين أمر الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بقتلهم وقال فإن في قتلهم أجراً لمن قتلهم وكذلك أسامه وغيره ممن يتبعون فكره التكفيري يقتلون المسلمين قبل الكفار وهل هذا من الإسلام في شيء وليس من منهج أيضاً الشيخ محمد بن عبدالوهاب -رحمه الله- وطهره من إفتراء المفترين عليه.
الشيخ ابن باز -رحمه الله- قال: الإسلام بريء مما يفعل.
الشيخ صالح الفوزان قال: من سلك منهجه فإنه من الخوارج. والأسباب هي ماذكرتها في أول الرد.
والله أعلم
Just a note:
UmmAbdullah
who wrote comment #19 is not me (Um Abdullah whom discussed the hadith of Malik al Dar in this site, and is a member in IA forums).
دعوة لكل صوفي في هذا الموقع أو من يرى هذا الرد بأن يأتي بكيدة ويجادلني جدال جاد لا فيه غش ولا خداع ولا حذف للردود مثل مايعملون الباحثون عن الع؟لم
وهذا إيميلي لمن يريد:
abdullah1819@hotmail.com
Abu Luqman.
Can you please provide us evidance from the Quran or the sunnah that cursing a muslim takes you out of Islam and thus makes you a kafir. Indeed the Sahaba cursed and reviled each other will you now say that they were unbeleivers too. These are historcial facts unlike your fairy tales of a mass shia conversion of 1 million!!!
As for the murtad Zarqawi(la) he died as a kafir and a mushrik firstly he held the salafi anthromorphic beleifs which is clear shirk against Allah
(swt), secondly he massacred many innocent muslims including women and children and also desecration of holy sites and mosques. This is clear Kufr.
And as for you Abu Luqman you are now a Kafir yourself according to Prophet Muhammad
(pbuh&hf) as you have labelled those shia as Kuffar.
I actually did not read Abu Luqman’s post prior to reading Ansar Al-Hujjah’s. There are a few problems I have with both Abu Luqman and Ansar’s comments that I would like to address.
Brother Abu Luqman: I believe you are not making a distinction between the faatimiyyun and the common Shi’i. The common Shi’i is not upon the extremely kufristic beliefs of the Isma’ili shi’ites. Further the faatimiyyun were attacking Sunnis in their conquest, and arguing their superiority over orthodoxy. So in the minds of the Sunnis of that time, particularly Nur-Ad-Deen, these people were not Muslims due to their creed of Mu’tazilism as well as other issues we needn’t mention here. The exclusion of the Faatimiyyoon by Shaykh Nuh, in my view, is a sound exclusion because they are generally not considered true shi’ah, and instead are Isma’ilis.
As for reviling our Imams Abu Bakr, Umar, & Uthman, then I would like to respond by saying:
1) The scholars of Islam have always taken hadith – an incredibly important basis of our faith – from some of the most extreme Shi’ah, who included therein reviling Yazeed ibn Mu’awiyah and Mu’awiyah, and maybe even ‘Uthman and ‘Aa’ishah. I have given some brief examples in another article I wrote: http://seekingilm.com/archives/56
Even though this is the case, the general mass of the scholars did not make takfeer of them, and instead of totally boycotting them, took hadith from these individuals. That is not to say they did not consider them evil innovators however. The point here is that they did not consider them kuffaar.
Why? It is obvious that they can be given the excuse of ta’weel. They still profess the Shahadah, pray to our Qiblah, give Zakah, fast in Ramadan, generally hold to the tenets that the Sunnis hold onto, and love our beloved Sayyid and Nabi
Muhammad. I am sure you know of the ahadith stating that whoever prays towards our qiblah, slaughters in our manner etc…or the statement of the Nabi 
(‘alayhis salaam) stating ‘whoever says la ilaaha illaa Allah 
sincerly from his heart, will enter jannah’. There are tons of proofs to legitimize such an opinion of the raafida.
Furthermore, in our times, we have seen the scholars of this era generally agree that the Shi’a – even if they be raafidha – are not kuffar. In the ‘Amman Message, three points were agreed upon and signed by thousands of scholars from all guilds:
1. They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.
2. Based upon this definition they forbade takfir (declarations of apostasy) between Muslims.
3. Based upon the Mathahib they set forth the subjective and objective preconditions for the issuing of fatwas, thereby exposing ignorant and illegitimate edicts in the name of Islam.
http://www.ammanmessage.com/
In other words, the majority of scholars within our era agree that they are Muslims and should thus be treated as such.
In response to Ansar Al-Hujjah:
Firstly brother I believe you are mistaken, and you are free to disagree with me, that the tendencies of tashbeeh and tamtheel by the pseudo-salafi neo-Muqaatiliyyah, does not take them from the millah of Islam. Though, in the view of the scholars of old, they are extreme deviants on the brink of kufr, they are not kuffaar.
Sidi Ahmad Zarruq, the great Maaliki Faqih, mentions in his Sharh upon the Matn of the Risaalah, that Sultan Al-’Ulamaa’ Izz Ad-Deen ibn Abdus-Salaam was asked about those who imply that Allah
is within the ‘direction’ of up, whether or not they have apostated, and he stated that the correct ruling is that they have not apostated.
Ibn Abi Jamrah, the great Faqih, as quoted by Sidi Ahmad Zarruq, said, “The one who states that Allah
has ‘directions’ has not apostated, when their intellect has not been able to accept other than this position, and they use in their defense the hadith of As-Sawdaa’ (I think he is referring to the hadith of the questioning of the black slave girl).”
A practical example of this is the great Hafith Zaynud-Deen Al-’Iraqi’s statement regarding Ibn Abdul Barr, telling the Muslims to beware of him because he states Allah
has direction. He did not, however, make takfeer of him for holding this view. Rather, he warned against his bida’ah. The same with the great Qaadhi of Andalus, Ibn Al-’Arabi, who wrote a scathing refutation of this creed promoted by Ibn Abdul Barr (Rahimahullah), yet he did not pronounce takfeer upon him.
[To read more on this see the article: http://seekingilm.com/archives/105
So brother, my point here is, the scholars of the past eras and of this era have generally agreed that such a creed is kufr, yet it does not take one from the Millah of Islam, primarily because they have an excuse of interpretation. I understand your view, and you are free to hold such a view, but I have found that this is not the general view of our scholars. It is my view that we should cling to our Sunni forefathers and stay upon the generally accepted creedal points.
Jazaakum Allahu Khairan
Abul Layth
Abul Layth i agree with you 100% with the distinctions you made about the Ismaili Fatimids of Egypt and todays Ithna Ashari Shias, 2 different madhahib.
About the mujassimi aqeedah this is no different than Christians beleiving in Jesus being Allah
(swt) and contradicts many verses of the Quran as stated by Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller. He also gives a nice explanation of the “slave girl hadeeth”.
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/inthesky.htm
It is a fact that Ibn Taymiya was imprisoned by the early sunni ulema so clearly they did not just view his beleifs as trivial interpretations of the Quran but as something much worse.
Putting ibn taymiyah in prison did not mean that he was automatically a kafir. He was propagating bidaah and thus he was reprihended.
The argument isnt that he was kafir because he was imprisoned its about his beleifs and that the ulema of ahlus sunnah rejected his polythiestic beliefs and innovations in religion. Having the beleif that Allah
has limbs, sits on the throne, and has directions etc are without a doubt shirk thus whoever beleives in these is commiting shirk.
Sidi, I quoted ‘Ulamaa’ of the past that did not hold this to be apostasy, and gave them an excuse based upon ta’weel. If you desire to disagree, that is fine. Shaykh Nuh Keller, as I heard with my own ears and saw his own lips, stated at the Suhba that He does not declare the mujassima kuffaar. Rather, he stated that he called them “stupid Muslims”.
Those were his exact words. Just thought I would share that bro. Shukran.
Abul Layth
Did Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebel against the Ottoman Caliphate and what was the reason for its fall?
Question:
Some people talk very bad about Muhammad ibn Abdulwahhab (rh). They accuse him, that he fought against the ottoman islamic empire and against the caliph , so he was an enemy of the muslims. This is their argument. Is this right? How could one fought against the amir of the muslims, even if the caliph prayed, gave his zakah and so on? They say also that he made an contract with the english army and fought with them against the muslims.
Can you give me a detailed answere to this historical event and show me the truth? Whom should we believe?.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
There is never a man who brings some goodness to this world but he has enemies among mankind and the jinn. Even the Prophets of Allaah were not safe from that.
The enmity of people was directed against the scholars in the past, especially the proponents of the true call (of Islam). They were met with intense hostility from the people. An example of that is Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him); some of those who were jealous of him regarded it as permissible to shed his blood, others accused him of being misguided and of going beyond the pale of Islam and becoming an apostate.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab was simply another of these wronged scholars who were falsely accused by people, in an attempt to cause trouble (fitnah). People’s only motives for doing that were jealousy and hatred, along with the fact that bid’ah was so firmly entrenched in their hearts, or they were ignorant and were blindly imitating the people of whims and desires.
We will mention some of the false accusations that were made against the Shaykh, and will refute them.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez al-‘Abd al-‘Lateef said:
Some opponents of the salafi da’wah claim that Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebelled against the Ottoman Caliphate, thus splitting the jamaa’ah (main body of the Muslims) and refusing to hear and obey (the ruler).
Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een li Da’wat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahaab, p. 233
He said:
‘Abd al-Qadeem Zalloom claims that the emergence of the Wahhaabis and their call was a cause of the fall of the Caliphate. It was said that the Wahhaabis formed a state within the Islamic state, under the leadership of Muhammad ibn Sa’ood and subsequently his son ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, which was supplied with weapons and money by the British, and they set out to gain control of other lands that were under the rule of Caliphate, motivated by the urge to spread their beliefs, i.e., they raised their swords against the Caliph and fought the Muslim army, the army of the Ameer al-Mu’mineen, with the encouragement and support of the British.
Kayfa hudimat al-Khilaafah, p. 10.
Before we respond to the false accusation that Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebelled against the Caliphate, we should mention the fact that the Shaykh believed that hearing and obeying the imams (leaders) of the Muslims was obligatory, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they did not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah, because obedience is only with regard to what is right and proper.
The Shaykh said in his letter to the people of al-Qaseem: “I believe that it is obligatory to hear and obey the leaders of the Muslims, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they do not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah. Whoever has become Caliph and the people have given him their support and accepted him, even if he has gained the position of caliph by force, is to be obeyed and it is haraam to rebel against him.”
Majmoo’at Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh, 5/11
And he also said:
One of the main principles of unity is to hear and obey whoever is appointed over us even if he is an Abyssinian slave…”
Majmoo’ah Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh, 1/394; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 233-234.
And Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez al-‘Abd al-Lateef said:
After stating these facts which explain that the Shaykh believed it was obligatory to hear and obey the leaders of the Muslims, whether they are righteous or immoral, so long as they do not enjoin disobedience towards Allaah, we may refer to an important issue in response to that false accusation. There is an important question which is: was Najd, where this call originated and first developed, under the sovereignty of the Ottoman state?
Dr Saalih al-‘Abood answered this by saying:
Najd never came under Ottoman rule, because the rule of the Ottoman state never reached that far, no Ottoman governor was appointed over that region and the Turkish soldiers never marched through its land during the period that preceded the emergence of the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him). This fact is indicated by the fact that the Ottoman state was divided into administrative provinces. This is known from a Turkish document entitled Qawaaneen Aal ‘Uthmaan Mudaameen Daftar al-Deewaan (Laws of the Ottomans concerning what is contained in the Legislation), which was written by Yameen ‘Ali Effendi who was in charge of the Constitution in 1018 AH/1609 CE. This document indicates that from the beginning of the eleventh century AH the Ottoman state was divided into 23 provinces, of which 14 were Arabic provinces, and the land of Najd was not one of them, with the except of al-Ihsa’, if we count al-Ihsa’ as part of Najd.
