[Crazykz]

Ok let us say that you are right. You are saying that as a resident of Pakistan you can kill or attack any or all Pakistanis because the state of Pakistan is aiding Americans in killing Muslims?

the difference between pakistan and US is of majority here being muslims and majority there being non-Muslims. so, the answer is no.

Or only the Pakistani military can be rightly attacked?

they are a legitimate target.

What if someone attacks the Pakistani military, kills a few hundred soldiers, but then the Pakistani millitary reacts by ruthlessly killing many Muslims in return and further empowering itself as the biggest and baddest bully on the block....what have you achieved?

the alternative to this is do not attack and the military will still ruthlessly kill many Muslims anyway. the military started the war remember. they brought it to the tribesmen's homes. they sided with the kuffar. they breached truces with mujahideen. they are a target not just for military gains but for revenge and also as a duty because apostates have to be fought. not everything in J!had is material success. yet such attacks, as the one made last night, destroy the enemy's moral and strike fear into their hearts, simply because it is spectacular and unexpected. then there is reward for fighting fi sabeel illah and the opportunity for martyrdom. yet there is material success as well such as destruction of weapons, aircrafts, vehicles etc.

With regards to killing the military in America...what if the soldiers are forced to go...are they guilty and responsible for it? It is the democratic form of government which allows these things to occur and we have to know where ultimate responsibility lies. Is it with 'the people', or 'the President', or the hidden banker and corporate elites.

the lal masjid fatwa (signed by 500 muftis of pakistan) and mufti shamzai ( as far as i remb) among others hold the view that the soldier should resign from such an army even if he is facing court martial or death. otherwise blame lies on him.

[freeprescriptionplanrrx]

=mh16388;805988]the alternative to this is do not attack and the military will still ruthlessly kill many Muslims anyway. the military started the war remember. they brought it to the tribesmen's homes. they sided with the kuffar. they breached truces with mujahideen. they are a target not just for military gains but for revenge and also as a duty because apostates have to be fought. not everything in J!had is material success. yet such attacks, as the one made last night, destroy the enemy's moral and strike fear into their hearts, simply because it is spectacular and unexpected. then there is reward for fighting fi sabeel illah and the opportunity for martyrdom. yet there is material success as well such as destruction of weapons, aircrafts, vehicles etc. When the Quran says killing one life unlawfully is like killing the whole of humanity...what does it mean? Islam does not teach collective punishments...you hurt A...so A punish your whole family tribe or nation...even those people close to you who have not caused A any harm. A will be held responsible for murder in the akhira. If A claims that the others were just in the way 'collateral damage' they will be asked if they took all precautions to prevent harm to others.

Well when America was attacked 9/11 it did nothing to weaken them. In fact it gave them the excuse to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, and many many Muslims around the world. I would argue the American Industrial Complex has become better empowered after the war on terror was started...they have all profited greatly both in terms of money and strategic gains. Patience or sabr is a virtue, sometimes being patient and biding ones time is better.

The Pakistani military also gains, the military is owned by a few wealthy families...they control the wealth of the whole of pakistan, attacking them only pushes them into the hands of the Americans and their money lenders who further gain control of Pakistan. Better in my oipion to be patient, to build up your own power and to work at grassroots... Mujadid Alfi Thani the Islamic renovator of the deen was sent to prison by Al Akbar, from there he started working to implement the deen, and he wrote letters to people close to the ruler trying to win them over. He did not start civil unrest. The Jihad you are speaking about does not help Muslims or Islam....it is valid when Muslims have created a government then from there they declare jihad against other nations....this is the true jihad it is calling others to the deen nothing more...no defending the land, or the lives of other Muslims...simply to call others to the deen...this is fee-sabililah. The siratul mustaqim is a path of moderation.

[JakeBarkings]

When the Quran says killing one life unlawfully is like killing the whole of humanity...what does it mean? Islam does not teach collective punishments...you hurt A...so A punish your whole family tribe or nation...even those people close to you who have not caused A any harm. A will be held responsible for murder in the akhira. If A claims that the others were just in the way 'collateral damage' they will be asked if they took all precautions to prevent harm to others.

which scholar said that? which books have you ascertained this opinion from?

