Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**allaboutauto.us** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine

The Islamophobic blogosphere has gone buck-wild. Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and the rest of the goof troop are pretty ecstatic that Major Nidal Hasan, a Muslim American, killed thirteen U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood. Nothing makes a neo-conservative happier than an attack on American soil; as the family of the victims mourn the dead, the anti-Muslim ideologues gleefully co-opt the situation to market their hate-filled beliefs.

The Islamophobes claim that Major Hasan was simply “being a devout Muslim” when he opened fire on his fellow soldiers. According to them, this is a part of Jihad, an obligation in Islam. As such, the enemy is not just extremists, radicals, or terrorists; but rather, it is Islam itself. It is not then a gross perversion of a religion by zealots that result in such horrific attacks, but rather the exact opposite: it is a faithful understanding of the Islamic religion which results in terrorism. That’s what they claim at least.

There is, according to these anti-Muslim bigots, a conspiracy by Muslim Americans to overtake the country from within. The tactics to do so can be non-violent (”Stealth Jihad”) or overtly violent (such as 9/11 or the Fort Hood Massacre), but the goal is the same: to overthrow the U.S. government, rip the Constitution to shreds, and enact Sharia (Islamic law) in the West. It is for this reason, you–the average American Joe–need to fear your Muslim neighbor.

The Covenant of Security

But experts of the Islamic legal tradition say differently. The Islamic religion commands believers to obey the laws of the land they live in, even if it be one ruled by nonbelievers. Muslim jurists consider citizenship (or visa) to be a covenant (aqd) held between the citizen (or visa holder) and the state, one which guarantees safe passage/security (amaan) in exchange for certain obligations (such as obeying the laws of the land); covenants are considered sacredly binding in Islam. The Quran commands:

And fulfill every covenant. Verily, you will be held accountable with regard to the covenants. (Quran, 17:34)

The Quran condemns those who break covenants as not being true believers:

It is not the case that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throws it aside. Nay! The truth is most of them believe not. (Quran, 2:100)

The Islamic prophet Muhammad described the religious hypocrite as follows:

When he enters into a covenant, he proves treacherous. (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Citizenship (and visa) is called in Islamic legal parlance as a “covenant of security” (aqd al-aman). For over a thousand years, Muslim scholars have rigorously affirmed the binding nature of the covenant of security. This covenant of security can be of two types: (1) a contractual agreement or (2) a customary understanding.

Naturalized citizens in the United States enter into a contractual agreement with the government when they declare the oath of allegiance, as follows:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”

A Muslim is obliged to keep to his word, and thus this oath is religiously binding upon him.

Natural born citizens, on the other hand, do not utter any such oath, so they fall under the second category under Islamic law. The covenant of security is considered for them a customary understanding, in the sense that even though they did not physically say an oath or sign a document of loyalty, it is understood that there exists between the citizen and the government a covenant of security; this, i.e. customary understanding, is considered by Islamic law to be just as binding as the contractual agreement. There is no difference between the two.

Betraying the Covenant is Forbidden

What the 9/11 hijackers did was a violation of Islamic law for multiple reasons. The most obvious of these is the prohibition of killing civilians, but it should also be pointed out that they violated the covenant of security between them and the United States, which granted them visas to enter the country. Using Islamic lingo, the U.S. government granted safe passage (amaan) to the 19 hijackers, and thus they entered into a covenant (aqd), which they subsequently violated.

The United States government granted them visas with the understanding that they would come to the country to study, or seek medical treatment, or for sightseeing, etc., but not for waging war within their lands or killing their citizenry. Even if a Muslim country is at war with a non-Muslim one, it would not be permissible for a Muslim fighter to enter into enemy territory by requesting safe passage (amaan) and then subsequently killing enemy troops once he crosses over.

The classical Islamic jurist, Muhammad al-Shaybani (died 805 A.D.) expounded:

If it happens that a company of Muslims pass through the enemy’s front lines by deceptively pretending to be messengers of the Muslim’s ruler carrying official documents–or if they were just allowed to pass through the enemy lines–they are not allowed to engage in any hostilities with the enemy troops. Neither are they entitled to seize any of their money or properties as long as they are in their area of authority.

Both the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan violated this sacred principle of Islam. They gained the trust of those whom they considered their enemies, and then when those they consider enemies were caught unaware, they killed them. In other words, these criminals took advantage of the fact that they had been trusted, and violated this trust. Such a thing is considered unacceptable in Islam.

(It should be noted that Muslim Americans don’t see themselves as living in “enemy territory,” but the point is that even if Nidal Hasan saw the U.S. in that light, then he still wouldn’t be allowed under the Islamic belief system to do what he did. Of course, the point applies even more to those Muslim Americans who see themselves as distinctly American and who love the country.)

The Quran does say that if the believers are being oppressed in some land, then the Muslims should come to their assistance. But it forbids fighting against those with whom a covenant exists. The Quran says:

If [your coreligionists] ask for your aid in religion, then you must help them, except against people with whom you have covenants with. (Quran, 8:72)

A Muslim American Must Obey the Constitution and Never Rebel Against the U.S. Government

A Muslim must abide by his covenant, which includes obeying the laws of the land he lives in, no matter how he entered into the country, be it by birth, legal (or even illegal) immigration. (Entering countries illegally with forged documents is considered forbidden in Islam, but if one commits this sin, he cannot commit the further sin of then using it as an excuse to violate the laws of the land.) Salman al-Oudah, a senior religious cleric, says:

[Islamic] scholars have stated that those who enter non-Muslim countries have to adhere to their respective laws and regulations even if they entered those countries illegally, and they have no excuse for breaking those laws, since they were entrusted to abide by those laws upon entry into those countries…As long as [a Muslim] agrees to live in a non-Muslim country, he is never to rebel against the people living in his choice of residence, even it seems too hard for him to endure.

From a religious angle, Muslim Americans are forbidden to rebel against the U.S. government. They are not allowed to seek to overthrow the government, rip up the Constitution (which they gave an oath to uphold!), etc. They are not allowed to cheat on taxes, steal from anyone, kill or harm any of their fellow citizens, etc. Instead, they should be law-abiding citizens–according to the Islamic religion and the consensus (ijma) of the Muslim clerics since the last 1,400 years, in spite of Al-Qaeda’s reinterpretation (perversion) of religious doctrine.

Even if hypothetically the U.S. law were to stipulate a condition which was against Islamic teachings, the Muslim American would still have to follow it, as the Islamic cleric I quoted above says:

[Muslims] have to avoid whatever contradicts Islamic teachings. In case they are obliged by law to uphold something contrary to Islamic teachings, they have to adhere to the minimum that the law requires of them.

This idea–that Muslim Americans should uphold the laws of the land–is taught in mosques across the country with great unanimity, so the Islamophobic fear mongering is ill-founded.

Conclusion

The actions of Islamic extremists–such as the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan–flout the normative tradition of Islam and the teachings which millions of Muslim Americans follow. It is therefore inappropriate to conclude that the religion of Islam itself advocates such things, or that these attackers were simply following their religion. Such a thing is offensive to say and quite frankly inaccurate.

In any case, it is too early to say with any level of certainty what Major Hasan’s motivations were. Was he an extremist or simply a guy who lost his marbles like so many other shooters? Whatever the case, one thing is for sure: his actions do not reflect the Islamic teachings nor the millions of law-abiding Muslim Americans.

**nerohedfrs** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

So from now on we have to obey Fir3aun?.... wooow... we as muslims obey the laws as long as they are not wanting that we disobey ALLAH swt!

wasalam

**Finkevannon** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine

The Islamophobic blogosphere has gone buck-wild. Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and the rest of the goof troop are pretty ecstatic that Major Nidal Hasan, a Muslim American, killed thirteen U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood. Nothing makes a neo-conservative happier than an attack on American soil; as the family of the victims mourn the dead, the anti-Muslim ideologues gleefully co-opt the situation to market their hate-filled beliefs.