‘Aqeedat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab wa atharuha fi’l-‘Aalam al-Islami (unpublished), 1/27
And Dr ‘Abd-Allaah al-‘Uthaymeen said:
Whatever the case, Najd never experienced direct Ottoman rule before the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab emerged, just as it never experienced any strong influence that could have an impact on events inside Najd. No one had any such influence, and the influence of Bani Jabr or Bani Khaalid in some parts, or the Ashraaf in other parts, was limited. None of them were able to bring about political stability, so wars between the various regions of Najd continued and there were ongoing violent conflicts between its various tribes.
Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab Hayaatuhu wa Fikruhu, p. 11; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 234-235.
We will complete this discussion by quoting what Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz said in response to this false accusation. He said (may Allaah have mercy on him):
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab did not rebel against the Ottoman Caliphate as far as I know, because there was no area in Najd that was under Turkish rule. Rather Najd consisted of small emirates and scattered villages, and each town or village, no matter how small, was ruled by an independent emir. These were emirates between which there were fighting, wars and disputes. So Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab did not rebel against the Ottoman state, rather he rebelled against the corrupt situation in his own land, and he strove in jihad for the sake of Allaah and persisted until the light of this call spread to other lands…
Conversation recorded on tape; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, p. 237
Dr. ‘Ajeel al-Nashmi said: … The Caliphate did not react in any way and did not show any discontent or resentment during the life of the Shaykh, even though there were four Ottoman sultans during his lifetime…
Majallat al-Mujtama’, issue # 510.
If the above is a reflection of the Shaykh’s attitude towards the Caliphate, how did the Caliphate view the call of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab?
Dr. al-Nashmi said, answering this question:
The view that the Caliphate had of the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab was very distorted and confused, because the Caliphate only listened to those who were hostile towards the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, whether that was via reports sent by their governors in the Hijaaz, Baghdad and elsewhere, or via some individuals who reached Istanbul bearing news.
Al-Mujtama’, issue #504; quoted in Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, p. 238-239.
With regard to Zalloum’s claims that the Shaykh’s call was one of the reasons for the fall of the Caliphate and that the English helped the Wahhaabis to topple it, Mahmoud Mahdi al-Istanbuli says concerning this ridiculous claim:
This writer should be expected to produce proof and evidence for his opinion. Long ago the poet said:
If claims are not supported by proof, they are used only by the fools as evidence.
We should also note that history tells us that the English were opposed to this call from the outset, fearing that it might wake the Muslim world up.
Al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab fi Mar’aat al-Sharq wa’l-Gharb, p. 240
And he says:
The ironic fact is that this professor accuses the movement of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab of being one of the factors that led to the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate, even though this movement began in 1811 CE and the Caliphate was abolished in 1922 CE.
Op. cit., p. 64
What indicates that the English were opposed to the Wahhabi movement is the fact that they sent Captain Foster Sadler to congratulate Ibrahim Pasha on his success against the Wahhabis – during the war of Ibrahim Pasha in Dar’iyyah – and also to find out to what extent he was prepared to cooperate with the British authorities to reduce what they called Wahhabi piracy in the Arabian Gulf.
Indeed, this letter clearly expressed a desire to establish an agreement between the British government and Ibrahim Pasha with the aim of destroying the Wahhabis completely.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Manzoor al-Nu’maani said:
The English made the most of the hostility that existed in India towards Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab and they accused everyone who opposed them and stood in their way, or whom they regarded as dangerous, of being Wahhabis… Similarly the English called the scholars of Deoband – in India – Wahhaabis, because of their blunt opposition to the English and their putting pressure on them.
Di’aaya Mukaththafah Didd al- Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, p. 105-106
From these various quotations we can see the falseness of these flawed arguments when compared to the clear academic proofs in the essays and books of the Shaykh; that falseness is also obvious when compared to the historical facts are recorded by fair-minded writers.
Da’aawa al-Munaawi’een, 239, 240.
Finally, we advise everyone who has slandered the Shaykh to restrain his tongue and to fear Allaah with regard to him. Perhaps Allaah will accept their repentance and guide them to the straight path.
And Allaah knows best.
(Islam Q&A)
According to the Salafi Shaykh Nasir al-fahd the ‘salafi/wahabis’ did revolt against ottoman empire. Thats why the pseudo jihadis who claim salafiyah love to bring up how their forfathers rebelled against ‘murtad’ goverments. This is the khariji ideology reborn. Indeed the followed of ibn abdul wahab are khawarij as Shaykh ibn hajar haythami has mentioned in his tafsir.
I happened to read this article and I object to something written by some mawlana from deoband. He said brelwis allow tawaf around grave and sujood to the grave. He as a mawlana should have benn careful to say such a thing with no proof. Just because some people(including many hindus) in India do it does not mean brelwis preach that. It’s my challenge to any mawlana from deoband that they can not bring a single fatwa from any recognised brelwi sheikh where he allows tawaf of sujood of graves. It is unfortunate to find the deobandis and brelwis fighting with each other like this. I think deobandis and breliwis who criticize each other with no proofs will have to face severe questioning in qiyamah. I dont call myself a brelwi, my whole family takes its deen from deoband and they are part of tabligh jamaat but that does not mean I will speak against anybody based on whims as the real ahle sunnah people dont make takfeer on any group, likewise we should not accuse any group of something without first confirming it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7193579.stm
Interesting article
Kandahar’s cemetery of ‘miracles’
Website of Iraqi sufi naqshabandi mujahideen fighting the Crusaders:
http://www.alnakshabandia-army.org/
and here is their aqeedah/manhaj/goal, please read it and dont miss it:
http://www.alnakshabandia-army.org/home/index.php?action=pages&id=1
and after this who says Sufis are not in Jihad?
Let these neo salafis who claim that they are the “saved sect” and are the “taafiatul mansura”, know that long before their emergence 200 years ago, Sufis were always in the battle feild and did much contributions to the maintenance and propagation of Allah
’s deen. whenever there were the sufis in the jihad, there were great victories, as their intentions were pure, and their actions didnot transgress, and It was under the likes of such Sufis as Salahudeen al Ayubi(yes he was a sufi, a Shafii and an Ashari) and Mohammad al Fatih, that muslim lands were liberated, capitals of kufr demolished, and Allah 
’s religion witnessed glory.
On the point of blowing up the Bhuddas, an interesting perspective.
cut through the rhetoric and you get this:
“Third, and probably most important, the Taliban government for more than a year has been requesting international humanitarian aid for a country ravaged by drought, earthquakes, and war. No aid is forthcoming as long as the Taliban harbor international terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, an anathema to key voting members of the UN Security Council, including the United States, Russia (where the Taliban are working with the Chechnyan rebels), and China (where the Taliban are active among Muslim separatists).
As the Taliban see it, the UN and others (such as New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, the British Museum, Taiwan’s National Palace Museum, and even such Taliban friends as Iran, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) will give millions of dollars to save un-Islamic stone statues but not one cent to save the lives of Afghani men, women, and children.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/archaeology/2001-03-22-afghan-buddhas.htm
Watch how Allah
hears the Duaa of a Sufi Mujahid in Iraq from the Naqshabandiya army, where during the battlefeild he supplicates to Allah 
to cause a crusader helicopter to fall down (minutes 3:36 till 3:40) and then see what happens next :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScemaHhzq4
as salaamu alaykum,
akhi theres no sound and how do you know that he is a Naqshbandi sufi?
Nevermind i got the sound now
wa3alikumusalam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh,
.
Dear bro there is sound in that video as i can hear it loud and clear on my PC, and with regards to the mujahid is concerned, then he is fighting in the Naqshabandi units, and in the 3rd edition of the magazine of the “The Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order”, they have mentioned that their soldiers are mureeds of the Naqshabandi shuyookh in the battlefeild, who have taken a promise from their mureeds that they are to fight throughout their life in the cause of Allah
.. and they have mentioned in the aqeedah section of their website that their aim is to oust the Crusaders and their allies from Iraq and to replace them with a Shari3a government.
MashAllah akhi, These brothers dont commit shirk do they? Like calling upon awliya supplicating them and asking for help? These are true naqshbandiyah right?
Easy, brother mustafa.
You need to take it easy.
A reminder to me, and you, and everyone else that this isn’t a one-upping game. It’s deen.
just want clarification akhi. Trust me I love some Naqshbandi Sufis. Im just wondering if these are legitimate. In this day and age naqshbandi has got branded a bad name thanks to many turkish naqshbandis.
Some of the most orthodox Naqshbandi Shaykhs are Turkish, such as Sheikh Mahmood in Fatih, Istanbul.
I can confirm the Barelvis DO NOT permit tawaf or sujood to graves. This is nothing but propaganda from people who place more importance to winning people on “their camp” to “increase their numbers” and “gain popularity”- and who are not concerned about “the cause” of the Ahlus Sunnah.
Mustafa said:
“MashAllah akhi, These brothers dont commit shirk do they? Like calling upon awliya supplicating them and asking for help? These are true naqshbandiyah right?”
Get over your Wahabi indoctrination akhi. The scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah have allowed calling on the Prophet, sahaba and awliyaa for help as long as one believes Allah
is the ORIGINAL grantor of everything. It is a part of tawassul. It doesn’t matter if they are dead or alive.
IF someone believes that a person being called on is the CREATOR of a cause or an effect, it IS shirk anyways, regardless if you’re calling on a dead person or a living person. As an example, asking a mechanic to fix your car. No Muslim is so stupid to think the mechanic is the creator of any cause or effect. He is a cause created BY Allah
, who is delivering an effect WITH Allah 
’s Help.
Even if a person calls a LIVING person standing in front of him for help with the belief that the living person is creator of a cause or an effect, he commits shirk and leaves Islam.
BY THE SAME TOKEN, even if a person calls on the Prophet (who is alive in his grave) or a dead sahabi or wali for help WITH THE BELIEF that they are A CAUSE CREATED BY Allah
, WHOM Allah 
HAS GRANTED THE CAPABILITY TO DELIVER AN EFFECT- it is NOT shirk. It is 110% allowed and not even makruh in the least. It comes under the chapter of tawassul itself. Praising the beloved Prophet alaihis salam or the sahaba or awliya in this manner (ie by praying with their tawassul and/or doing istighatha thru them, which IS a part of tawassul) is in effect praising Allah 
.
Needless to say, no Muslim believes anyone, or even the Prophet alaihis salam to be the original creator of causes and effects.
Your argument is null and void and smells of typical Wahabi agitation with tawassul and istighatha and an itch to yell “shirk” and “bidat” at whatever you can get a chance at.
Also see the hadith where the prophet asks us to say, “Ya 3ebaad’Allah
, a3eenoo” (Oh slaves of Allah 
, help) in situations of distress during travelling etc. This is a very rough paraphrasing so that I dont fall into the sin of misquoting the prophet. However the hadith is sound and quoted by heaps of scholars where the prophet explicitly advises to call on unseen “slaves of Allah 
” for help. Look for it, or better yet, talk to a scholar of the Ahlus Sunnah.
By the way, the above in my post is a summary, as you can appreciate. If you want proofs, theres quite a few mentioned on marifah.net and other websites.
nuh keller is a sufi??
n u 2 abu layth??
so dats y u hate usama bin labin n ol??
Firstly, I do not even know who Usama ibn Ladin is. The only information I have of the man comes from western media and “western” born Muslims who evoke his name every time they attack civilians – particularly women and children.