Well when America was attacked 9/11 it did nothing to weaken them. In fact it gave them the excuse to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, and many many Muslims around the world. I would argue the American Industrial Complex has become better empowered after the war on terror was started...they have all profited greatly both in terms of money and strategic gains. Patience or sabr is a virtue, sometimes being patient and biding ones time is better.

america already had an excuse: USS cole, somalia, nairobi/darussalam. it was planning to do it till 10th september. it was a choice between waiting to get hit or go and hit the enemy first. please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03rboinD6BY&feature=fvsr
as for weakening it i beg to differ and war on iraq helped AQ according to americans like michael sheuer. perhaps you are unaware of the goals of the war. kindly visit sheuer's wiki to find out about this briefly.

The Pakistani military also gains, the military is owned by a few wealthy families...they control the wealth of the whole of pakistan, attacking them only pushes them into the hands of the Americans and their money lenders who further gain control of Pakistan. Better in my oipion to be patient, to build up your own power and to work at grassroots...

that is unrealistic. the govt doesnt want you to build up power, it enters your houses to kill you. sitting far away you cant possibly understand the situation in pakistan.
and have you read Military Inc.?

Mujadid Alfi Thani the Islamic renovator of the deen was sent to prison by Al Akbar, from there he started working to implement the deen, and he wrote letters to people close to the ruler trying to win them over. He did not start civil unrest. The Jihad you are speaking about does not help Muslims or Islam....it is valid when Muslims have created a government then from there they declare jihad against other nations....this is the true jihad it is calling others to the deen nothing more...no defending the land, or the lives of other Muslims...simply to call others to the deen...this is fee-sabililah. The siratul mustaqim is a path of moderation.

please see these where other islamic movements fallacies have been outlined.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdbKq...feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX6x5...feature=relmfu

please see 'defence of Muslim lands' by ABdullah Azzam (on kalamullah) to see what is real J!had.

akbar was a ruler of a Muslim land. there was no external non-Muslim army aided by akbar. you are missing a very vital point: the J!had in pakistan is not only to implement shariah here. it is to prevent pakistan's aid to US which enables the US to fight in afghanistan. did you not read this in shahzad's book? if you see the above two links you will see it is actually a war against US.

the path of the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions is the true path. i dont have the works of scholars in english yet. but when it gets translated i will give it to you.

p.s everywhere J!had is launched there are Muslim shariah governments. so even if one stipulates that condition it is fulfilled.

[SiM7W2zi]

[QUOTE=mh16388;806034]which scholar said that? which books have you ascertained this opinion from?

I will try to look into the things you have given. The question you ask above...does not make sense to me. To me it is obvious that Muslims cannot kill random people in jihad and give collective punishments...Islam was revealed to stop this. I think you should provide some evidence to show that collective punishments are allowed. E.G. American government kills hundreds of Muslims...random Muslims then go and kill hundreds or thousands of random Americans in America, not necessarily working for the government. Is this sanctioned by shariah if so what about the verse of the Quran which says one life is equivalent to the whole of humanity if it is saved or unlawfully killed?

I listened to the you tube vids.

1) Fighting against Muslims is halal, even Abu Bakr RA fought against Muslims who refused to pay Zakaat.


2) Those who befriend the kuffar, help them or fight with them can also be fought against.


I agree with number 2, but you still have to discriminate and you cannot put collective punishments.

Number one is problematic Abu Bakr was a khalif. No Muslim jihad was conducted before khilafah in Madinah was established, only after the rule by Islam was put in force in Madina did the Muslims get permission for Jihad. So Muslims today first need to establish the deen and khilafah, not jihad with the sword then khilafah.

[Manteiv]

I will try to look into the things you have given. The question you ask above...does not make sense to me. To me it is obvious that Muslims cannot kill random people in jihad and give collective punishments...Islam was revealed to stop this. I think you should provide some evidence to show that collective punishments are allowed. E.G. American government kills hundreds of Muslims...random Muslims then go and kill hundreds or thousands of random Americans in America, not necessarily working for the government. Is this sanctioned by shariah if so what about the verse of the Quran which says one life is equivalent to the whole of humanity if it is saved or unlawfully killed?

I listened to the you tube vids.

1) Fighting against Muslims is halal, even Abu Bakr RA fought against Muslims who refused to pay Zakaat.


2) Those who befriend the kuffar, help them or fight with them can also be fought against.


I agree with number 2, but you still have to discriminate and you cannot put collective punishments.

Number one is problematic Abu Bakr was a khalif. No Muslim jihad was conducted before khilafah in Madinah was established, only after the rule by Islam was put in force in Madina did the Muslims get permission for Jihad. So Muslims today first need to establish the deen and khilafah, not jihad with the sword then khilafah.

no things aren't that obvious. you are unable i think to differentiate between lawful and unlawful killing and also the application of the verse in war and peace. there are certain rules to be followed. i have answers to these very questions. but unfortunately in urdu. after eid me and a brother will translate everything..

as for your last paragraph it is discussed in my post below which i just edited
(also check out a video i added in the middle of the post)

[neerewed]

major nidal did the right thing. he correctly recognized US as the enemy of Muslims and that the enemy has to be struck where it hurts.