The Islamophobes claim that Major Hasan was simply “being a devout Muslim” when he opened fire on his fellow soldiers. According to them, this is a part of Jihad, an obligation in Islam. As such, the enemy is not just extremists, radicals, or terrorists; but rather, it is Islam itself. It is not then a gross perversion of a religion by zealots that result in such horrific attacks, but rather the exact opposite: it is a faithful understanding of the Islamic religion which results in terrorism. That’s what they claim at least.

There is, according to these anti-Muslim bigots, a conspiracy by Muslim Americans to overtake the country from within. The tactics to do so can be non-violent (”Stealth Jihad”) or overtly violent (such as 9/11 or the Fort Hood Massacre), but the goal is the same: to overthrow the U.S. government, rip the Constitution to shreds, and enact Sharia (Islamic law) in the West. It is for this reason, you–the average American Joe–need to fear your Muslim neighbor.

The Covenant of Security

But experts of the Islamic legal tradition say differently. The Islamic religion commands believers to obey the laws of the land they live in, even if it be one ruled by nonbelievers. Muslim jurists consider citizenship (or visa) to be a covenant (aqd) held between the citizen (or visa holder) and the state, one which guarantees safe passage/security (amaan) in exchange for certain obligations (such as obeying the laws of the land); covenants are considered sacredly binding in Islam. The Quran commands:

And fulfill every covenant. Verily, you will be held accountable with regard to the covenants. (Quran, 17:34)

The Quran condemns those who break covenants as not being true believers:

It is not the case that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throws it aside. Nay! The truth is most of them believe not. (Quran, 2:100)

The Islamic prophet Muhammad described the religious hypocrite as follows:

When he enters into a covenant, he proves treacherous. (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Citizenship (and visa) is called in Islamic legal parlance as a “covenant of security” (aqd al-aman). For over a thousand years, Muslim scholars have rigorously affirmed the binding nature of the covenant of security. This covenant of security can be of two types: (1) a contractual agreement or (2) a customary understanding.

Naturalized citizens in the United States enter into a contractual agreement with the government when they declare the oath of allegiance, as follows:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”

A Muslim is obliged to keep to his word, and thus this oath is religiously binding upon him.

Natural born citizens, on the other hand, do not utter any such oath, so they fall under the second category under Islamic law. The covenant of security is considered for them a customary understanding, in the sense that even though they did not physically say an oath or sign a document of loyalty, it is understood that there exists between the citizen and the government a covenant of security; this, i.e. customary understanding, is considered by Islamic law to be just as binding as the contractual agreement. There is no difference between the two.

Betraying the Covenant is Forbidden

What the 9/11 hijackers did was a violation of Islamic law for multiple reasons. The most obvious of these is the prohibition of killing civilians, but it should also be pointed out that they violated the covenant of security between them and the United States, which granted them visas to enter the country. Using Islamic lingo, the U.S. government granted safe passage (amaan) to the 19 hijackers, and thus they entered into a covenant (aqd), which they subsequently violated.

The United States government granted them visas with the understanding that they would come to the country to study, or seek medical treatment, or for sightseeing, etc., but not for waging war within their lands or killing their citizenry. Even if a Muslim country is at war with a non-Muslim one, it would not be permissible for a Muslim fighter to enter into enemy territory by requesting safe passage (amaan) and then subsequently killing enemy troops once he crosses over.

The classical Islamic jurist, Muhammad al-Shaybani (died 805 A.D.) expounded:

If it happens that a company of Muslims pass through the enemy’s front lines by deceptively pretending to be messengers of the Muslim’s ruler carrying official documents–or if they were just allowed to pass through the enemy lines–they are not allowed to engage in any hostilities with the enemy troops. Neither are they entitled to seize any of their money or properties as long as they are in their area of authority.

Both the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan violated this sacred principle of Islam. They gained the trust of those whom they considered their enemies, and then when those they consider enemies were caught unaware, they killed them. In other words, these criminals took advantage of the fact that they had been trusted, and violated this trust. Such a thing is considered unacceptable in Islam.

(It should be noted that Muslim Americans don’t see themselves as living in “enemy territory,” but the point is that even if Nidal Hasan saw the U.S. in that light, then he still wouldn’t be allowed under the Islamic belief system to do what he did. Of course, the point applies even more to those Muslim Americans who see themselves as distinctly American and who love the country.)

The Quran does say that if the believers are being oppressed in some land, then the Muslims should come to their assistance. But it forbids fighting against those with whom a covenant exists. The Quran says:

If [your coreligionists] ask for your aid in religion, then you must help them, except against people with whom you have covenants with. (Quran, 8:72)

A Muslim American Must Obey the Constitution and Never Rebel Against the U.S. Government

A Muslim must abide by his covenant, which includes obeying the laws of the land he lives in, no matter how he entered into the country, be it by birth, legal (or even illegal) immigration. (Entering countries illegally with forged documents is considered forbidden in Islam, but if one commits this sin, he cannot commit the further sin of then using it as an excuse to violate the laws of the land.) Salman al-Oudah, a senior religious cleric, says:

[Islamic] scholars have stated that those who enter non-Muslim countries have to adhere to their respective laws and regulations even if they entered those countries illegally, and they have no excuse for breaking those laws, since they were entrusted to abide by those laws upon entry into those countries…As long as [a Muslim] agrees to live in a non-Muslim country, he is never to rebel against the people living in his choice of residence, even it seems too hard for him to endure.

From a religious angle, Muslim Americans are forbidden to rebel against the U.S. government. They are not allowed to seek to overthrow the government, rip up the Constitution (which they gave an oath to uphold!), etc. They are not allowed to cheat on taxes, steal from anyone, kill or harm any of their fellow citizens, etc. Instead, they should be law-abiding citizens–according to the Islamic religion and the consensus (ijma) of the Muslim clerics since the last 1,400 years, in spite of Al-Qaeda’s reinterpretation (perversion) of religious doctrine.

Even if hypothetically the U.S. law were to stipulate a condition which was against Islamic teachings, the Muslim American would still have to follow it, as the Islamic cleric I quoted above says:

[Muslims] have to avoid whatever contradicts Islamic teachings. In case they are obliged by law to uphold something contrary to Islamic teachings, they have to adhere to the minimum that the law requires of them.

This idea–that Muslim Americans should uphold the laws of the land–is taught in mosques across the country with great unanimity, so the Islamophobic fear mongering is ill-founded.

Conclusion

The actions of Islamic extremists–such as the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan–flout the normative tradition of Islam and the teachings which millions of Muslim Americans follow. It is therefore inappropriate to conclude that the religion of Islam itself advocates such things, or that these attackers were simply following their religion. Such a thing is offensive to say and quite frankly inaccurate.

In any case, it is too early to say with any level of certainty what Major Hasan’s motivations were. Was he an extremist or simply a guy who lost his marbles like so many other shooters? Whatever the case, one thing is for sure: his actions do not reflect the Islamic teachings nor the millions of law-abiding Muslim Americans.

Every single point made in this article is a denial of the fundamental principles of Islam and makes halaal what Allah has made haraam and makes haraam what Allah has made halaal. I would cite legal evidence but not a single proof from a single reliable source in Islam was cited.

**agolutuaddiff** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

Every single point made in this article is a denial of the fundamental principles of Islam and makes halaal what Allah has made haraam and makes haraam what Allah has made halaal. I would cite legal evidence but not a single proof from a single reliable source in Islam was cited.

Who's this article written by? The author seems being the Ikhwani-leaning Suhaib Webb..