Secondly, I am not a sufi. I wish I were though. And yes, Shaykh Nuh is a Sufi, just as Subki, Dhahabi, and the majority of great Imams of old.
tell me abu layth who r sufis???
ans required vvv soon!!
majority??!!!!
i dont believe dis!!!
ooooopppppssss!!!
sorry!!!!!
al-hamdulillah for another beautiful site of haqq exhibiting authentic and true knowledge of the Din!
Shukran Wa Jazak Allahu Khair
Was-Sallam,
Abdullah
True Sufism of the past is not the same sufism practiced today, unfortunately. If you can read Arabic and want to get an understanding of what Sufism used to be before all of the folk traditions, fairytales, bid’ah, and shirk disguised as permissible tawassul. . . read the books of Imam al-Harith al-Muhasibi.
Wasalam
Would Nuh Keller dare criticise the treacherous Jordanian government for it’s colloboration with the enemies of Islaam? Is the Jordanian government better than the Taliban?
An empty claim with no proof.
Folk traditions are not haram. “Fairytales” is batil opinion – and even seems to imply rejection of karamaat!
Bida’ah and tawassul are fiqhi issues not Sufi ones.
As for bida’ah, then it is you who are upon bida’ah about the definition of bid’ah, and the salaf are from free you and your pseudo-salafi likes!
Imam Ash-Shafi’i said:
البدعة بدعتان: بدعة محمودة وبدعة مذمومة، فما وافق السنة فهو محمود، وما خالف السنة فهو مذموم
“Bida’ah is of two types: Bida’ah that is praiseworthy and Bida’ah that is blameworthy. What agrees with the sunnah is praiseworthy and what contradicts the sunnah is blameworthy.”
The key here is “contradicts”, a concept pseudo-salafis can’t seem to grasp.
Imām Al-Jurjānī states in At-Ta’rifāt,
“Whatever contrivance (fi’latun) contradicts the Sunnah, it is named Bida’ah because whoever supports it innovated it without basis from an Imām. It consists of a novel matter which the Sahābah and their successors did not follow and which is unsupported by a legal proof.” [pg 62]
Again, the key words: “contradicts”, “unsupported by a legal proof”.
As the Shafi’iyyah hold, bida’ah falls within the 5 ahkaam, as stated by Ibn Abdus-Salam and repeated by Hafith Ibn Hajr in his Fathul-Baari:
“It can be divided into the five legal categories [(or rulings)Ahkaam Al-Khamsah)].”
http://seekingilm.com/archives/41
We agree! The problem is, however, for pseudo-salafis is that he was a Mutakallim as stated by Ibn Kathir in his Tabaqat Ash-Shafi’iyyin! `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, Taj al-Din al-Subki, and Jamal al-Din al-Isnawi all reiterate the statement whereby “Upon the books of al-Harith ibn Asad al-Muhasibi on kalam, fiqh, and hadith rest those among us who are mutakallim (theologian), faqih (jurist), and sufi.” (‘Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, Kitab Usul al-Din p. 308-309; Taj al-Din Subki, Tabaqat al-shafi`iyya 2:275; Jamal al-Din al-Isnawi, Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya 1:(#9)26-27).
Qadhi Shuhbah stated in tabaqat Ash-Shafi’yyah:
أحد مشايخ الصوفية وشيخ الجنيد إمام الطريقة
He is one of the Shaykhs of the Sufiyyah, the Shaykh of Al-Junayd, the Imam of the Tariqah!
< Would Nuh Keller dare criticise the treacherous Jordanian government for it’s colloboration with the enemies of Islaam? Is the Jordanian government better than the Taliban?>
I have heard him with my own ears criticize the “Governments of the Muslims” on several occassions.
What does that have to do with the topic though?
It has everything to do with the topic. If you can criticise the Taliban(who at least are fighting for the sake of Allah
) for their mistakes, then you can surely the treacherous Jordanian government which is well-known for it’s colloboration with the enemies of Islaam such as the British, the Zionists and the Americans. Anybody can condemn “the governments of the Muslims”. I’m talking about the condemnation of the Jordanian government. It’s not surprising that there is a double standard from the likes of Keller.
There is certainly no double-standard. He was asked specifically about the taliban, and he praised them for their good and criticized them for their blunders.
He has done just that for other regimes. So stop your batil insinuations and claims without proof, for the one who knows has more right to testimony than the one who does not. Many have heard Shaykh Nuh criticize the regimes, and that is the bottom line, of course, much to the dismay of your likes.
salam
I used to overpraise the Taliban and saw them as saintly, but their implementation of laws has not been done in full justice. That is why women were oppressed and still are oppressed in that society. And its not just propaganda from the west, there are truely people that suffered under the regime and it wasnt just “modernist” muslims. Real people had real situation occured where there rights were violated and still are violated today.
What makes me sad is I see all these calls for an Islamic state, but when someone tries to implement it they do so in unjust ways only acting upon ego and power and oppresses women and possibly other groups of citizens.
My thoughts only nothing to believe in
:)
salam
I concur Muslim. Apparently some muslims think that the taliban are infallible and never committed wrong. Many “jihadis” that I have spoken with believe that the taliban are pretty much infallible.
So what do you have to say about the Pakistani Taliban fighting against Muslims in Pakistan. Are they Kufar ?
I thought the response that Shaykh Nuh Keller gave was fair and balanced (to borrow a term) for the most part.
As far as the conflict between the Taliban and the Shi’ites (known as the Hazara) in Afghanistan is concerned, it is my understanding that during the Taliban’s first failed attempt to capture a city in the north of the country numerous Taliban fighters were taken prisoner by the Shi’ite militia and massacred (many of them left to suffocate in cargo containers, a tactic the North Alliance would later employ against Taliban prisoners in late-2001). When the Taliban was able to take the city many Taliban fighters retaliated against the Shi’ite population for the murder of their relatives and comrades, something that was not sanctioned by al-Mullah ‘Umar, who indeed punished some of the Taliban commanders for their excesses in dealing with the Shi’ites.
Another good point was the mistake that the Taliban made in allowing certain radical neo-jihadi groups to use Afghanistan as a safe haven. It became clear that these Arab militants were not concerned with what the fallout of their various activities would mean for the Afghan people. I know that several Muslim scholars warned the Taliban to expel these militants, but the Taliban did not do so and underestimated their ability to reign in the militants. Of course, the Taliban clearly had nothing to do with 9/11 (which they condemned) and the American administration knew this, but refused any diplomatic solution (and it had little to do with ‘Usama bin Ladin, and much to do with access to Central Asian oil and natural gas).
This is interesting:
Source: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_solved118.html
There is a double standard which you are unwilling to acknowledge because it exposes the hypocrisy of your shaykh. Has Nuh Keller ever criticised the Jordanian government for its colloboration with the enemies of Islaam?! And no, the Taliban and other various jihadist groups aren’t infallible and they deserve to be faulted for their mistakes, but many of the Muslims who criticise these groups never or rarely criticise the “Muslim” rulers with the same vehemence.
assalaamu alaikum
and now the taliban is taking over pakistan.
I believe the taliban requires real scholars inorder to survive and grow . their implementation of shariah law in swat is being monitored. and they need to kick out the deviants from the leadership positions.
Anon, it is useless to continue to entertain your false claims if you do not respond to the responses of your response. We are telling you that Shaykh Nuh has, and does, criticise the Muslim countries’ leaders. I have heard him personally on many occasions. As for collaboration, then he has also spoken of such in the context of the first gulf war and had just as harsh of words then as he does now. Get over your baatil!
As for the taliban, Maybe they should be more merciful to the people. Whomever doesn’t show mercy will not receive mercy.
I am talking about criticising the Jordanian government, not the Saudi or other Khaleeji governments. This is similar to those(from your kind) who love to speak about the treachery of Aal-Su’ood, yet they rarely or never criticise Sharif Hussein, King Abdullah(of Jordan) or the other rulers of Jordan who have been and still are stooges for the kuffar. If you can critcise Taliban, you can surely criticise the Jordanian government. But of course, one cannot bite the hand that feeds him.
I have heard shaykh Nuh with my own ears criticize the Jordanian government. Those who know have more right to speak than those who do not. You have not sat with him, discussed these issues with him, yet you are certainly willing to indulge in ghibah against him.
So as for “those of my kind”, whatever that means, they generally don’t waste their time discussing what everyone already knows! Instead, they prefer to work to better society by reforming the heart and learning the religion, then applying that within their homes and within the society. The best way to remove kufristic rulers is through patience, perseverance, clinging to the Sunnah and reformation of the society as a whole.
Btw, since you have made the claim that the Jordanian government “feeds” Shaykh Nuh Keller, I wouuld like to see your proof for such a slander!
something interesting is happening in Somalia. Sunni Ulima(shafi’i in madhab, Asha’ri in ‘aqida, and sufis of diffent tariqas) have taken up arms aginst the neo-khawarij, the al shabaab and the al qaida fighters and who do you think might be winning? real Jihad and boggus Jihad come face to face. real ulima vs blind takfiris. the takfiris lost nine major battles and out of nine. soon Somalia will be rid of them insha Allah
. this will be replicated all over the Islamic world. the there will be people who confront the transgressions of the West while owning the moral high ground that more our right than anybody else’s check out this article from the NYT and the accampanying slide show you might have to copy and paste:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/world/africa/24somalia.html?_r=1
One can certainly foresee that there will be clashes between the Sunnis and the Wahhabis. It is afterall inevitable. When the wahhabis destroy graves, attack mureeds, revile their shuyukh, murder and slay the innocent, retribution is the only way. It was for the same reasons that the Ottomans squelched their pathetic anthropomorphic uprising as they attempted to make khuruj against the khalifah. The same reasons, some 300 years later, still resonate. For to long the Sunnis have sat on their hands…
May Allah
grant the Sufi Mureeds of Somalia victory and allow them to establish the Sunnah throughout the Somaal, removing the tyranny and fasaad of the wahhabis amin!
Militant Sufism eh. That is the first time I am witnessing sufi militancy in order to protect their worshipped gods. The ignorance of these wahhabiphobes become clear when they paint brush all the “wahhabis” with the same color. Do not they know the differences that exist within the ‘Salafi/Wahhabi movement?” Have not they heard of Neo-Salafis, madkhalis and Talafis? So Jihadists (khwaarij) get their inspiration from the likes of “Wahhabi” scholars such as Sk Uthaymeen and Bin Baz and many from Medinah Univeristy?
The destruction of Budhha Statues was an apt decision and wisdom dictated their destruction. Pleasing the Kufaar should not take precedence over eliminating the statues. The presence of a Buddhist community in Afghanistan would have dictated otherwise but these statues have been orphaned from quite some time now. The very Buddhas who venerate them did not make the effort of restoring the supposed “historical legacy” of theirs.
Utter non-sense spilled by some here who think that Wahhabiya are a monolithic movement of Jihadists. There are scholars among the wahhabiya who are on Haq and they must be protected by the slandered that oozes from the mouths and tongues of militant Sufis.
I was hoping a wahabi would come and comment on this topic of bamiyan buddha. So the wahabi dude above, could you tell me why the pyramids and the sphinx were not destroyed by the muslims of egypt? Did all the great Imams of the past, who were in egypt, didn’t know the fiqh of ‘destroying’?
The difference between the wahhabi style jihadist and the Sufi is that the Sufi works to make his intention pure, his heart void of baatil, and he follows the path of the Salaf in war. He does not believe in attacking women and children simply because the enemy does it to them. Rather, the sufi follows the Ijma’ of the Muslims that killing them is haraam – unlike the wahhabi neo-muqatili ibn uthaymin and co.
As for the rest of batil post, then there is no need to respond to such trash.
The bamiyan buddhas were demolished NOT by wahhabis, but rather by the Deobandi (sufi) Taliban. Sorry folks, it’s a fact you can’t get around.