I disagree with your premise. He made a mistake to be in the US Army for sure. But he committed the act of a traitor. He had sworn an oath, and he broke that oath.
I am curious as to what you expect from Muslims in the US and UK. Genuinely.

[Rndouglas]

Basically this video is saying we are humiliated everywhere by kufr, that struggle against them is the only option and everyone is obligated (fard e kifaya) to do it.

But this is wrong. It is fard to establish khilafah first, fighting is secondary. Fighting to protect your land, life and honor are halal but even then you cannot expand the war and take to yourself the permission to declare war on behalf of all Muslims worldwide. You keep your struggle local and continue to fight only if there is a possibility of victory...not endless war for 40 years or more with no prospect of victory or an end.

The hands of the Saudi leaders are tied....if they are removed we could have something worse in charge. Muslims like osama were misguided, osama was not a shaykh he was just a rich businessman who also learnt about jihad when working for the CIA in Afgahnistan he had no authority to declare his war against Saudi or anyone else.

All these problems that the Muslims have are because they have no khalifah....this should be the priority of all Muslims, once this is established we can implement the other pillars of the deen and work towards victory. All the jihadists have put the cart before the horse. A khalif would first establish a baitul mal and they would create an army which would then fight against the kuffar fee sailillah meaning for no other reason that to call towards Allah....not to protect other Muslims, their lands or properties (these are defensive jihads undertaken by people under attack).

no things aren't that obvious. you are unable i think to differentiate between lawful and unlawful killing and also the application of the verse in war and peace. there are certain rules to be followed. i have answers to these very questions. but unfortunately in urdu. after eid me and a brother will translate everything..

as for your last paragraph it is discussed in my post below which i just edited
(also check out a video i added in the middle of the post)

[JJascaxal]

I disagree with your premise. He made a mistake to be in the US Army for sure. But he committed the act of a traitor. He had sworn an oath, and he broke that oath.
I am curious as to what you expect from Muslims in the US and UK. Genuinely.

if you would read my posts below you will find this isn't my opinion exclusively. the ruling regarding soldiers in armies which are enemies of Islam are simple. and i have discussed them in a post below.

if you can read urdu I can share the exact ruling on this which was signed by 500 muftis of Pakistan.

[boffincash]

Basically this video is saying we are humiliated everywhere by kufr, that struggle against them is the only option and everyone is obligated (fard e kifaya) to do it.

But this is wrong. It is fard to establish khilafah first, fighting is secondary. Fighting to protect your land, life and honor are halal but even then you cannot expand the war and take to yourself the permission to declare war on behalf of all Muslims worldwide. You keep your struggle local and continue to fight only if there is a possibility of victory...not endless war for 40 years or more with no prospect of victory or an end.

The hands of the Saudi leaders are tied....if they are removed we could have something worse in charge. Muslims like osama were misguided, osama was not a shaykh he was just a rich businessman who also learnt about jihad when working for the CIA in Afgahnistan he had no authority to declare his war against Saudi or anyone else.

All these problems that the Muslims have are because they have no khalifah....this should be the priority of all Muslims, once this is established we can implement the other pillars of the deen and work towards victory. All the jihadists have put the cart before the horse. A khalif would first establish a baitul mal and they would create an army which would then fight against the kuffar fee sailillah meaning for no other reason that to call towards Allah....not to protect other Muslims, their lands or properties (these are defensive jihads undertaken by people under attack).

you mean fard e ayn, yes? fard e kifaya is communal not individual.

who have you read regarding J!had and khilafa? please tell me.

who are the ulema with AQ kindly tell me.

let me be very precise: there is no khilafa without J!had. and there are no such restrictions as you have given.

also you are displaying ignorance about the gains of the 'endless' war. do you take the news from secular media or mujahideen themselves? i believe i have asked you atleast three times to go and read michael sheuer's wiki page to know his opinion on this. please do me a favour and do that. it will tell you all about the war.

p.s here you are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Hubris

some other books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_S...nly_Superpower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_t...American_Order

then of course there are actual AQ resources. one of them you just saw.

[KernJetenue]

Brother yes I mean fard e ayn not kifaya.