**Loovikeillilen** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

A similar article was written by Imam Zaid:

Responding to the Fort Hood Tragedy
By Imam Zaid on 12 November 2009
Category: Teachings

This is my response to the Fort Hood tragedy and events both associated with it and ensuing from it. I begin by expressing my deepest condolences to the families of all of the dead and wounded. There is no legitimate reason for their deaths, just as I firmly believe there is no legitimate reason for the deaths of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians who have perished as a result of those two conflicts. Even though I disagree with the continued prosecution of those wars, and even though I believe that the US war machine is the single greatest threat to world peace, I must commend the top military brass at Fort Hood, and President Obama for encouraging restraint and for refusing to attribute the crime allegedly perpetrated by Major Nidal Malik Hasan to Islam. We pray that God bless us to see peace and sanity prevail during these tense times.

Introduction

One of the greatest foundations of Islam is truth. One of the ninety-nine names of God is al-Haqq (the Truth) It is unfair to distort the truth, to present falsehood as fact, or to present half-truths as definitive declarations. Truth, along with Goodness and Beauty are the three great transcendental realities that Islam and all other religions strive to aid us towards both realizing and actualizing in our lives. In the Arabic/Islamic lexicon these are known as al-Haqq (the Truth), al-Ihsan (Goodness), and al-Jamaal (Beauty).

Concerning the truth, our Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, taught us to pray, Allahumma Arinal Haqqa Haqqan wa Zurqnat Tiba’ahu, “O God! Show us the truth as truth and bless us to follow it.” The Qur’an presents the truth as a powerful, self-evident reality that is distinguishable from falsehood without any need for extraneous clarification (2:256). The mere presence of the truth is enough to dispel the clouds of darkness and falsehood (17:81). Therefore, a great objective of our religion is discovering and then following the truth.

One of the unfortunate consequences of tragic and highly emotive events like the shootings that recently occurred at Fort Hood, Texas, is that such events are used to advance agendas that by their very nature make a mockery of the truth. This event is no exception. There are those who seek to use this event to portray the Muslim community in this country as an inherent menace whose very existence has to be challenged. Traveling the length and breath of this country in the service of that community, I know this is not the truth. The Muslim community in this country is a peace-loving, law-abiding community that has in ways great and small advanced the general welfare of this nation and its citizenry. To present it otherwise is a blatant lie.

Like any other community that has a fairly large percentage of immigrants among it members, the Muslim community does have those elements, especially older members or those newly arrived from the Muslim world whose strongest sentiments, emotional and cultural attachments may be towards the lands they have come from than to the country they find themselves in. This is true for many members of most immigrant populations. However, generally speaking, such attachments are not found among Muslims born and raised here, nor do they translate into animosity towards or a desire to do harm to this country.

Saying that is not to deny the existence of Muslims who may be agitated by the injustices and inequities they find in American foreign policy, or the increasingly prejudicial or even racist attitudes being advanced by some parties towards America’s Muslims. Among them is a small minority whose anger and frustration may render them vulnerable to the appeal of demagogues who would attempt to exploit their emotions to advance a nefarious agenda, or a number of factors may converge in their lives pushing them towards acts of violence against their fellow citizens. This might prove to be the case for Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who has been identified as the shooter at Fort Hood, and a few other random individuals. However, it is not and never will be anything that can even begin to approach the norm in our community.

There are those who will argue that the problem is those random “few” Muslims who may snap at any time. That is certainly a problem. However, if the recent history of this country is any indication, those few have been less in number and responsible for far less carnage than the “few” from the non-Muslim population, the postal workers, high school or university students, or the random individuals who have snapped and gone on to wreak havoc in our society.One of the great tragedies in this situation is to view the crime Major Hasan is being accused of as a specifically Muslim problem. It is a human problem and if it approached as such perhaps we can learn something from it that will help us to get to the roots of the violent outbursts that are becoming increasingly widespread in our society.

We can debate the issue of violence at large in our society and we can debate the issue of “Muslim” violence. What is unequivocally true about the latter, to the extent that it does exist, is that attacks against the lives or property of American citizens in this country have nothing to do with Islam. There are no teachings from the normative corpus of Muslim political writings that allow a Muslim to violate the security of the public square, to endanger the lives of the general public, to attack non-combatant civilians, even in a battlefield situation, or to aggress against soldiers who are not in a battlefield. This is especially true where Muslims have entered into an explicit or implicit covenant of protection from non-Muslim political authorities and constitute a distinct minority in a particular land.

Much of the balance of this article will be dedicated to presenting Islamic teachings that substantiate what I have mentioned above concerning the duties of Muslims to protect the public square in a non-Muslim land they may find themselves in, and those teachings that warn against foolhardy, ill-conceived attacks that only bring harm and hardship to innocent, unsuspecting people, Muslims among them.

My argument is a direct refutation of Muslims who seek to distort Islamic teachings to motivate ignorant Muslims to undertake ill-advised and unsanctioned actions against the citizenry of this country. It also restates my position on this issue. [1]
No Room for Vigilante Treachery in the Divine Law

In his expansive work, al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi al-Siyasa al-Shar’iyya (Sanctioned Warfare and Fighting in the Divine Law) Muhammad Khayr Haykal mentions, concerning the implications accruing from an oath of protection: [2]

The cessation of hostilities that is mentioned here might be a consequence of an oath of protection given by non-Muslims to Muslims, or a consequence of an oath of protection given by Muslims to non-Muslims. In both cases, it obligates a cessation of hostilities against the members of the opposing community who might technically be at war with the Muslims. [This is so] whether the Muslims have granted the oath of protection or it has been granted to them. [3]

Haykal continues:

It is not permissible for Muslims who have been granted an oath of protection from members of other communities to launch into fighting them, because this is treachery. [4]

Two concepts are critical in what Haykal mentions here, one is the idea of treachery, and the other is the idea of reciprocity. Islam is predicated on honorable behavior. It is the height of dishonor to violate the trust that is extended to a person given the right to move about freely in a particular land based on the assumption that that person has accepted the responsibility to protect and preserve public order in that land and the lives and property of its people.

In his commentary on al-Mughni, one of the definitive compendiums of Islamic law according to the Hanbali rite, Imam al-Maqdisi mentions in this regard, “If an oath of protection is given to a non-Muslim population, it is forbidden to fight them, usurp their wealth, or to expose them to any harm.” [5] Imam al-Shafi’i clarifies that this includes Muslims who have entered into a non-Muslim land. He states, “If a group of Muslims enter the land of non-Muslims with an oath of protection, the others are safe from them […] they [the Muslims] have no right to oppress or betray them.” [6]

It should be clear that a Muslim is not allowed to transgress against non-Muslims as long as he or she resides in their lands under their protection. Any aggression from their quarter is unsanctioned treachery. If they feel they can no longer accept the perceived or real abuses or injustices of the host people then they are obliged to leave that land if remaining there would push them into acts of violence or aggression against the host community.

The idea of reciprocity is critical in this particular area of inquiry. All of our major legal texts discuss this idea. It is the idea that the responsibilities expected of non-Muslims minorities in Muslim lands are incumbent on Muslims in non-Muslim lands. Hence, just as it would be unacceptable for a non-Muslim residing in a Muslim land to attack the people of that land, civilian or military, it is unacceptable for a Muslim residing in a non-Muslim land to engage in similar acts. This is an undeniable principle in our law. Hence, respecting it is not a stratagem or a convenient contingency; it is upholding an inviolable principle.

It is also well-known amongst Muslim scholars that it is prohibited to undertake any acts that will result in widespread harm returning to Muslims. This is based on the prophetic Hadith, “There is no initiating or reciprocating harm.” [7] This Hadith has given rise to the legal maxim, “Harm is to be removed.” Hence, any action that is likely to result in widespread harm to Muslims is unsanctioned and necessarily removed.

In the current political climate in America where the demonizing of Muslims has evolved into an industry, where rules of civility and the rejection of any meaningful anti-defamation statutes allow for indiscriminate calls to murder Muslims on public airwaves; where Mosques and other Muslim organizations are infiltrated by agent provocateurs who are encouraging Muslims to engage in acts that could potentially unleash waves of anti-Muslim venom, it is clear to anyone with a modicum of intellect that attacks such as the one occurring at Fort Hood have no Islamic sanction, neither in principle nor from a tactical point of view.