Abdullah said, ” the there will be people who confront the transgressions of the West while owning the moral high ground that more our right than anybody else”. Would you still claim the “moral high ground” when the same Somali Sufi group which you praised is backed by the Ethiopian kuffar or when one of the Sufi ministers in the Somali government begs the American government to intervene on his group’s side against the “Wahabis”? Where were these Sufis when the Ethiopian government invaded Somalia? Not surprisingly, this is how many anti-”Wahabi” Sufis confront the Salafi da’wah with the aid of the kuffar and the enemies of Islaam. Those Somali Sufis join the long list of Sufi traitors such as Hisham Kabbani, Stephen Schwartz, Abdul-Hakim Murad, the Ahbash, Abdul-Hadi Palazzi, Ramzan Kadyrov(who is backed by the Russians to wage war against the “Wahabis” for which he was praised by the Syrian Ash’ari scholar, as-Sabuni, who called it the “greatest jihad”!) Ali Jum’ah, al-Buti and others. And since you are talking about sincere intention, Sidi Abul Layth, are you going to condemn Sharif Hussein for making khuruj against the Ottomans?
what are you talking about anon? are you trying to show that wahhabis are the real carers for the ummah and are of the taaifatel mansurah? nay they are not. Rather they are egoists who just care for their selfishness. the Somali sufis were against the Ethopians and most of them did nt even engage themselves in inter tribal strifes, and the complex somali politics, until the shabab wahhabi kharijis started to kill sufi mureeds just because of their backgrounds, started to harass their families, started to show disrespect to the dead by pulling them out of their decades perhaps centuries old graves and draging them to the streets, which led the sufis to take up arms against the shabab goons to protect themselves. You are speaking of colaboration with ethopians,which are all lies without basis nor proof, a typical wahhabi method, have you forgotten that Sharif Shaykh Ahmad is a Sufi and he was the head of the Islamic courts and many sufis stood against the Ethopians. Have you forgotten the fact that Salahudeen al Ayubi was a sufi, the Murabitun of Maghreb were sufis, Muhammad al Fateh and the Ottomans were sufis, and Omar al Mukhtar and the Sanusi were sufis, whereas history is a witness the likes of M Ibn Abdel wahhab, M Ibn Saud, and their sons and offsprings till this third bloody saudi kingdom were all traitors..
their jihad in iraq was obvious to everyone where they killed innocents, massacred civilians, caused confusions, collapsed societies, until the tribes united and uprooted them, their jihad in Algeria spoke volumes of their barbarity, where they killed, raped and pillaged innocent muslims in ways that make the hair stand still, even frying little babies just because they didnt agree with their beliefs, and in Afghanistan, their jihad was to misuse the hospitality of simple Afghans, went against their request and used their home mischeviously to do the sinfulness of 9/11 and the corruption that such an act entitled, leading the poor Afghans to misery till this day and paying the price.
Look at Swat and in Pakistan where the wahhabi-mamati taliban deeds speak volumes as who these najis people are.
The Wahhabi Mujahid is someone who doesnt pray properly, maybe even never prays, who is abusive to his family and parents, who spends times in bars and getting drunk, and with girls and prostitutes, and then goes and blasts himself like a firecracker in the midst of women and children and innocent people, in a hospital or market place, and is cheered by their fellow wahhabis as a martyr.
to free palestine,
during the last years of the Taleban rule, the wahhabi al qaeda became very powerful in Afghanistan, where they used to influence the country’s politics. The Bamiyan buddhas were destroyed at the request of alqaeda, and it was after this demolition that Binladen declared his bayaah or pledge to Mullah Umar the leader of the Taliban.
local Afghans remember Wahhabi alqaeda as bullies and egoists who used to harrass normal Afghans in markets and in the streets of the capital kabul and jalalabad, and people of north kabul have painful memories of their whole villages, farmlands and trees being razed, and their girls being kidnapped as slave girls, by the wahhabi alqaeda during the Taliban days, as alqaeda used to see the locals as quboori mushriks, whose blood wealth and honor is halal for them, just as what their brethern did in Algeria.
Also the people of Bamiyan and Kunar parts of Afghanistan have their own painful memories to tell about what alqaeda did to them, of massacre, looting, and raping.
watch this video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKU6irSNvEU&feature=channel_page
clips from 1:39 till 3:48 shows the crimes of alqaeda on local tajik villages north of kabul during the pre 9/11 Taliban era. The Arab alqaeda destroyed whole villages, burning houses, even mosques in the process, humiliating old people, massacring the civilians, pillaging properties, and cutting and burning fruit trees and killing livestock which were perhaps the only means of livelihood for the locals. The video shows the locals complaining in pain their suffering from the hands of Al Qaeda terrorists.
We find the same savagery in the biography of this cult’s founder M ibn Abdel Wahhab, and the same was seen from wahhabis in Algeria and Iraq.. and this is the jihad of these khawarij.. may Allah
eradicate the takfiris.
Spare me Fusooli. Your denial of Sufi treachery exposes the hypocrisy of your kind. I don’t doubt that the “Wahabi kharijis” as you have called them, have comitted many mistakes and transgressions. But why do you pretend that there is no treachery among your kind and that many of them don’t colloborate with the enemies of Islaam. I didn’t accuse all Somali Sufis of colloborating with the Ethiopian government or that some of them opposed the Ethiopian invasion, but I have no doubt that some of them are backed by the Ethiopians. Even if I did bring you proof, I have no doubt that you will make excuses for the treachery of those Somalian Sufis, but here is some proof:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062403495_pf.html
http://propagandapress.org/2009/06/20/somali-fraudulent-govt-on-verge-of-defeat-sheik-aden-mohamed-nor-begging-for-foreign-troops/
As for Ethiopia, then one must remember the forefather of these Sufi traitors, Abdullah al-Habashi and his Satanic group, the Ahbash. This charlatan began his career by inciting the Ethiopian government against the “Wahabis” in the beginning of a long list of treacheries. Why are you bringing up historical Sufis when I am talking about the actions of certain Sufis today? There is no doubt that many Sufis engaged in jihad and that there are Sufi mujahideen in our time in Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. I’m not talking about these Sufis, but the ones who are colloborating with the kuffar and the enemies of Islaam, something which you aren’t even willing to acknowledge. As for the treachery of the Aal-Su’ood, then yes they are traitors and many “Wahabis” have condemned the Saudi government and it’s treacherous foreign policy, unlike the hypocritical Sufis who cite this but never condemn the treachery of Sharif Hussein who colloborated with the British or King Abdullah I of Jordan who colloborated with the Zionists and played a large part in the loss of Palestine(one of the biggest treacheries in our time) or the CIA King Hussein(who killed thousands of Palestinians) and his son who are stooges for the Zionists and the West. This is another example of the brazen Sufi hypocrisy and selective criticism. At least many “Wahabis” condemn their own when they colloborate with the enemies of Islaam unlike many anti-”Wahabi” Sufis who makes a thousand excuses even when Sufi treachery is so obvious. I know many anti-”Wahabi” Sufis like to mention the treachery of the Saudi government as if it is the only treacherous government in the Gulf or the Muslim world. Where is the condemnation of the Emirati government which also is a stooge for the West and where one of the local leaders awarded the war criminal, Tommy Franks, a medal? Where is the condemnation of the governments in the Muslim world who colloborate with the West and wage war on Islaam?
You mention Iraq and Algeria as if the “Wahabis” are the source of all the problems there. I don’t deny that the jihadist groups committed many mistakes in these countries, but the way you present it is ridiculous. Why don’t you condemn the invasion of Iraq by the Americans or the secularist Algerian government which also engaged in massacres with even a fraction of the vehemence and the hatred that you reserve for the “Wahabis”. Not surprisingly, the tawagheet in Algeria have recently decided to use Sufism to confront the Salafi da’wah there following in the footsteps of other tawagheet.
http://www.alittihad.ae/details.php?id=22595
This is the manhaj of these Neo-Con Sufis such as yourself. Colloborating with the kuffar and the tawagheet. The Ahbash who colloborated with the Nusayri, Ba’thist regime in Syria against the “Wahabis” and fawn and lionize the criminal Hafez al-Assad while making takfeer of Ibn Taymiyyah. Everywhere the Ahbash go, they incite the kuffar against the “Wahabis” and present themselves as moderates as they
have done in Lebanon, Australia, Eastern Europe, France(where one of the local Habashi leaders called on the French government to ban “Wahabism” and “Qutbism”)
Scandinavia and the US. Also in the US, there is the Mufti of the Neo-Cons, Hisham Kabbani, and his progeny, the Zionist nutjob, Stephen Schwartz who is always on the warpath against “Wahabis”. In the UK, there is Abdul-Hakim Murad who incites against the “Wahabis” in the media. In Italy, there is “Shaykh” Abdul-Hadi Palazzi who lies to give Zionism an “Islaamic” basis. In Chechnya, there is the Sufi traitor, Ramzan Kadyrov, backed by the Russians to wage a “jihaad” against the “Wahabis” for which he was praised by the Syrian Sufi scholar, as-Sabuni, who called the “Wahabis” cholera and praised the actions of Kadyrov as the “greatest jihaad”!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QawzvpkhRnc&mode=related&search=
In the Arab world, there is the Syrian Sufi, al-Buti, who used to incite his Baatini masters against Shaykh Abdul-Qaadir al-Arn’aut and other Sufis who reported to the Syrian regime that al-Arn’aut made takfeer of the Christians which led to his imprisonment! In Egypt, there is Ali Jum’ah, Mufti of the Egyptian mukhabaraat, who constantly attacks “Wahabis”, yet is silent on many of the enemies of Islaam. These are just some of the Sufi traitors. Since you hate “Wahabis” so much, why don’t you saddle up and join the battle against the “Wahabis”. Join the American army in its battle against the “Wahabis” or incite the kuffar against the “Wahabis” or be an informant against the “Wahabis”. Be like your Habashi brethren who colloborated with the Nusayris against the “Wahabis” in Lebanon. Incite the kuffar against the “Wahabis” like the Ahbash or the Neo-Con Sufis, Hisham Kabbani, Stephen Schwartz, Abdul-Hakim Murad, Abdul-Hadi Palazzi, Taj Hargey and others. Be like Kadyrov who is battling the “Wahabi” cholera in Chechnya backed by the Russian kuffar or the Northern Alliance(who engaged in many massacres) and their remnants who are battling the Taliban and the Arab “khawarij”. These are your brethren and this is the treacherous manhaj of your kind. How come these Sufis need the enemies of Islaam to confront “Wahabis”? It just goes to show how pathetic and treacherous these Sufis are that they need the enemies of Islaam to confront their enemies. Where is the harshness of these anti-”Wahabi” Sufis against the Jews, Christians, secularists and liberals, Raafidha, tawagheet and other enemies of Islaam?
Assalamu Alaikum
Br. anon does have a point, no? As a traditional Muslim who is strongly opposed to the Wahhabi/salafi movement, I think it is unfair to pin every mistake on the Wahhabis. Sufis have indeed been behind many problems in the Muslim world. The difference, I think, is that the Wahhabi creed legitimizes the violence and makes what is being done lawful; whereas the Sufis who have committed atrocities have done so in total opposition to their beliefs.
Abu Layth when you mentioned shias above are you referring to the twelver shias and can you explain how they are muslims in the beautiful way you explain.