The sunnah is khilafah first then jihad fee sabilil lah. Like I said Jihad to defend lands lives and property are allowed but only in the locality involved. Without a khalifah and without a base how can you expect others to join the jihad? They have no idea where they are going and who they are joining. A khalifah is a source of dawa and unity to all Muslims and non Muslims. He is out in the open not hiding in a cave, he declares his messages to everyone via his own media....he invites Muslims to learn from him, to see how the deen operates.

The first thing the rasul did when he entered Madina munawwara was he established a masjid and a market. This the sunnah. Why is it called munawwara (the enlightened)? Because the deen was established there..and only when the same model is followed will we have victory.

Who have I read? I have read the book knows as the sign of the sword by shaykh abdal qadir as sufi. He says when Muslims invade the lands of the kuffar fee sabililah they can kill preists and monks if they are fighters..otherwise not.

When Muslim armies invaded foreign states did they eat food from the trees and land or did they pay for it?

I heard a story where some Muslims took jizya from non Muslims...then they found that they could not defend the non Muslims so they gave them back the jizya, and left. This is Islam...it has its own laws.

Scheuer writes:

you mean fard e ayn, yes? fard e kifaya is communal not individual.

who have you read regarding J!had and khilafa? please tell me.

who are the ulema with AQ kindly tell me.

let me be very precise: there is no khilafa without J!had. and there are no such restrictions as you have given.

also you are displaying ignorance about the gains of the 'endless' war. do you take the news from secular media or mujahideen themselves? i believe i have asked you atleast three times to go and read michael sheuer's wiki page to know his opinion on this. please do me a favour and do that. it will tell you all about the war.

p.s here you are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Hubris

some other books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_S...nly_Superpower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_t...American_Order

then of course there are actual AQ resources. one of them you just saw.

[Endatrybeeddy]

Without a khalifah and without a base how can you expect others to join the jihad? They have no idea where they are going and who they are joining. A khalifah is a source of dawa and unity to all Muslims and non Muslims. He is out in the open not hiding in a cave, he declares his messages to everyone via his own media....he invites Muslims to learn from him, to see how the deen operates.

already discussed this in turkey thread. read the bold part there.

as for sh. abdal qadir's book well the established rule is to take knowledge of J!had from those waging it. even if one doesnt accept that then on the turkey thread i shared a book in urdu and arabic. we shall translate it into english shortly and it has excellent points on killing of "non combatants" under certain conditions supported by views of Imam Nawwawi, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam ibn hajar and other fuqaha. please be patient for that translation.

[yahyynzer]

if you would read my posts below you will find this isn't my opinion exclusively. the ruling regarding soldiers in armies which are enemies of Islam are simple. and i have discussed them in a post below.

if you can read urdu I can share the exact ruling on this which was signed by 500 muftis of Pakistan.

Unfortunately I cannot read urdu (well i can with assistance haha!) - I do want to know though genuinely. I think you know my opinions, and I think I know yours regarding one issue. But as I am a muslim in the UK - i follow the law - i do not engage in (what I consider to be) treasonous behaviour. I try to be a good Muslim, and inshallah i try to contribute to the muslim community in the UK. I oppose the wars the UK fights -verbally. I would consider a British Muslim who bombed civilians in the UK to be a terrorist. if he reneged his passport and left the country, it would be one thing to then fight soldiers, but to seek shelter in this country, and then to kill his fellow unarmed citizens, i find that treasonous. And this isn't about me loving the UK - I am just talking ethics.

[Gazeboss]

I disagree with your premise. He made a mistake to be in the US Army for sure. But he committed the act of a traitor. He had sworn an oath, and he broke that oath.
I am curious as to what you expect from Muslims in the US and UK. Genuinely.

In one of the BBC reports it is clearly mentioned that another US Army psychiatrist had concluded that Major Nidal Hasan was prone to psychosis. In view of this it was incumbent upon the employer to take necessary precaution so as the feared calamity, Major Hasan falling into psychosis, does not precipitate. Clearly there is a lapse of duty on part of the US Army. You don't just send the soldiers to kill and get killed - you also bother about their welfare. Here the US Army failed to take the necessary action to protect Major Hasan.

May be these words should be sent to Major Hasan's lawyers. But any way I bumped the thread to make a case in favour of Major Hasan and not enough attention is being paid to that aspect.

MH, you are on the side of G!h@d and you accept collateral damage.
AZ you against G!h@d without caliphate and you do not accept collateral damage.

We understand that. Now would both of you please quit G!h@d? I mean here at SF.