Such attacks only give credence to those foul elements who desire to justify ongoing wars against Muslim populations. There are those in the Muslim world who think that by calling for such attacks they can draw America into deeper involvements in places such as Iraq or Afghanistan which will then become America’s Vietnam. Little do they realize that there are fanatical elements in these western lands that use such attacks to argue for a full-blown assault on Muslim lands as opposed to the current limited engagement. Some of those calls are for nuclear attacks, and their advocates would not be bothered seeing the number of dead Iraqis resulting from our involvement in that country growing from the currently lamentable number of over one million to five or six million.

Little do those Muslims realize that they are encouraging elements that would bomb Afghan towns and villages with the same insane impunity that was visited upon places like Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg of Berlin during World War II; for they are arguing that Islam, like fascism, poses an existential threat to America and western civilization. One of the things giving any credence to their perverse arguments and turning a hesitate public towards their camp are belligerent actions they hope can be attributed to Muslims. We should neither contribute to such actions in deed nor should we applaud them.

Ibn Juzayy mentions in Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar’iyya:

If the Muslims know that they will be slaughtered in wholesale fashion it is fitting that they abandon fighting. If they know that they will be slaughtered and that their losses will do little to alter the strategic balance vis-à-vis the enemy forces, it is absolutely obligatory that they abandon any encounter. [8]

Any Muslim who thinks that an unsanctioned act of violence he may undertake in this country is going to alter the strategic balance is grandly deluded or inexcusably ignorant. His undertaking any violent act in this country is additionally forbidden because he is likely going to be killed, gravely injured, or captured in the encounter. Imam al-Shawkani mentions in al-Sayl al-Jarrar, “It is well-known legal reasoning that one who strikes out [against an enemy] knowing beforehand that he will be killed, captured or vanquished, has hurled himself to destruction.” [9] Imam al-Shawkani goes on to explain that such an act is forbidden based on the Qur’anic verse, Do not hurl yourself to destruction with your own hands. (2:195) [10] The discouragement of foolhardy acts of desperation based on this verse, is also made by Ibn ‘Abideen in his commentary on al-Durr al-Mukhtar. [11]

There is another salient point that we must mention in this context. No one, even in a Muslim land, has the right to undertake violent acts, even against a recognized enemy when the political authorities of that land determine that those acts will incur harm to Muslims [or other innocent people]. Dr. Haykal elaborates on this point at length:

The lawful authorities in a land possess the right, and this right is similarly conferred by valid legislative principles, to absolutely prevent any method, or any organization whose very nature would result in consequences that would expose the Muslims to grave danger and harm. Therefore, when the legislative authorities perceive that something that may originally be permissible has consequences that involve any degree of harm, it is their responsibility to prevent that harm. Rather, it is incumbent on them to prevent it. This is accomplished by preventing individuals from arming themselves and preventing them from forming armed militias that are independent of the standing army. Indeed, the divine law has given the authorities a number of legislative principles to use in order to cut off any path where the winds of harm may blow from. [12]

If this is the case for a Muslim country, what is the permissibility for vigilante acts and underground militias in a non-Muslim land where Muslims are forbidden to threaten public order or to independently implement any Islamic teachings related to strategic affairs?

Finally, as implied above, Muslim leaders have the responsibility to protect the faithful from foolhardy acts that will lead to unnecessary lose of life, and to warn them again individuals who would lead them towards such acts. For this reason, ‘Umar bin al-Khattab, warned against reckless commanders who would expose the faithful to unnecessary hardship. This led to him advising his governors, “Do not appoint al-Bara’ ibn Malik over any Muslim army.” [13]

This warning was issued owing to al-Bara’s known recklessness and his ill-consideration of the consequences of his actions for his troops. It is a shame that there are Muslims who have no connection with this country yet are recklessly and insensitively endorsing actions that endanger innocent Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They are not on the ground in this country and are therefore not attuned to the nature of the struggles and vulnerabilities of our community.

Conclusion

So what are the Muslims of this country to do in the aftermath of the tragedy at Fort Hood? We have to do the good things we were doing before it occurred. Indeed, we need to increase that good. Our civil rights can be assailed, we can be denied equal protection under the law, our lawful and law-abiding organizations can be closed down, but no one can take our dignity from us, no one can prevent us from being decent neighbors, honest workers, dedicated students, faithful citizens, and pious believers. Furthermore, no one can prevent us from engaging in a heroic struggle to secure our God-given and constitutionally-mandated rights, and from working for the creation of the kinds of policies that will prevent the current bloodletting that is occurring in some Muslim lands with the active complicity of our country’s military and security apparatuses.

Certainly, the heightened levels of hate speech, the whispers of a coming backlash, and the elected officials who have gone on record promising to do nothing to mitigate such a backlash are all unsettling. However, if we preserve and remain ever mindful of the wise commandments that are available to guide our steps, we should rest assured that God will not abandon us. He states in the Qur’an, You will surely be tested in your property and your persons. And you will hear from [some of] those given the Scripture before you, and from the idolaters much abuse. If you patiently persevere, and remain mindful of God, surely this is a manifestation of prophetic resolution. (3:186)

So brothers and sisters, at this time when very powerful and well-financed interests are rallying against us; at this time when we can entertain no real hope of meaningful support from any Muslim country, we have to redouble our dependence on God; we have to live for Him and seek our strength through him. Whoever remains mindful of Allah, He makes for him a way out, He bestows His sustenance upon him from directions he could never imagine, and one who places his trust in God finds that He suffices him… (65:2-3) This is the way of the Prophets, peace upon them. Let it be our way.

Imam Zaid Shakir 11/11/09

Notes:

[1] My position on a number of controversial issues has been stated at length, among other places in my book, Scattered Pictures: Reflections of an American Muslim, published in 2005 by the Zaytuna Institute, and a 4-CD set entitled, Looking Back to Look Ahead, produced by Zaytuna Institute in 2006.
[2] In the modern context, such an oath of protection may result from the acceptance of citizenship, residency permits, visas issued for tourism, study or work, and other well-known means.
[3] Muhammad Khayr Haykal, al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi al-Siyasa al-Shar’iyya (Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 1417/1996), 3:1499
[4] Haykal, 3:1502
[5] Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, al-Sharh al-Kabir ‘ala Matn al-Muqni’ (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi, 1372/1972), 10:555
[6] Imam Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i, Kitab al-Umm (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifa, nd), 4:248
[7] Ibn Majah, no. 2341
[8] Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi, Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar’iyya (Beirut: Dar al-‘Ilm li’l Malayin, 1374/1974), p. 165
[9] Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Shawkani, al-Sayl al-Jarrar (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1405/1985), 4:519
[10]There are those who argue that the correct interpretation of this verse is the opposite of what is implied here. Namely, it was encouraging those who stayed away from a battle in order to mind their crops and cattle to go forth to the fray lest they be destroyed by the advancing enemy forces. However, Imam al-Shawkani and others argue that the meaning is contingent on the situation. While that meaning may be the one applicable to the occasion of the verse’s revelation, to argue that the verse is discouraging involvement in foolhardy acts of desperation is also operative. This is so based on the interpretive principle, العبرة لعموم اللفظ لا لخصوص السبب al-‘Ibra li ‘Umum al-Lafdh, la li Khusus al-Sabab (The applicability of a verse is based on the generality of its wording not the specificity of its revelation).
[11] See Imam Ibn ‘Abideen, Radd al-Muhtar ‘ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar (Cairo: Matba’ Khidaywi Isma’il, 1286), 3:337
[12] Haykal, 2:1008
[13] Imam Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Sarkhasi, Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir (Cairo: Jami’ al-Makhtutat Jami’ al-Duwal al-‘Arabiyya, 1372/1972), 1:62

**Patabeamn** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

Who's this article written by? The author seems being the Ikhwani-leaning Suhaib Webb..