Whoever says rafidis are not kafir after having the evidence of their kufr-filled aqeeda is a kafir like them. Before anyone accuses me of be ‘wahabi’ or barks ‘fitna maker’, I am a muslim following the shafi’i school of thought. How you can you say the majority of scholars didn’t make takfeer on the shia? You are lying to the people, and on the day of reckoning you will have to answer for it. Iblees belives in the oneness of God, the anels, the scriptures, the prophets, heaven, hell, the day of judgement.. but Allah
(swt) calls him a KAFIR in the quran. The shahada has its conditions! The shia: curse the companions (RA), deny hadith, curse the mothers of the believers (RA), deny the completeness of the quran, innovate worship, say that whoever rejects immamate is a KAFIR, call sunnis KAFIR, label anyone who accepts the caliphate of the 2 sheikhs (RA) as KAFIR.. I could go on.. fear Allah 
and look at your aqeedah.. because if that aqeeda is fine then God help. I am free from the shia and their beliefs and pray that Allah 
will save us from their evilk plans. Trust me, if they entered your country 2mrw, they would slaughter your parents, raper your sister, and burn your beard.. just because you follow the sunna. It is a shame muslims have not learnt from the lessons of Iraq.
May be the scholars might of been referring to the shias in the beginning who’s aqaid was ok but they just went overboard with their love of ali rd
Early Scholars on the shia
Imaam Abu Hanifah
It was reported that often Abu Haneefah used to repeat the following statement about the Shi`ites, “Whoever doubts whether they are disbelievers has himself committed disbelief.”
Imaam al-Shaafi`e
On one occasion al-Shaafi`i said concerning the Shi`ites, “I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Raafidite Shi`ites.” [Ibn Taymeeyah, Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, 1/39] On another occasion he said, “Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet except the Raafidite Shi`ites, because they invent Hadeeths and adopt them as part of their religion.” [Ibid, p. 38]
Imaam Maalik
and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them.” He then said, “Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaabah are mentioned is one about whom the verse speaks.” [Tafseeer al-Qurtubee, Soorah al-Fath; Editor’s note: That is, anyone who is enraged by the mention of the Sahaabah is a dsibeliever, because the verse says, "…the disbelievers may become enraged with them (Sahaabah)."]
Once Maalik was asked about them and he replied, “Do not speak to them nor narrate from them, for surely they are liars.” [Minhaaj as-Sunnah, 1/37] During a class of Imaam Maalik, it was mentioned that the Raafidite Shi`ites curse the Sahaabah. In reply, he quoted the Quranic verse, “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah
Imaam Ibn Hazm quoted a report with an isnad going back to Hishaam ibn ‘Ammaar, who said: “I heard Maalik ibn Anas say: “Whoever curses Abu Bakr should be whipped, and whoever curses ‘Aa’ishah should be killed.” He was asked, “Why do you say that concerning (the one who curses) ‘Aa’ishah?” He said, Because Allah
says concerning ‘Aa’ishah, (may Allah 
be pleased with her): “Allah 
forbids you from it (slander her) and warns you not to repeat the like of it forever, if you are believers.” (al-Noor 24:17)’”
Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi
exonerated her. So everyone who accuses her of that of which Allah 
has stated she is innocent is rejecting what Allah 
says, and everyone who rejects what Allah 
says is a kaafir. This is the opinion of Maalik, and the matter is very clear to those who have insight.”
Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi said: “Because the people who slandered ‘Aa’ishah accused a pure and innocent person of immorality, then Allah
Ibn al-Mubaarak
Ibn al-Mubaarak was reported to have said, “Religion is gained from Ahl al-Hadeeth, scholastic theology and crafty exemptions from religious ordinances of Ahl ar-Ray and lies from the Raafidite Shi`ites.” [Adh-Dhahabee, al Muntaqaa min Minhaaj al-I`tidaal, p. 480]
Abu Zur`ah ar-Raazee
This great scholar was quoted as saying, “If you see someone degrade any of the companions of the Prophet, (pbuh), know that he is a disbeliever. Because the Prophet, (pbuh), was real, what he brought was the truth and all of it was conveyed to us by the way of the Sahaabah. What those disbelievers wish to do is to cast doubt on the reliability of our narrators in order to invalidate the Quraan and the Sunnah. Thus the disbelievers are the ones most deserving defamation.”
Ibn Hazm al-Andaloosee
One day during the period of Muslim rule in Spain, Imaam Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm was having a debate with some Spanish Catholic priests about their religious texts. He brought before them evidence of textual distortions in the Bible and the loss of original manuscripts. When they replied by pointing out to him Shi`ite claims also being distorted, Ibn Hazm informed them that “Shi`ite could not be used as evidence against the Quraan or against Muslims because they are not themselves Muslims.” [Ibn Hazm, al-Fisaal fee al-Milal wa an-Nihal, 2/78 and 4/182]
Their claims have been rebutted by numerous other early scholars like Ibn Taymeeyah in Minhaaj as-Sunnah, adh-Dhahabee in Muntaqaa min Minhaaj al-I`tidaal, Ibn Katheer in his history book al-Bidaayah wa an-Nihaayah, Ibn al-Jawzee in Talbees Iblees, al-Qaadee ibn al-`Arabee in al-`Awwaasim min al-Qawaasim, At-Tahaawee in al-`Aqeedah at-Tahaawiyyah, and Al-Qaadee Abu Ya`laa.
Contemporary Scholars
Abul-A’laa al-Maududi
This great Pakistani scholar and leader wrote an introduction to the book, Ar-Riddah bain al-Ams wa al-Yaum (lit. Apostacy in the Past and the Present) by Muhammad KaadHim Habeeb published in 1977. In it the author wrote of the Imaami Ja’fari Shi’ites, “In spite of their moderate views (relative to other sects of Shi’ism), they are swimming in disbelief like white blood cells in blood or like fish in water.” Maududi supported these views by praising the author and recommending that the book be done in hardback.
Imaam al-Aloosee
He declared the Raafidite Shi’ites disbelievers because of their defamation of the Sahaabah. His position was based on the rulings of Imam Malik and other scholars who were in agreement with him. In reply to their claim to be Ahl Bayt (the Prophet’s (pbuh) family), al-Aloosee said, “No, they are really followers of the Devils and Ahl Bayt are innocent of them.”
Bahjat al-Baitaar
.”
When this great Syrian scholar was asked if transactions were permissible with Shi’ites, he replied in a book called Al-islam wa as-Sahaabah al-Kiraam bain as-Sunnah wa ash-Shee’ah in which he said, “Political and economic dealings with them are allowed in the same way that they are allowed with states and people with whom there are treaties in spite of differences between their lands and religions and ours. And help can only be sought from Allah
Muhammad Rasheed Ridaa
This scholar was among those who worked sincerely for rapproachment between the Sunnites and the Shi’ites, and they in turn pretended moderation for his benefit. However, in the midst of his efforts they caught him by surprise by presenting him with some of their books which slandered islam. He then replied to them in a paper called As-Sunnah wa ash-Shee’ah in which he exposed their doctrines and idolatrous practices.
Dr. Hilaalee
After living closely to the Shi’ites for some years, the famous Morrocan scholar, Dr Hilaalee, wrote a paper on them in which he declared them disbelievers.
Al-Basheer al-Ibraaheemee
be pleased with him – is accused of homosexuality. On his return home to Algeria he exposed the Shi’ites and clearly outlined their principle beliefs and practices.
While visiting Iraq, this professor who is the leading religious scholar in Algeria saw with his own eyes the Shi’ite book, Az-Zahraa, in which ‘Umar ibn al-Khataab – may Allah
Mustafaa as-Sibaa’ee
’s Messenger (pbuh) were it not for his knowledge that most of the Raafidites are Persians. Some Persians feigned islam and used Shi’ism as a cover for the destruction of islam. There were also among the Persians those who were unable to free themselves from the effects of their former religions and thus they entered islam with a pagan mentality which did not mind telling lies about the Prophet (pbuh)”
This eminent Palestinian scholar was also among those who lived with the Shi’ites for a period and worked for rapproachment with them; however, he soon discovered their real intentions and noted them in the foreword of his classic, As-Sunnah wa Makaanatuhaa. He wrote, “Those people continue to hold fast to their books in which slanderous attacks and false descriptions are given of the incidents of disagreement among the Sahaabah. Hence their intention behing the call to rapprochement seems to be bringing the Sunnites closer to the Shi’ite creed and not bringing them closer to each other.” On another occasion, he wrote, “A Muslim would almost be in a state of total bewilderment and confusion at the audacity of these people towards Allah
Among other contemporary scholars who have have made similar statements are: Shaikh Ibn Baaz, ‘Allaamah ash-Shanqeetee, al-Albaanee, Ahmad Ameen, Muhibbuddeen al-Khateeb,an-Nashaasheebee and Dr. Rashaad Saalim.
The Above is taken from “The Mirage in Iran” by Dr Ahmed Al Afghanee Edited and translated by Dr Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips I Believe. it also mentions in the footnote regarding Shaykh Abu Hassan Ali Nadwi writing abook in the urdu language in which he translates the classical shite fiqh book “usulil kafi” and then lets the reader go through it and decide whether it has Islam or kufar
The shi’ah are principly Muslims. The laymen amongst them simply believe what their Imams tell them, and because of their state of taqlid, they have the excuse of both ignorance and ta’wil.
As for those who have been shown the falsehood of raafidhi ways yet continue to be obstinate, then it is up to the Qadhi or the Imam of the Muslims to judge them accordingly. Whether or not fall into the realm of apostasy is another issue.
The Imams of Ahlus Sunnah did take knowledge from the Shi’ah, and even their “scholars”:
http://seekingilm.com/archives/56
If they deemed them “kuffar” then they would not have taken divine knowledge from them, nor would they have allowed other Muslims to accept their narratives.
was-salam
Abul Layth
As-salaamu ‘alaikum
can those who say the rawafid of today are saved from takfeer due to taqleed do they therefore agree even those who say our mother ‘Aisha (Ra) commites zina – wa iyyadu billahil-’adheem – is also excused due to his taqleed? As are the layperson from the rawafid who make takfeer on the shaykhayn (raa)?
May the sons of muta’ perish!
Abu Layth so basically ure saying (i Think ) that the layman shia cannot be called kafir and i do know that in hanafi fiqh quote something i read in Aqeeda Tahawiyyah we dont do takfir anyway . but arent the shia sects different from say the time of Imam Abu Hanifah Imam Shafi etc in beliefs, then say to day Khomieni, ayatollah etc also can you elaborate on specifically which shias the imams dont do takfir of , Ismailis Zaidis , Ithnaa Asharia etc
I have heard for years now, too many in fact, that the “Shi’is” claim that ‘A’ishah committed zina. The majority of the shi’is that I know, especially the laymen, do not say such, though they do not restrain their tongue in criticism of her, and it should be known that she was also criticized by other Sahabah in her time. I do not condone such, but the fact that the Sahabah disagreed about this matter leaves the door open for disagreement. I even know of some Iranian Shi’ah that refrain from even discussing the issue of ‘A’ishah altogether simply because they are confused as to what really occurred, which is a justified stance considering they do no t have the time to sit around and research hundreds of chains and aathaar for themselves…Who are they to believe?
If these supposed shi’ah say she committed zina, while NOT knowing the aayah from the Qur’an that freed her from blame, or understanding the concept of authenticity regarding reports etc, then I certainly believe that they may have an excuse in the law. This is like coming up to a new muslim who does not know how to pray, or fast or has not had necessary things explained to him. However, if he knows the Sunni position thoroughly, and chooses to reject it based upon whim, I have no doubt he has denied the Qur’an! Furthermore, it would be better of him to hold his tongue – as he should speak good or remain silent.
The other problem with these questions presented is that many seemingly want to paint all the shi’ah with the same brush. There are so many sects of the shi’ah it is impossible to keep track of them. Not only that, amongst the individual shi’ah there are also so many views that are held by their scholars – such as the disputes between the basran shi’ah and the lebanese shi’a or some of the Irani shi’a and the Pakistani shi’ah or the Yemeni Shi’ah that have multiple groups amongst them (Qaasmiyyah, Haadiwiyyah etc) – many disagreeing regarding historical accounts or fiqh issues etc.