[AnneseeKels]

Unfortunately I cannot read urdu (well i can with assistance haha!) - I do want to know though genuinely. I think you know my opinions, and I think I know yours regarding one issue. But as I am a muslim in the UK - i follow the law - i do not engage in (what I consider to be) treasonous behaviour. I try to be a good Muslim, and inshallah i try to contribute to the muslim community in the UK. I oppose the wars the UK fights -verbally. I would consider a British Muslim who bombed civilians in the UK to be a terrorist. if he reneged his passport and left the country, it would be one thing to then fight soldiers, but to seek shelter in this country, and then to kill his fellow unarmed citizens, i find that treasonous. And this isn't about me loving the UK - I am just talking ethics.

you are not serving in the military you are a civilian. the fatwa i pointed to you is talking about serving soldiers in such kafir armies (or murtad armies).
and the fatwa only talks about declining the call of duty from such armies.

i cannot possibly explain in detail here about the permissiveness of attacking non-Muslim combatants their property etc in non-Muslim lands(as it would require loads of translations which i dont have atm), but rest assured there is an opinion that it is permitted. this explains major nidal, and other actions such as 2004 madrid, london 2005, september 11. they all happened in dar ul harb. a country that is not participant in wars against Muslims is not dar ul harb even if it is Non-Muslim. so what we are discussing cannot be permitted in some place say mongolia.
Allahualam
if you wish to follow another opinion that is fine too i guess. as for ethics: like common sense, they are a product of our upbringing and education and personal reflections do not necessarily translate to shariah rulings if one is a layman.

[Brutton]

To have a darul harb you need a darul Islam and maybe a third category those who the Muslims have a treaty with. We do not have a darul islam...so there is no darul harb...when these categories were defined by people in the past they were in place.

Islam raises up the human being, kufr disgraces the human, our laws are secure and bring protection to human beings, their laws do the opposite.

[violalmina]

To have a darul harb you need a darul Islam and maybe a third category those who the Muslims have a treaty with. We do not have a darul islam...so there is no darul harb...when these categories were defined by people in the past they were in place.

Islam raises up the human being, kufr disgraces the human, our laws are secure and bring protection to human beings, their laws do the opposite.

this is not correct. this is an extension of your no J!had before khilafah theory which i refuted in another thread.

[grofvuri]

To have a darul harb you need a darul Islam and maybe a third category those who the Muslims have a treaty with. We do not have a darul islam...so there is no darul harb...when these categories were defined by people in the past they were in place.

Islam raises up the human being, kufr disgraces the human, our laws are secure and bring protection to human beings, their laws do the opposite.

Any evidence for the claim in bold above?

There are references i can quote from Aimma and pious predecessors which otherwise. You say if there is no Dar ul Islam there can be no dar ul harb which simply means that J!had can only be fought when there is a dar ul Islam. Ridiculous!

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and many other scholars even deobandi state that it is farz e ayn to establish Islamic laws on the peace of land where Muslims live. and if that piece of land is attacked by the kuffaar regardless of whether shairah is implemented there or not, J!had become automatically farz e ayn, there is no relation of Dar ul Islam with it. its ajeeb how you mold ahkaam for your nafs so as to stay away from J!had and wait for Khilafah to descend from the sky one fine day!

[Deseassaugs]

I heard it in a speech by Zaid Shakir. If a Muslims life, land, property or honour are attacked then you can make a defensive jihad to fight them off. You cannot declare an endless war against government to be fought globally. And if the shariah allowed this it would mean that any group anywhere globally can designate someone an enemy and attack them...we would have chaos, mass killing and fitna.

Oh ask yourself if it is fard e aiyn to establish a khalifah? Why do you think they are going to fall from the sky? Its the job of Muslims to establish Khilafah first. It is sunnah.

Any evidence for the claim in bold above?

There are references i can quote from Aimma and pious predecessors which otherwise. You say if there is no Dar ul Islam there can be no dar ul harb which simply means that J!had can only be fought when there is a dar ul Islam. Ridiculous!

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and many other scholars even deobandi state that it is farz e ayn to establish Islamic laws on the peace of land where Muslims live. and if that piece of land is attacked by the kuffaar regardless of whether shairah is implemented there or not, J!had become automatically farz e ayn, there is no relation of Dar ul Islam with it. its ajeeb how you mold ahkaam for your nafs so as to stay away from J!had and wait for Khilafah to descend from the sky one fine day!

[leoto5Fm]

this is not correct. this is an extension of your no J!had before khilafah theory which i refuted in another thread.

You did not refute it, or if you did I did not see it.