In fact the entire premise was first developed by the Rand Corporation and the US Pentagon in conjunction with the MI6 to enlist media savy Muslims, particularly westerners, who could rally some modernists scholars who pose as traditoinalist to opiate the Muslims of the west into quietism as western nations attempt a recolonization of the Muslim world.

A simple perusal of the Qur'anic verses regarding the obligation of hijra, their commentaries along with the subsequent legal rulings regarding sulhi, amaan, jizya, mu`ahida would easily debunct the entire premise of the argument. It builds its argument on a false pretext of a distorted understanding of 'contract'. The reality is that in Islam a contract is only valid if the contract is initially permissible. For example, if I were to follow the argument that would obligate a person to adhere to a contract which was initially forbidden in the first place. It would imply that if a person contracted a marriage contract with his sister that he wold herefore be obligated to adhere to the contract simply because he made the agreement! This is an illusion!

There is not a single proof in Islam that [1] it was lawful for a muslim to immigrate and accept citizenship in a land governed by non Muslims in the first place; [2] even if this 'contract' were legal and binding, Islamic jurisrupence is unanimous regarding a non Muslim land which willfully invades a Muslim land, that any and all contractual agreements between Muslims and that land is invalidated automatically. The entire premise of the argument is based upon a modernist LIE rapped in the turban of 'tradition'.

**Filling25** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

In fact the entire premise was first developed by the Rand Corporation and the US Pentagon in conjunction with the MI6 to enlist media savy Muslims, particularly westerners, who could rally some modernists scholars who pose as traditoinalist to opiate the Muslims of the west into quietism as western nations attempt a recolonization of the Muslim world.

A simple perusal of the Qur'anic verses regarding the obligation of hijra, their commentaries along with the subsequent legal rulings regarding sulhi, amaan, jizya, mu`ahida would easily debunct the entire premise of the argument. It builds its argument on a false pretext of a distorted understanding of 'contract'. The reality is that in Islam a contract is only valid if the contract is initially permissible. For example, if I were to follow the argument that would obligate a person to adhere to a contract which was initially forbidden in the first place. It would imply that if a person contracted a marriage contract with his sister that he wold herefore be obligated to adhere to the contract simply because he made the agreement! This is an illusion!

There is not a single proof in Islam that [1] it was lawful for a muslim to immigrate and accept citizenship in a land governed by non Muslims in the first place; [2] even if this 'contract' were legal and binding, Islamic jurisrupence is unanimous regarding a non Muslim land which willfully invades a Muslim land, that any and all contractual agreements between Muslims and that land is invalidated automatically. The entire premise of the argument is based upon a modernist LIE rapped in the turban of 'tradition'.

, THIS IS FIQH!!

It's a real pleasure to have you on this forum, hope your collaboration will keep going and being fruitful insha'Allah!

**Unamannuato** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine

...

MashAllah I agree with this article a hundred percent!; it is indeed prohibbited to violate agreements and covenants/treaties and allthough the US might be invading and attacking Muslims countires, yet that dont free us of our duty to abide by the the law of the country we live in

Mufti Muhammad Ibn Adam has written a simmilar article; allthough it pertains to the 7/7 london bombings, but yet it can relate to the Hasan Nidal incident and Muslims living anywhere in the West [in the evidences cited below, there is one of where the prophet [saw] enjoins a new convert to Islam to fullfill his agreement with the enemy, allthuogh the Muslims were in the midst of a raging war with that very enemy!]:

*Islamic Stance on the Recent London Bombings*

Question #: q-18405844
Date Posted: 2005-08-04

What is the Islamic stance regarding the recent attacks on the London underground tube network? Can it be justified in any way? I hear many non-Muslims accusing Islam of terrorism. What can I say?

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

The recent tragic events in London and elsewhere have unfortunately prompted many non-Muslims to associate Islam with violence and terrorism. Muslims worldwide are experiencing a very difficult stage of their existence, and facing many trials and tribulations. We are being accused of terrorism, extremism and fundamentalism. The idea that Islam is a violent religion is becoming more and more widespread to the point that even some ignorant Muslims are being affected with this propaganda.

The truth is that Islam is a religion of peace and mercy. One of the meanings of "Islam" is peace. There is no place for extremism in Islam. Our Creator the Almighty says in the Qur'an:

"O People of the Book! Commit no extremism in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth." (Surah al-Nisa, V: 171)

Even though the above verse was in relation to the People of the book being extreme in their religion to the point that they considered Jesus (peace be upon him) to be the son of God, it has a general application to it, as is the case with all the verses of the Qur'an. Hence, Islam was sent down by God to preserve and protect the life, wealth and honour of human beings. Islam teaches its followers to be gentle, kind and tolerant towards other people including non-Muslims.

The beloved Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him & give him peace), who was sent as a mercy for the whole of mankind, demonstrated such kindness, compassion, generosity and politeness towards non-Muslims that it is difficult to find similar examples in history.

When Makka was in the grip of famine, he personally went out to help his enemies who had made him leave his home town. At the conquest of Makka, all his enemies came under his power and control, yet he set them all free saying that not only are you being given amnesty today but rather you are also forgiven for what you have done in the past. When non-Muslim prisoners of war were presented before him, he treated them with such kindness and tenderness as one would treat one's own children. His enemies inflicted upon him all sorts of injuries and pain but he never raised his hand in revenge neither did he wish ill for them, rather he would pray for their guidance. A delegation from the tribe of Banu Thaqifa (who had yet not embraced Islam) came to visit him, and was given the honour of staying in the Mosque of the Prophet, a place regarded by Muslims to be the most sacred of places. (See: Ma'arif al-Qur'an, 2/51)

There are many more such examples in the life of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). The episode of Ta'if, the treaty of al-Hudaybiyya and many other such events quite categorically demonstrate the viewpoint of Islam with regards to the treatment of non-Muslims.

Islam totally rejects and condemns violence, terrorism and the taking of innocent lives. There can be no justification whatsoever in Islam for crimes against humanity, such as the recent London bombings. The act of bombing trains and buses, killing and injuring innocent people is without doubt prohibited and unlawful in Islam. There are many evidences found in the Qur'an and sayings of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) in support of this view. A few are presented below:

1) Islam does not allow the killing of innocent civilians and non-combatants under any circumstance. It is unlawful to kill a human being, Muslim or non-Muslim, without an Islamically justified reason (such as someone guilty of murder, and this too is only permitted for those who have political authority). The killing of innocents is against basic humanity, and has absolutely no place in Islam. The Shariah of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him & give him peace) was sent to protect five fundamental interests or universals (maqasid/kuliyyat): preservation of religion (hifz al-din), preservation of life (hifz al-nafs), preservation of intellect (hifz al-aql), preservation of lineage (hifz al-nasl), and preservation of wealth (hifz al-mal). Things that harm any of these five universals are contrary to the very foundations of Divine Law.

Allah Most High states clearly in the Qur'an:

"For that cause, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever kills a human for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all humanity; and whoso saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (Surah al-Ma'ida, V: 32)

And He Most High states:

"Allah forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loves those who are just." (Surah al-Mumtahina, V: 8)

And:

"Take not life, which Allah has made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus dose He command you, that you may learn wisdom." (Surah al-An'am, V: 151)

And:

"O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do." (Surah al-Ma'idah, V: 8)

In the above verses, Allah Most High commands us to treat non-Muslims justly and honourably. The dislike of their beliefs should not prompt a Muslim to treat them unfairly, neither is it allowed to harm those who do not fight Muslims for their faith or drive them out of their homes; rather, a Muslim must deal with them in a just and kind manner.