What matters here is that both Sunni and Shi’i laymen are told narratives that are baseless regarding the fitnah that occurred, in that they lack authentic chains, and have no foundation in historical fact. So for many generations people have said things about one another that is quite frankly political propaganda or hype. Loaded baatil that today’s Muslim, especially converts, have a difficult time sifting through.
I condemn attacks on any of the Sahabah, as the Nabi
‘alayhis salam authentically stated, ‘Do not revile my companions!’… While saying this we need to realize, both Sunni and Shi’i, that all of the Sahabah were human and capable of error. If we look at these issues with the eye of objective humanity, I think many of these issues would vanish – though I know such a thing will not ever occur. Both sides have their political propaganda and as they say here in America – you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
So if you are trying to illicit absolute takfir on the shi’a from me, you will not get it. As stated by Shaykh Nuh, the Muslim forefathers withheld their hands from them for a reason. It is best to follow their footsteps in my view.
Btw brother, some of the Sahabah were born out of muta’ah, so be careful what you say!
Where does it say the books of any Sunni creed or fiqh that such a person is excused? Jazakullahu khairan
i’m refering to the son’s of muta’ of today who are oblivious to their lineage so much so the end up having relations with their relatives without even knowing, and those that sanction their muta’ fests for the killers of Sunnis! May Allah
ta’ala destroy them!
Just to add I have met many a rafadi who make this claim also are we seriously saying that they so not know that the Sunnis say:
1-the shaykayn are Muslim
2-Our Mother (ra) did not commit zina?
Abu Bakr read this:
http://seekingilm.com/archives/58
specifically:
Imaam Ash-Shawkaani in his Saylul Jarraar states,
“No account is to be taken of outbursts of evil beliefs, especially if they are due to ignorance of the fact that they are contrary to Islam. No account is to be taken of the commission of an act of kufr which was not done by the person with the intention of leaving Islaam for the religion of kufr, nor is account to be taken of a statement indicating kufr which was said by a Muslim if he does not believe its meaning.”
was-salam,
Abul Layth
salam
But is there anything specific on the examples I have given to say that ignorance in these matters is an excuse?
The statements you have quoted are general pointers and I need something specific. jzk
wasalam
Edited: No name calling allowed and stay on the topic of the article.
Hold on a minute!
Abul Layth stated:
“I even know of some Iranian Shi’ah that refrain from even discussing the issue of ‘A’ishah altogether simply because they are confused as to what really occurred, which is a justified stance considering they do no t have the time to sit around and research hundreds of chains and aathaar for themselves…Who are they to believe?”
So it is a justified stance for rawafid to not know if A’isha OUR MOTHER (Ra)commited zina or not? Laa hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah!
Is this what you said to them AL?
and another point:
“If these supposed shi’ah say she committed zina, while NOT knowing the aayah from the Qur’an that freed her from blame, or understanding the concept of authenticity regarding reports etc, then I certainly believe that they may have an excuse in the law. This is like coming up to a new muslim who does not know how to pray, or fast or has not had necessary things explained to him. However, if he knows the Sunni position thoroughly, and chooses to reject it based upon whim, I have no doubt he has denied the Qur’an! Furthermore, it would be better of him to hold his tongue – as he should speak good or remain silent.”
Subhanullah!
So the rawafid of today from the laymen to their rabbis do not know the position of the sunnis is that OUR MOTHER (Ra) did not commit zina! is this something you believe? Do we need to know the actual verse to deny this? Did you AL go through various athaar and ahadith to determine this?
“The other problem with these questions presented is that many seemingly want to paint all the shi’ah with the same brush. There are so many sects of the shi’ah it is impossible to keep track of them. Not only that, amongst the individual shi’ah there are also so many views that are held by their scholars – such as the disputes between the basran shi’ah and the lebanese shi’a or some of the Irani shi’a and the Pakistani shi’ah or the Yemeni Shi’ah that have multiple groups amongst them (Qaasmiyyah, Haadiwiyyah etc) – many disagreeing regarding historical accounts or fiqh issues etc.”
No its simple. When a group is attributed with a certain fikr and this is mutawatir amongst them, Then when someone attributes themselves to this group they are aligned with that fikr until they disprove it themselves.
and you said:
“What matters here is that both Sunni and Shi’i laymen are told narratives that are baseless regarding the fitnah that occurred, in that they lack authentic chains, and have no foundation in historical fact. So for many generations people have said things about one another that is quite frankly political propaganda or hype. Loaded baatil that today’s Muslim, especially converts, have a difficult time sifting through.”
As a convrt myself I do not find it difficult to not need to dertermine if My Mother, A’isha (Ra) commited zina
and you carry on:
‘alayhis salam authentically stated, ‘Do not revile my companions!’… While saying this we need to realize, both Sunni and Shi’i, that all of the Sahabah were human and capable of error. If we look at these issues with the eye of objective humanity, I think many of these issues would vanish – though I know such a thing will not ever occur. Both sides have their political propaganda and as they say here in America – you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”
“I condemn attacks on any of the Sahabah, as the Nabi
There is error of the sahaaba(raa) and there are the lies of the rawafid. Two different things here mate.
and you finish:
“So if you are trying to illicit absolute takfir on the shi’a from me, you will not get it. As stated by Shaykh Nuh, the Muslim forefathers withheld their hands from them for a reason. It is best to follow their footsteps in my view.”
I don’t care because if a rafdi came to you and said the Mother of the Believers commited zina and you found out he didn’t know the verse in the Qur’an or had he shifted through athar you would say he was justified in his positon.
I feel sick of what has been said. The lengths people go to protect jokers.
here are an example of mainstream rafidites and their position to our mother (Ra):
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/en/chap8.php
summary:
The sunnah of the sahaaba is to slander ai’sha
That a’isha is from Hizb us-shaytaan
That a’isha dies a death of jahilliyah for not recognising the imaam of her time (which for the rawafid is kufr al-akbaar)
so basically they make takfeer ou OUR Mother (Ra)
May Allah
Ta’ala destroy these dogs and give them what they deserves! Ameen!
Brother Abu Bakr,
I read the link and the author is stating that they do not attribute zina to ‘A’ishah:
I did not see them make takfeer of her in the article. I saw them state that she did not give bay’ah to ‘Ali radiya allahu anhu, and they argue that is like dying the death of jahaliyyah.
I did not see takfeer though. It seems to me it is your ta’wil upon their words that seemingly leads you to believe they are making takfir, but such is not stated.
Anyhow, some individuals are becoming rather slanderous and seem to have loss all sense of adab. Everyone is free to comment on this site as long as they maintain proper adab.
Was-Salam.
I would not say he was “justified”, I would say he has an excuse of ignorance in the law.
Hmm.. no name calling is fine.. but to delete 2 of my comments which showed clear evidence for my points is unscholarly.. This is my edited version of the last comment I posted..
comment posted for the info of the bros:
please follow the link for for proof of contemporary shia stance on sunnis:
http://www.shianewspaper.com
Read the article written by a shia ’scholar’ titled ‘why do SHIA hate Umar Ibn Al Khattab’
Reference to sunnis are made using ‘bakris.. and those who claim to be in the fold of islam’. Other things said about sunnis and Umar Ibn Al Khattab are said that I do not want to repeat, and will let you read for yourselves.
They were not deleted but held in the moderation que for some reason. Brother, I know the rafidi stances. It still does not change the reality that when they stand in front of a Muslim judge he must make sure that things are explained to them, that the message has been conveyed properly to them, and that their ignorance responded to.
Until then he will not make takfir of them, and he would give them the excuse of ignorance and in some cases, such as some fiqhi issues, the excuse of ta’wil. That is all I am saying :)
Takfir or no Takfir The matter is with Allah
.
guide them
What we know is that they are definitly Ignorant . and May Allah
In Aqeeda Tahawi it states:
75. We do not declare anyone among the people of our Qibla a disbeliever for any sin. AS LONG AS HE DOES NOT DEEM IT LAWFUL
89. We do not specify anyone among them to be in to be in either Paradise or Fire. We also do not accuse any of them of disbelief , idolatry, or Hypocrisy as long as none of that manifest from them, We resign their inner states to ALLaah the Sublime and Exalted.
118.Loving Them (Sahabah) is essential to religion, faith and spiritual excellence. Hating them amounts to infidelity, hypocrisy and extremism
salam AL
I did summarise what the shi’a said about Our Mother (Ra)and the fundamental point of kufr for these dogs is that they say the one who rejects Imaam ‘ali’s wilayah is a kafir – as well as those of the other 11 imaams:
some quotes from another article
:”فيمن جحد إمامة أمير المؤمنين والائمة من بعده عليهم السلام بمنزلة ( 6 ) من جحد نبوة الانبياء عليهم السلام . واعتقادنا ”
“فيمن أقر بأمير المؤمنين وأنكر واحدا من بعده من الائمة عليهم السلام أنه بمنزلة من آمن بجميع الانبياء ثم أنكر بنبوة محمد صلى الله عليه وآله “
Source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar27/a7.html
Translation: Al-Saduk says, “Our belief is that the one who rejects the Imaamat of Ameer ul Mu’mineen [Ali] and the Aimmah after him, has the same position like the one who rejects the Prophethood of the Prophets.”
.
Further, he states: “And our belief is that the one who accepts Ameer ul Mu’mineen but rejects a single Imaam after him, has the same position like the one who believes in all the Prophets and then rejects the Prophethood of Muhammad (saws).”
.
Sheykh Mufid declared:
“اتفقت الامامية على أن من أنكر إمامة أحد من الائمة وجحد ما أوجبه الله تعالى له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال مستحق للخلود في النار”
Source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar23/a39.html
Translation: “The Imamiyya is in agreement that the one who rejects the Imaamat of one Imaam and rejects the obedience to them which Allah
(t) ordered is a misguided Kaffir deserving to remain in Hell-Fire forever.”
Rejecting wilayah for them is worse than rejecting Nabuwwah! (is this not kufr?)
“Imamah is a universal grace (lutf ‘amm) while Nubuwwah (prophethood) is a special grace (lutf khass), because it is possible that a specific period in time can be void of a living Nabi
, while the same is not true for the Imam. To reject the universal grace is worse than to reject the special grace”
al-Alfayn pp.3 by Ibn Mutahhar al-Hilli (al-Maktabah al-Haydariyyah, Najaf, 3rd ed. 1388)
Tafsir al-Qummi states:
{ وَإِن نَّكَثُوۤاْ أَيْمَانَهُم مِّن بَعْدِ عَهْدِهِمْ وَطَعَنُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ فَقَاتِلُوۤاْ أَئِمَّةَ ٱلْكُفْرِ إِنَّهُمْ لاَ أَيْمَانَ لَهُمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَنتَهُونَ }
أما قوله { وإن نكثوا أيمانهم من بعد عهدهم وطعنوا في دينكم فقاتلوا أئمة الكفر إنهم لا أيمان لهم لعلهم ينتهون } فإنها نزلت في أصحاب الجمل وقال أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام يوم الجمل والله ما قاتلت هذه الفئة الناكثة إلا بآية من كتاب الله عز وجل يقول الله: { وإن نكثوا أيمانهم من بعد بعهدهم وطعنوا في دينكم } إلى آخر الآية فقال أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام في خطبته الزهراء: ” والله لقد عهد إلي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله غير مرة ولا اثنتين ولا ثلاث ولا أربع فقال يا علي! إنك ستقاتل بعدي الناكثين والمارقين والقاسطين أفاضيع ما أمرني به رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله او أكفر بعد اسلامي “؟.
Do who are those he is refering to here?
the whole issue of ignorance is this: The statements provided are general, so I’m asking is there anything specific to takfeer of A’isha or accusations of zina etc which also allows ignorance
jzk
What is worse than believing ‘A’ishah was guilty of Zina, even though they say they do not believe such, is committing Shirk with Allah
ta’ala. Yet, even then, the Prophet Muhammad 
(‘alayhis salam) as well as Allah 
ta’alaa has excused the people.