It is related in Imam Muslim's Sahih, that the Companion Hakim ibn Hizam (may Allah be pleased with him) passed by a group of people in Sham who had been made to stand in the sun after oil had been poured over their heads. He asked, "What is this?" He was told that they were being punished for failing to pay their land tax. Hakim ibn Hizam (may Allah be pleased with him) responded: "Truly, I have heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say: "God shall torment those who torment others in this life." (Sahih Muslim, no: 2613)

In the Sunan of Imam Abu Dawud, it is related from the Companion Ribah ibn al-Rabi' (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "We were with the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him & give him peace) in warfare when he saw a group of people gathered around something. Hence, he sent a man to inquire what people had gathered over. The man returned saying they had gathered around a dead woman The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "This woman did not come here to fight (hence to kill her was not permitted)". (Sunan Abu Dawud, no: 2669)

Based on this, classical and contemporary Muslim jurists (fuqaha) have quite clearly reiterated that the killing of innocent people, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, is not allowed under any circumstance in Shariah.

In the recent attacks on London, almost all of the people were innocent civilians; hence, in light of the abovementioned evidences, the prohibition of this act is quite clear. The attacks killed many men, women, children, non-Muslims as well as Muslims. The BBC website recently published the list of the bomb blast victims and amongst the many killed, there were also Muslims. The majority of the victims killed in the recent Egypt bomb blasts were Egyptians and Muslims. Hence, the perpetrators of these acts are killing innocent non-Muslims as well as Muslims.

Some people argue that innocent Muslims are being killed by non-Muslims; hence Muslims should be allowed to kill innocent people in retaliation. This argument is completely wrong, dangerous and not in line with Islamic teachings. Two wrongs do not make a right. Islam does not allow Muslims to respond to "a mistake" by another mistake.

Allah Most High says in the Qur'an:

"Revile not you those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance." (Surah al-An'am, V: 108)

It is not allowed for a Muslim to follow up an evil with another evil. If Muslims feel that the UK and US governments are killing innocent civilians in Iraq and elsewhere, it does not give them the right to kill innocent citizens in London or New York.

2) The second reason for the prohibition of these barbaric acts is that under no circumstances are Muslims allowed to attack women, children, the old and the meek, the sick, and those that are worshipping. Even in the midst of a war, the Muslim army is ordered to avoid killing women and children.

The two most authentic books of Prophetic traditions according to the Muslims, Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, relate from the Companion Abd Allah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "A woman was found to have been killed in one of the battles, hence the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him & give him peace) forbade the killing of women and children." (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 3014)

The Companion Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) reports that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him & give him peace), when sending off an army, would say: "Leave in the name of Allah, but do not kill an old man, nor a young child and neither a woman..." (Sunan Abu Dawud, no: 2614)

The Companion Abd Allah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) reports that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and give him peace) would say when sending off his armies: "Do not kill those who are worshipping in their places of worship." (Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba, no: 14078)

The Companion Jabir ibn Abd Allah (may Allah be pleased with him) reports that they (Muslims) would not kill traders of the polytheists (enemies)." (Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba, no: 14076)

Accordingly, Muslim jurists are quite clear that even in the midst of a war, it is prohibited to kill and attack old people, women, children, worshippers, those who are merely there for trading purposes, disabled people, sick and weak people, etc. Hence, bombing trains and buses where many such people may be present can never be justified in light of the guidance given by the Messenger of Islam (peace and blessings be upon him).

3) Thirdly, Islam places a great deal of emphasis on preserving and protecting the wealth of human beings to the point that the Messenger of Islam (may Allah bless him & give him peace) safeguarded the wealth of non-Muslims even in the midst of a war.

Allah Most High says:

O you who believe! Consume not your wealth among yourselves in vanities: But let there be amongst you Traffic and trade by mutual good-will: Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast them into the Fire: And easy it is for Allah." (Surah al-Nisa, V: 29-30)

Thus, the Shariah preserves and safeguards the wealth of individuals, Muslims and non-Muslims. To damage or destroy the wealth of others is clearly prohibited and sinful in the eyes of Islam.

4) Fourthly, Muslims (and also non-Muslims) are obliged to obey the law of the land they are residing in. When one lives in a particular country, one agrees verbally, in writing or effectively to adhere to the rules and regulations of that country. This, according to Shariah, is considered to be a covenant, agreement and trust. One is obliged to fulfil the trust regardless of whether it is contracted with a friend, enemy, Muslim, non-Muslim or a government. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) always stood by their word and did not breach any trust or agreement, as it is clear from the books of Prophetic traditions and history. To break a promise or breach a trust of even a non-Muslim is absolutely unlawful and considered a sign of being a hypocrite.

Allah Most High states:

"And fulfil (every) engagement (ahd), for (every) engagement will be enquired into (on the day of reckoning)." (Surah al-Isra, v. 34)

And regarding the one who breaks an agreement and is guilty of treachery, Allah Almighty says:

"Allah loves not the treacherous." (Surah al-Anfal, v. 58)

The Companion Sayyiduna Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "The signs of a hypocrite are three: When he speaks he leis, when he makes a promise he breaks it, and when he is given a trust he breaches it." (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 33)

The practice of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) also clearly illustrates the importance of fulfilling a covenant, and the unlawfulness of treachery.

During the battle of Khaybar which took place between the Muslims and Jews, the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) besieged the fort of Khaybar wherein the Jews were residing. A poor Shepard who was working for his Jewish master had already heard about the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), and upon seeing the Muslim army, he thought it was a good opportunity to inquire about Islam. He came out of the fort with the goats and sheep he was looking after and asked the whereabouts of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). Upon being directed towards the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), he inquired about the basic teachings of Islam, and then said: "What will my status be if I accept Islam?" The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) replied: "I will embrace you, you will become my brother and enjoy the same rights as other Muslims." He said: "I am very poor, in a bad state and have bad odour coming from my body and cloths. How will you embrace me if I am in such a condition?" The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) replied: "I shall embrace you, for all of Allah's servants are equal in His sight." He said: "If I embrace Islam, what will my fate be?" The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "I bear witness that if you accept Islam, Allah will change the darkness of your body to light, and the bad odour to good fragrance." These words of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) had their effect on his heart, thus he embraced Islam.

After entering into the fold of Islam, he asked the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him & give him peace) what he was obliged to do? The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him & give him peace) said that the Muslims were presently in the midst of a war, thus the obligation at this moment and time was to participate in Jihad. However, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said to him: "The first and foremost thing you need to do is return these animals to its Jewish owner and then engage in Jihad."

As mentioned earlier, these animals belonged to a Jew who was in the opposing army, but the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) ordered him to go back and return them to its owner. The reason being is that he had taken these goats and sheep on a trust, and it is necessary by Shariah to return the belongings taken on trust back to its owner.

Thereafter, he participated in the holy battle (jihad) and was amongst the martyrs. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) recognised his body and addressed his Companions saying that he saw this Shepard being given a bath in the sacred water of paradise, and Allah had changed his darkness to shining light and his bad foul smell to refreshing fragrance.

The above is an amazing example of fulfilling a trust of even an enemy. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was in the midst of a war with the Jews of al-Khaybar, yet he ordered the herdsman to go back and return the animals. This Shepard had taken these animals under a contract before the war, hence he was ordered to fulfil the contract and return them to its rightful owner sound and safe.

Therefore, from an Islamic perspective, it is obligatory for a Muslim to honour a commitment or a pledge. One must obey the law of the land unless the law commands one to forgo one's basic religious rights. If one disagrees with the foreign policy of a country one lives in, one should use lawful means in getting one's concerns heard. If an individual is angry with Britain's role in Iraq, then one should use legal and lawful means to prevent that. It will not be permitted to retaliate against the British government by killing innocent civilians living in the UK.

To conclude, the above are just four of the many reasons found in the Qur'an and Prophetic Traditions (sunna) prohibiting clearly what took place recently in London. The perpetrators of this act need to realise that their actions are not only unfruitful rather they are doing more damage and harm to the Muslim community than benefit. Islam teaches us to be kind and loving towards other people. Islam teaches us to be merciful and not transgress on the life, wealth and honour of innocent people.