Allah
says:
وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولاً
And we Do not punish them until a Messenger comes to them. [17:15]
The Mufassirin clearly state that the hujjah can not be put upon a person until they hear the proof as stated by Ibn Juzayy in his tafsir as well as many others.
Then what of the hadith of Abu Waaqid Al-Laythi who stated that they went out on an expedition with Rasulullah
(‘alayhis salam) after being new Muslims. So they asked the Nabi 
‘alayhis salam to make for them a tree like the mushrikin’s dhatu anwaat in which they hung their swords upon and gave them good luck etc…
This is ultimately shirk, yet the Prophet Muhammad
did not make takfir of them, and instead taught them tawhid. [Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad and Sunan At-Tirmidhi, it is Sahih]
So you are asking me about ‘A’ishah (r) or cursing the Sahaba, when Allah
has a greater right to be worshiped and the Prophet still gave the people excuses due to ignorance when they committed open shirk!
These general fatawa, which you seem to hold in disdain and irrelevance, are general to all issues of the law and such has been upheld by the Ummah since our beloved Messenger (‘alayhis salam).
May Allah
save us from ignorance and grant us from His knowledge Amin!
Was-Salam,
Abul Layth
so you allow ta’weel for anything and ignorance for anything?
Instead of going all over the place make your point clearly.
So if a man bows to an idol and knows its an idol yet states he is only acting and is not intending to commit kufr and is ignorant of the fact that he cannot act like that (i.e. he does not know the fiqi ruling) does he have excuse?
Please show us what the ‘ulemah have stated is an “excuse”, I would like to see what was stated or shall I say, what was determined as being a “hujjah”
and please hold your mouth down with:
“These general fatawa, which you seem to hold in disdain and irrelevance, are general to all issues of the law and such has been upheld by the Ummah since our beloved Messenger (’alayhis salam).”
this is a lie and your becoming like those whom your protecting (rawafid liars) where have I said I have disdain or irrelevance for these fatawa?
I’m asking you to bring me a clear ibarah for saying that those who say such about A’isha(ra) are excused of kufr due to ignorance! If this amounts to disdain for the fatawa then you need to stop discussing with people because you don’t know when to lie and when not to.
Abu Lath there was something about shafi and hanafi or ottmon fatwas regarding shias on this site can you elaborate on that ( i cant find the article)
Sorry i meant Abu layth
I believe that ignorance for nearly everything for the people of the Qiblah is pardoned due to the aayaat and the ahadith mentioned previously. Ta’wil, however, is a different issue and needs further clarification.
Just as Mu’adh ibn Jabal made sajdah to the Prophet Muhammad
(‘alayhis salam) and was pardoned and taught that such was haraam {Sahih Ibn Hibban and Sunan Ibn Maajah}, and just as the people asked the Prophet Muhammad 
to make a tree like dhat anwat that would grant them victory and power – giving attributes and qualities of Allah 
to a tree – certainly they have an excuse if they are truly ignorant of the fact. The Prophet gave the people of the Qiblah an excuse and the Muslims have done so since his passing (saaws)!
The quotes I have provided you are sufficient in my opinion and I see no reason I should continue in a discussion that will be circular. I have made my case, quoted the principles stated by the Scholars, and have shown that they did not make takfir of every rafidi (ex ‘Abbad ibn Ya’qub) – and in fact took divinely transmitted knowledge from them.
I am wasting to much time arguing over a topic I find no benefit in.
Abu Ammarah the fatwa is here:
http://seekingilm.com/archives/436
was-Salam
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu ‘alikum wr wb,
and blessings and peace be upon the last and final messenger.
I do not know if this post would be allowed as possibly posting on the above is closed. But I did notice how quickly the post was seen as an attack on the Ulemah of Deoband, and also brought into the question of Tassawuf and Sufism.
With that said and this is more directed towards our brothers who go out for Tablighi Jamaat and stick closely to the Ulemah of Deoband (whom are great scholars in their own right).
People who support group dhikr will cite statements from the Qur’an and a few hadiths that give support to the idea of doing dhikr in groups.
Usually the Deobandis will counter by saying that this is general or types of group dhikr that was done in time of the Salaaf. This point is conceded to them. However; by the same token one would be hard presssed to find any statement in the Qur’an, Hadith or example of the Salaaf of anyone going out doing Daw’ah for 3, 10 or 40 days. It’s just not there. Moreover the idea of giving Daw’ah specifically to Muslims only was also not a practice done by the Salaaf.
I am not condemning the Deobandi Ulemah or the Tablighi Jamaat at all. Allah
forbid! I am simply saying if we can relfect on the methodology used by them to stipulate and allow the 3 days, 10 days and 40 days perphaps one could appreciate the Shyookh of Tassawuf giving a certain number of wirds or dhikr to practice. At certain days and at certain times.
So the Deobandi Ulemah derive their proofs and evidences by using general statements in the Qur’an and Hadith that advocate going out in that path of Allah
, giving Daw’ah and so forth. This is the exact methodology employed by various Tarqiah when they stipulate days and numbers of statements to be said at given times.
Lastly, even a cursory understanding of fiqh is that all things are permissible at their asl unless otherwise indicated.
I hope this helps bring a bit more understanding to both sides and helps to build bridges.
Wallahu ‘Alim wabisawab.
Yours in Islam.
As salamu ‘alikum wr wb
anon,
it is pathetic to see how hard you work to slander other Muslims. not at all constructive, let alone Islamic.you should start minding your own business. why don’t increase your ‘ilm and aml? that’ll be a lot more beneficial for you in this world and the next than just spreading fitna and lies like you do on this site.
Yawn.
You guys are the last people in the world who should be talking about slander and direct your advice towards your own kind. There is a huge double standard and open hypocrisy which you aren’t willing to admit, so spare me your sanctimonious advice.
The Muslim Ummah will continue to face problems so long as they do not stand together as one.
That means Sufis standing shoulder to shoulder with Wahhabis, Deaobandis standing shoulder to shoulder with Brelwis etc.
Yes we have issues we dispute over, but none of the main things being discussed are major issues that take a Muslim beyond the pale of Islam.
I have contentions with shiaas being included with Muslims, and to stand up for shiaas while going on the rampage against wahhabis is ubsurd.
It may have been the case that shiaas were left alone in the past. All that did was get ahl-us-Sunnah stabbed in the back.
We should learn from our History not just do “taqleed” to it.
The main shiaa (ithna asharis) beliefs are blasphemous when it comes to things like attributes/powers of Imaams, status of Imaams over Prophets, the completeness of the Qur’an, insults against the Sahaba and Mothers of the Believers (raa). If we are going to let these guys in the circle of Islam we really may as well consider letting the Qadiyanis in too.
The wahhabi/salafees are just as much Hanbali as the Deobandi/Brelwis are Hanafi, and as much as other Sufis are Shaafi and Maliki.
All Fiqh within all Madhabs has evolved to the point there is Ikthelaf within Madhabs and continues to be. So what is good for one is good for the other and whatever can be argued against the Salafi/Wahhabis vis-a-vis the Hanbali Madhab, can just as easily be argued against the Deobandis/Brelwis vis-a-vis the Hanafi Madhab.
This is without even opening the can of worms between the Ba-Alawi “Sha’fees” and the Egyptian Jihadi-Salafee “Sha’fees”. Both are Shafee and both can back up their views as staunchly as the other!?
The Salafi/Wahhabis are basically Hanbali, just like the Brelwis/Tablighis are basically Hanafi. It is not a big deal… we just need to GET OVER IT!
We could try meeting in the middle too…
Wahabbis need a bit more “greater jihad” and the Sufis need a bit more “lesser jihad”.
The Wahhabis need do wind-down their Takfir a little and the Sufis need to wind-up their Takfir a little.
Because I think in all the self-made fitnah we are forgetting who our real ememies are.
Wasalam.
The only absurd thing mentioned is that the laymen from the shi’a are disbelievers. Takfir was not made upon them by the scholars of old. They were considered deviant, but not kuffar.
Assalam-u-alaykum brother Abul-Layth et al.
Masha’Allah
, I love your website. We need more such sources of info so Muslims can learn!
A sincere question to all of you: In view of events in the past 2 or so years, the Pakistani Taliban have clearly gone on a path of treachery. Their actions are obviously contrary to Islam in so many ways.
Yet, I have surprisingly not seen a single in-depth and lengthy refutation against the Pak Taliban. The Afghan Taliban can be seen as legitimately resisting in Afghanistan (in spite of some unIslamic acts we hear about). But the Pak Taliban is on a path of treachery.
Do any of you brothers or sisters know a fatwa or statement by Shuyukh Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Muhammad Rafi Usmani, or any Pakistani Deobandi Shuyukh who have spoken against the Pak Taliban? I know some Indian Deobandi scholars have spoken against the Pak Taliban, but not any Pakistani Deobandi scholars. (Barelwi scholrs have though.)
Has Shaykh Nuh Keller ever commented on the actions of Pak Taliban in view of recent events unfolding?
It seems to be a big gap that urgently needs to be filled by a scholar of Ahl al-sunna (if it hasn’t already).
JazakAllahu-khayar wa-ssalaam-u-alaykum.
Muhammad.
Muhammad, so how about the treacherous Pakistani government which has been colloborating with the kuffar?!
Anon,
That is a separate issue. As Muslims, we are not allowed to respond to injustice with injustice. But the Pak Taliban are doing just that in the name of Islam.
So back to my original question: do you know of any fatawa from Pakistani Deobandi scholars against the Pak Taliban? I haven’t seen any.
Wassalam,
Muhammad
I always find it amusing whenever we muslims are called out on questionable actions and the response is “What about so and so?”. As if we are subject to the same standards of behavior.
Yeah, it’s strange.
If ‘Muslim’ extremists attack innocent civilians — and there ARE those who do, unfortunately — some odd Muslims don’t question whether such actions agree with Islam or not.
They ignore the unIslamic actions of Muslims and indirectly justify such unIslamic actions by blaming US foreign policy, etc. No doubt that US foreign policy is unjust in many ways. But this does NOT make killing civilians justified in any way from an Islamic perspective. It is unfortunate that some Muslims just don’t get it.
When I questioned the unIslamic actions of the ‘Muslim’ Pak Taliban, Anon ignored my question and shifted blame on the Pak government instead. It’s like swapping grapes for oranges.
My point is simple: Even with all the injustice coming from the Pak government, the extremist actions of the Pak Taliban CANNOT be justified from an Islamic standpoint.
And so I question: why aren’t Pak Deobandi scholars speaking out against Pak Taliban atrocities? To me, this is very, very strange.
Wassalam,
Muhammad
1. There is no hard evidence that Pak Taliban (or Afghan Taliban or even al-Qaida) TARGET innocent non-combatants. Combatant meaning within categories of the of those who fight according to the Hadith “by the body, by money, and by words”.
2. Armchair Muslims who are not even on the battlefield take a “holier than thou” approach to the subject of Jihad. If your advice is that good, then go to the battlefiled and show the Mujahideen what the proper way to fight is.
3. As far as the non-media reports indicate, people from all the Mujahideen groups deny targetted attacks on civilians. They point the finger squarely at the CIA and more recently the trigger-happy Blackwater mercenaries working for the Americans.
4. Even in the Islamic rules of engagement there is an exception to the rules if the enemy transgresses the limits. Muslims are permitted to take the measure of the enemy if they transgress as a form of deterant. That decision lays with the Jihad Commander on the ground not with lay people watching CNN, BBC and FOXNews at home.
It is not surpising if Sh. Nuh does not comment amongst so much deception in the international media. Best to keep quiet then end up saying something wrong and unjust.
Abul Layth
If Takfir on laymen of the shiaa is meant for those ignorant of the stated beleifs but believe in Allah
(swt) and His Messenger(saw) then you are right.
If SPECIFIC people even if they are not scholars believe the Quran is not complete or altered, or that the PROPHET Ibrahim(as) has a lower status than Hazrat Ali(ra), or that the hidden imam has the power of “kun fa ya kun”, or insult the mothers of the believers(raa) – then they are kuffar individually.
Otherwise we may as well give the excuse of ignorance to the “laymen of the qadiyanis”.
Yet some more classics,
the “At least THEY are doing something, what are you doing…”
and
the “There is no evidence……” (in this case “hard evidence”)
And as always,”it’s the CIA and the Americans, WE never anything wrong”
Salaam Abideen,
Thank God there are people like you in this world. JazakAllahu-khayr for being so level-minded and sensible.
Salaam Abu Musa,
May Allah
Guide you.
1&3/ Regarding your claim that the Taliban not killing civilians. Well, they killed Iranian diplomats, 4 school children, etc. This link is about the school children:
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/07-militants-attack-schoolchildren-in-orakzai-four-dead-ha-06
2/ I don’t need to be on the battlefield to know the “right” way to do jihad. It’s already written and said by our great `ulema. One need not be in the battlefield to know that killing of school children is against Islam — and no, there is no leeway if the enemy transgresses to the point of killing children either. Islam is not anarchy, sorry.
4/ Would you care to give us specific evidence that it’s “okay” for Muslims to transgress limits if the enemy transgresses limits? And how far do these transgression of “limits” go? I mean, what if the enemy blows up, let’s say, a huge hospital full of civilans…or, let’s say, the World Food Program Office that provides humanitarian assistance to civilians? And how does this reconcile with the verse to not respond with injustice to injustice? Your reasoning escapes me.
As a reminder, Muslims are humans too and this means they can be sinful too. They are not immuned to sin as you’re making it out to be, so be cognizant of that.
Muhammad
Muhammad and Abideen, I direct your accusations right back on you. Yes, the Taliban have made many mistakes(including killing civilians) and they deserved to be criticised , but they are still better than the criminal, secularist Pakistani govverment and military which are backed by the Western kuffar. It is not a seperate issue and it is your kind which engages in selective criticism.
Anon,
None is “better”. The Pak Taliban and Pak Government are both doing unIslamic acts, to be clear. They should both be repudiated for whatever unIslamic actions they do, whether it’s killing civilians, or murdering diplomats and humanitarian workers in the country. While we know the Pak Government is corrupt, and such unIslamic actions are expected from it, the Pak Taliban speaks in Islam’s name and still commits injustice and corruption.
Islam would never have spread so far and wide had it been left to the hands of these narrow-minded mullahs who only seem to care about their power, and who use Islam to achieve however much power they can.
May Allah
Help us all.
Muhammad
Media Propaganda is not a source of evidence in Islamic Law.
If you are to accuse anyone of murder, then you would require 2 trusted witnesses with no confilct in their testimonies with each other or any counter witnesses that may contradict them.
Therefore I request that if anyone is accused of murdering innocents then please give me the date and time of the reports and the names of the two witnesses on each an every occasion the alleged murder of innocents has occured.
If that level of evidence is not forthcoming then it would not be acceptable in a Shariah Court and it is also worth noting that the one making the accusation without proof should have his back lashed.
Also if an individual Mujahid makes a mistake, that is his mistake. It is not the mistake of the entire group.
A few hypotheticals were given like the enemy bombing of hospitals etc. And what would the response be.
The original rules of engagement are that we should not cut trees, not pollute the water, not harm women, children, elderly, who do not fight, or priests, monks etc in there places of worship.
These are the rules and we abide by them so long as the enemy too repects this modus operandum.
However in the strange situation where the enemy trangresses these limits against us, we have a justification from the law of qisas to retaliate in kind.
As the Quran says if they transgress upon us we can transgress against them.
This is a deterent to the enemy and to encourage them to have a fair fight on a level playing field.
Islam does not allow the enemy to trample on our good nature, carpet bomb our countries (villages, hospitals, schools, wedding parties, and safety shelters included)… and then tell us to ‘only attack their soldiers’.
If this was allowed they would wipe us out.
We are all for a fair fight, but if they want to cross the line then we have the ‘option’ to repsond in kind.
The ball is in the court of the enemy not ours.
The Mujajideen have offered many times to fight soldier to soldier and leave out civilian areas. But the enemy never agrees because it knows that its F-16s and trigger-happy soldiers will not do so.
Still the Mujahideen only target combatants. Sometimes innocents get “caught in the target” but what does one expect in a WAR and in a WARZONE.
We do not hand out lollipops in Warfare!
Even at the time of the Prophet(saw) innocents got killed, that never mean Jihad had to be suspended. So we cannot out do the people around the Prophet(saw).
Besides if we do the maths the enemy deliberatly kills more innocents than in any of the accidents and mistakes of the Mujahideen.
If the allegation about the iranian diplomats is true i am surprised these are classed as innocents. The problem with muslims nowaday is that too much recognition is given to the post-caliphate occupying regimes over the muslim world.
The Government of every UN member country on Muslim Soil is not legitimate and cannot be recognised from Islam. These regimes are mere extentions of the western power.
Replacing direct colonialism with indirect-colonialism via local agents is still occupation of the lands of Islam. They should be treated exactly as if the colonialist themselves were usurping our lands. Zardari is exaclty the same as Mountbatten, just as al-Saud is the same as T.E. Lawrence and so on.
There is no difference between the occupier and the agent of the occupier.
@ Abu Musa:
“Media Propaganda is not a source of evidence in Islamic Law.
If you are to accuse anyone of murder, then you would require 2 trusted witnesses with no confilct in their testimonies with each other or any counter witnesses that may contradict them.”
“Therefore I request that if anyone is accused of murdering innocents then please give me the date and time of the reports and the names of the two witnesses on each an every occasion the alleged murder of innocents has occured.”
Oh ok, so you think all media reports worldwide are a conspiracy against Islam and Muslims. Right. This is the height of absurdity and extremism that is laughable. Why don’t you ask the parents of the children who were killed and injured by Taliban militants in Orakzai as they were on their way to school? You will find more than enough witnesses in any court of law. Too bad for the Taliban — and for you.
“A few hypotheticals were given like the enemy bombing of hospitals etc. And what would the response be. The original rules of engagement are that we should not cut trees, not pollute the water, not harm women, children, elderly, who do not fight, or priests, monks etc in there places of worship.These are the rules and we abide by them so long as the enemy too repects this modus operandum.However in the strange situation where the enemy trangresses these limits against us, we have a justification from the law of qisas to retaliate in kind. As the Quran says if they transgress upon us we can transgress against them.”
Many pagans transgressed in the early Muslim battles. Why didn’t the Prophet Muhammad
(pbuh) transgress back? Many Muslims were mutilated by pagans in war. Why didn’t Prophet Muhammad 
(pbuh) tell his followers to mutilate them in return? And, by the way, who supports your interpretation that limits can be transgressed if the enemy transgresses limits? Any orthodox Sunni ulema? I need evidence bro.
“Islam does not allow the enemy to trample on our good nature, carpet bomb our countries (villages, hospitals, schools, wedding parties, and safety shelters included)… and then tell us to ‘only attack their soldiers’. If this was allowed they would wipe us out.”
Wait, so you’re saying Islam allows us to attack civilians if the enemy attacks our civilians? Where in the Qur’an and Sunnah does it say this? Where in the Prophet’s example (pbuh) did he do this? Again, you speak without evidence so confidently and make up your own interpretations of Islam without any regard to our beloved `ulema. What a shame.
“We are all for a fair fight, but if they want to cross the line then we have the ‘option’ to repsond in kind.”
Where in the Qur’an does it say Muslims can transgress limits? Where in the Qur’an does it say we respond to injustice with injustice? Which famous mufassireen and other learned `ulema say what you’re saying? Care to give us some names, akh?
“Still the Mujahideen only target combatants. Sometimes innocents get “caught in the target” but what does one expect in a WAR and in a WARZONE. We do not hand out lollipops in Warfare!”
Interesting, that’s what the American government says about drone attacks and civilians who get killed.
“Even at the time of the Prophet(saw) innocents got killed, that never mean Jihad had to be suspended. So we cannot out do the people around the Prophet(saw).”
Nobody said to “suspend” jihad. But it has to have its legitimate limits based on our Prophetic example – not your example, or bin Laden’s example. When innocents are targeted intentionally, then this transgresses Islamic limits, e.g. the intentional killing of children in Orakzai agency in Pakistan. This is pure terrorism and criminal behavior — not jihad or anything noble.
“Besides if we do the maths the enemy deliberatly kills more innocents than in any of the accidents and mistakes of the Mujahideen.”
So if Muslims kill ‘less’ innocents than the enemy, then it’s okay? What sloppy understanding. The targeting of innocents is forbidden in Islam, period. The number of innocents targeted/killed is irrelevant.
“If the allegation about the iranian diplomats is true i am surprised these are classed as innocents.”
Oh, so diplomats who visit a country should just be killed? What Islam do you follow bro? You sound like a bloodthirsty savage.
“The problem with muslims nowaday is that too much recognition is given to the post-caliphate occupying regimes over the muslim world.”
What do you suggest we do? Overthrow regimes? And that’s going to bring peace and harmony for Muslims?
“The Government of every UN member country on Muslim Soil is not legitimate and cannot be recognised from Islam. These regimes are mere extentions of the western power.”
So what should we do about the UN then? Should we kill UN WFP humanitarian workers in Islamabad (like the Taliban did) and stop UN food shipments to the West Bank and Gaza to our beloved Palestinian brothers and sisters who starve? You advocate harm to Muslims by your views.
“Replacing direct colonialism with indirect-colonialism via local agents is still occupation of the lands of Islam. They should be treated exactly as if the colonialist themselves were usurping our lands. Zardari is exaclty the same as Mountbatten, just as al-Saud is the same as T.E. Lawrence and so on.”
What did the orthodox Sunni ulema say about overthrowing regimes? Care to shed some light on this matter? You’ll be surprised.
Allah
protect our Ummah from Khawarij like you whose views and actions only bring us more harm than benefit. Aaameen.
Muhammad
As-Salamu ‘Ala man Ittaba’a al-Huda
Well said, Muhammad.
The Khawarij have always held one interesting feature: Takfir or death to those who do not agree with them.
It is a ‘either you are with us or against us’.
This is historically proven.
Why they are so reluctant to issue religious decrees against the Taliban is not surprising. One must adhere to their beliefs and actions in order to allow them religious freedom.
Another query; why have the Taliban only attacked Sunni centres and scholars – though I will never condone an attack on any religious sect or group, Muslim claimant or otherwise, the Deobandis have so far been spared by the Taliban. I hope it could be the same for all humans worldwide – with no perpetrators, and no victims.
In our case, the offenders – Taliban
the victims – generally Sunni.
F. Rabbani
As’salamu alaikum Wa Rahmatullah,
Those supporting the action of Taliban in destroying the Buddhist statues at Bamiyan need to have a second look on their stand. It can be best understood by an example. Say, What will be our response If a non-muslim country finds copies of Quran and announces that it is going to burn them as there are no muslims in that country? Naturally I think muslims from all over the world will request that country to hand over those copies to them and not to burn them. What will be our feelings when that burning takes place despite all the requests? In case of Bamiyan also, Japanese Govt. did offer to take those statues to Japan but Taliban refused, why?
The demolition of those statues resulted in violent protests in India and Hindus/Buddhists burnt the copies of Quran in Delhi. Was it not an outcome of some foolish action of Taliban? I think that is where the Barakah left their movement as opined by Shaikh Nuh.