At the same time, we sincerely advise the British government to rethink its foreign policy. Terrorism is rejected whether it comes in the form of young people blasting bombs in London or F-16 fighter planes dropping bombs over Baghdad. Terrorism is defined as "the unlawful use of force against a civilian population as a way to intimidate that population into submitting to some political agenda or some other objective. Hence, the killing of civilians is unacceptable according to everyone by the Geneva Convention, yet the US in world war two killed hundreds of thousands of civilians with intent in Japan by bombing them. It was understood that these civilians would die. Thus, violence, terrorism and the killing of civilians is rejected by Islam and Muslims wherever this takes place.

Also, we sincerely urge the British government to take measures in protecting innocent Muslims who fear reprisal over the London bombings. Abuse (physical and verbal) and hate crimes must be dealt with in a rigorous manner. Any kind of assault on innocent people and damage caused to places of worship must not be tolerated.

Similarly, Muslims should not be singled out and targeted by the police in stop-and-search operations. There is a genuine fear and concern within the Muslim community that they are being targeted by the police. Many are frustrated by the increased use of stop-and-search and the new "shoot-to-kill to protect" policy for suicide bombers. Muslims should not be discriminated against by police trying to prevent potential terror attacks. Stop and searches should be based on good intelligence, not just skin colour.

Finally, we pray for peace, tranquillity and harmony in this world. We pray for the defeat of extremism and terrorism in the world, whether individual terror or state terror, whether in London, the US, Iraq or elsewhere. We ask Allah, our God and creator, to make matters easy for us and that the shedding of innocent blood stops forever, Ameen.

And Allah knows best

Muhammad ibn Adam
Darul Iftaa
Leicester , UK

http://daruliftaa.com/question.asp?t...nID=q-18405844

**911_993_911** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh!

Takbeer! Allahu akbar! Takbeer! Allahu akbar! Takbeer! Allahu akbar!

May Allah ta'ala give you a blessed death as shaheed fee sabeelillah! Amin!

May Allah azza wa jallahu grant you a blessed death as shaheed fee sabeelillah! Amin!

May Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala grant you a mubarak death as shaheed fee sabeelillah! Amin!

My paining hearth needs more of this cool wind of truth blowing into my heart. Brother, please share more of your writings.

Wassalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

**Maydayvar** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

In fact the entire premise was first developed by the Rand Corporation and the US Pentagon in conjunction with the MI6 to enlist media savy Muslims, particularly westerners, who could rally some modernists scholars who pose as traditoinalist to opiate the Muslims of the west into quietism as western nations attempt a recolonization of the Muslim world.

A simple perusal of the Qur'anic verses regarding the obligation of hijra, their commentaries along with the subsequent legal rulings regarding sulhi, amaan, jizya, mu`ahida would easily debunct the entire premise of the argument. It builds its argument on a false pretext of a distorted understanding of 'contract'. The reality is that in Islam a contract is only valid if the contract is initially permissible. For example, if I were to follow the argument that would obligate a person to adhere to a contract which was initially forbidden in the first place. It would imply that if a person contracted a marriage contract with his sister that he wold herefore be obligated to adhere to the contract simply because he made the agreement! This is an illusion!

There is not a single proof in Islam that [1] it was lawful for a muslim to immigrate and accept citizenship in a land governed by non Muslims in the first place; [2] even if this 'contract' were legal and binding, Islamic jurisrupence is unanimous regarding a non Muslim land which willfully invades a Muslim land, that any and all contractual agreements between Muslims and that land is invalidated automatically. The entire premise of the argument is based upon a modernist LIE rapped in the turban of 'tradition'.

simple logic really ....

**wrenjmerg** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

Major Nidal Hasan Conundrum
This is a conundrum to US only.
For the rest of the humanity it should not be very difficult to understand as to what went wrong.

Here is the time line of the episode we are talking about.
November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan of Fort Hood, Texas, USA killed thirteen servicemen and injured dozens in a shooting spree.
His cousin, Nadir Hasan, later on told Fox News that Major Hasan had complained of of harassment because of his "Middle Eastern ethnicity" and had tried to leave the army.
Maj Hassan, a military psychiatrist, was due to be deployed in Iraq.
Maj Hasan was paralysed from the chest down after being shot by police during the incident at Fort Hood.
He is being held at a special hospital cell about 15 miles (25km) from the base.
His trial is in progress but might be delayed because he now sports a beard and that make his identification by the witnesses difficult.
Major Hasan says that he has a premonition of death and would not like to die in a state of sin - by shaving his beard.
The problem is, for the authorities court marshaling him, is whether to shave him forcibly or not.
That is not the conundrum we are talking about.
The conundrum is why did he behave the way he did.
Some other facts that came out of the investigation are as follows. Major Hasan had given a talk in which he averred that those servicemen who want to leave the services should be allowed to do so because they do not agree with the objectives of war.
Technically he did have that choice, it was allowed by the rules but the people he consulted gave him the opposite impression.
Major Nidal Hasan, being US army psychiatrist, had the job to motivate the soldiers being deployed.
In layman's terms his job will be to motivate US soldiers to kill Iraqis - his fellow Arabs.
US expectations were and perhaps still would be that it will be alright, natural and logical for him to do the bidding. Is it really that simple? On the face of it we know Major Hasan just cracked up.
In the history of mankind there have been very rare examples where people gave preference to the call of duty and acted against their family and near and dear ones.
In India the most famous scripture, Gita, after the Vedas, is about that. It needs Krishna to motivate Arjun to go for the war against his own relatives.
In Islam it was the company of the beloved Prophet (PBUH) and his rigorous training that could prevail upon some Companions (RA) to fight against their family members.
In any society it is difficult to wage war against your family, blood relatives or your clan or race.
US expectations from Major Hasan to motivate soldiers to kill Iraqis should be looked in that perspective.
Not the perspective that the US media is clutching to - Major Nidal Malik Hasan's contact with Anwar Al-Awlaki - the only American targeted and martyred by the US in a missile attack in Yemen.

It is strange that a country that is so advance in all academic discipline should be so naive in one of them - psychology. It is not rocket science - to use a cliche.

**Deseassaugs** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

It is simple really, they should allow people to leave the army if they want to...forcing someone to kill others on your behalf is just unacceptable.

Major Nidal Hasan Conundrum
This is a conundrum to US only.
For the rest of the humanity it should not be very difficult to understand as to what went wrong.

Here is the time line of the episode we are talking about.
November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan of Fort Hood, Texas, USA killed thirteen servicemen and injured dozens in a shooting spree.
His cousin, Nadir Hasan, later on told Fox News that Major Hasan had complained of of harassment because of his "Middle Eastern ethnicity" and had tried to leave the army.
Maj Hassan, a military psychiatrist, was due to be deployed in Iraq.
Maj Hasan was paralysed from the chest down after being shot by police during the incident at Fort Hood.
He is being held at a special hospital cell about 15 miles (25km) from the base.
His trial is in progress but might be delayed because he now sports a beard and that make his identification by the witnesses difficult.
Major Hasan says that he has a premonition of death and would not like to die in a state of sin - by shaving his beard.
The problem is, for the authorities court marshaling him, is whether to shave him forcibly or not.
That is not the conundrum we are talking about.
The conundrum is why did he behave the way he did.
Some other facts that came out of the investigation are as follows. Major Hasan had given a talk in which he averred that those servicemen who want to leave the services should be allowed to do so because they do not agree with the objectives of war.
Technically he did have that choice, it was allowed by the rules but the people he consulted gave him the opposite impression.
Major Nidal Hasan, being US army psychiatrist, had the job to motivate the soldiers being deployed.
In layman's terms his job will be to motivate US soldiers to kill Iraqis - his fellow Arabs.
US expectations were and perhaps still would be that it will be alright, natural and logical for him to do the bidding. Is it really that simple? On the face of it we know Major Hasan just cracked up.
In the history of mankind there have been very rare examples where people gave preference to the call of duty and acted against their family and near and dear ones.
In India the most famous scripture, Gita, after the Vedas, is about that. It needs Krishna to motivate Arjun to go for the war against his own relatives.
In Islam it was the company of the beloved Prophet (PBUH) and his rigorous training that could prevail upon some Companions (RA) to fight against their family members.
In any society it is difficult to wage war against your family, blood relatives or your clan or race.
US expectations from Major Hasan to motivate soldiers to kill Iraqis should be looked in that perspective.
Not the perspective that the US media is clutching to - Major Nidal Malik Hasan's contact with Anwar Al-Awlaki - the only American targeted and martyred by the US in a missile attack in Yemen.

It is strange that a country that is so advance in all academic discipline should be so naive in one of them - psychology. It is not rocket science - to use a cliche.

**TpDoctorOneTp** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

It is simple really, they should allow people to leave the army if they want to...forcing someone to kill others on your behalf is just unacceptable.

Technically it was allowed but the people he consulted gave the opposite impression - perhaps they themselves did not know.

There is power point presentation by Major Hasan where he explicitly says that people who do not agree with these wars should be allowed to leave.

**Argurnenoni** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

Technically it was allowed but the people he consulted gave the opposite impression - perhaps they themselves did not know.

There is power point presentation by Major Hasan where he explicitly says that people who do not agree with these wars should be allowed to leave.

Are you sure they are allowed? I think it is very difficult because many people might leave and they would be stuck without an army if they allowed anyone to leave. Quite a few go AWOL absent without leave and they are hunted as deserters.

Bush and others escaped the military draft by some legal device.

**apatteopipt** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

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. the aim was to strike fear and terror into the hearts of kuffar. the terror is greater when the enemy is struck in their homeland rather than in the battlefield. it was not an emotional reaction to his impending deployment in afghanistan. yes he found this attack to be a way out of it but why he did it was because muslims cannot aid kuffar against fellow Muslims when the result of their aid is death of fellow Muslims and establishment of Kufr government. this point seems to be missing on many Muslims and esp Muslim rulers. among the many who have deemed such people out of Islam is Allama Qurtubi (rh) in his tafseer q qurtubi.

people conveniently forget what the US did to Islam from 1948 to 2001 (when it was paid back some amount) .they conveniently forget what the US and its allies are doing to islam right now and the plans they have for Islam. all they see is their own American citizenship or residence and anybody threatening that is their enemy. they deem mujahideen as terrorist left right and center and that too without any strong evidence (you will notice that in their fatawa). for other Muslims in other countries J!had can be waged everywhere but inside their own countries.

major nidal was in correspondence with sh. al-awlaki (rh). it may be worth reading the sheikh's views here (page 41; in english)

also please see a fiqh discussion on this by sheikh nasir bin hamd al fahad (rh) who is imprisoned in saudi arabia. this booklet is in urdu (soon in english).

**Tarrccrys** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

Are you sure they are allowed? I think it is very difficult because many people might leave and they would be stuck without an army if they allowed anyone to leave. Quite a few go AWOL absent without leave and they are hunted as deserters.

Bush and others escaped the military draft by some legal device.

When the story unfolded at the time of the incident this is the point that came out - that he did have the option but the advisers gave him the opposite impression.

It is true there are deserters but that is a different problem.

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. the aim was to strike fear and terror into the hearts of kuffar. the terror is greater when the enemy is struck in their homeland rather than in the battlefield. it was not an emotional reaction to his impending deployment in afghanistan. yes he found this attack to be a way out of it but why he did it was because muslims cannot aid kuffar against fellow Muslims when the result of their aid is death of fellow Muslims and establishment of Kufr government. this point seems to be missing on many Muslims and esp Muslim rulers. among the many who have deemed such people out of Islam is Allama Qurtubi (rh) in his tafseer q qurtubi.

people conveniently forget what the US did to Islam from 1948 to 2001 (when it was paid back some amount) .they conveniently forget what the US and its allies are doing to islam right now and the plans they have for Islam. all they see is their own American citizenship or residence and anybody threatening that is their enemy. they deem mujahideen as terrorist left right and center and that too without any strong evidence (you will notice that in their fatawa). for other Muslims in other countries J!had can be waged everywhere but inside their own countries.

major nidal was in correspondence with sh. al-awlaki (rh). it may be worth reading the sheikh's views here (page 41; in english)

also please see a fiqh discussion on this by sheikh nasir bin hamd al fahad (rh) who is imprisoned in saudi arabia. this booklet is in urdu (soon in english).

I'll try to read the links but you are allowing your wishes to cloud the reality. If you see the power point presentation by Major Nidal Hasan it is clear that he was wishing for a way out of the US army. He was ready to pay the Army back. This clearly indicates that there was no intention on his part to single handely take on the US might. It was simple frustration of being put in an impossible situation. Major Hasan is a victim of an insensitive, actually inapt, system - not a rebel.

PS: Both links have been blocked by my local admin.

**courlerwele** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

I'll try to read the links but you are allowing your wishes to cloud the reality. If you see the power point presentation by Major Nidal Hasan it is clear that he was wishing for a way out of the US army. He was ready to pay the Army back. This clearly indicates that there was no intention on his part to single handely take on the US might. It was simple frustration of being put in an impossible situation. Major Hasan is a victim of an insensitive, actually inapt, system - not a rebel.

PS: Both links have been blocked by my local admin.

i did not say that it wasnt one of the reasons. i am saying it wasnt the only reason.

i doubt it is my wishful thinking:
"During his psychiatry fellowship at USUHS, Air Force Lt. Col. Dr. Val Finnell, a graduate school classmate in the MPH program, said that while other students' projects focused on topics such as water contamination, Hasan's project dealt with "whether the war on terror is a war against Islam." According to retired Colonel Terry Lee, "He said 'maybe Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor'. At first we thought he meant help the armed forces, but apparently that wasn't the case. Other times he would make comments we shouldn't be in the war in the first place."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...rt-hood-hasan7
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572405,00.html

he was in contact with sh. al-awlaki. if you can find a way (hint:ultrasurf) to read those links you would see what the sheikh says and why every Muslim who accepts the sheikh's teachings does exactly what major nidal did. it is an ideology that requires time to understand.

(my 4shared account has been blocked? the second link is from there)

**Farson** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

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?

Or only the Pakistani military can be rightly attacked?

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?

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.

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. the aim was to strike fear and terror into the hearts of kuffar. the terror is greater when the enemy is struck in their homeland rather than in the battlefield. it was not an emotional reaction to his impending deployment in afghanistan. yes he found this attack to be a way out of it but why he did it was because muslims cannot aid kuffar against fellow Muslims when the result of their aid is death of fellow Muslims and establishment of Kufr government. this point seems to be missing on many Muslims and esp Muslim rulers. among the many who have deemed such people out of Islam is Allama Qurtubi (rh) in his tafseer q qurtubi.

people conveniently forget what the US did to Islam from 1948 to 2001 (when it was paid back some amount) .they conveniently forget what the US and its allies are doing to islam right now and the plans they have for Islam. all they see is their own American citizenship or residence and anybody threatening that is their enemy. they deem mujahideen as terrorist left right and center and that too without any strong evidence (you will notice that in their fatawa). for other Muslims in other countries J!had can be waged everywhere but inside their own countries.

major nidal was in correspondence with sh. al-awlaki (rh). it may be worth reading the sheikh's views here (page 41; in english)

also please see a fiqh discussion on this by sheikh nasir bin hamd al fahad (rh) who is imprisoned in saudi arabia. this booklet is in urdu (soon in english).

**ImapFidaarram** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

i did not say that it wasnt one of the reasons. i am saying it wasnt the only reason.

i doubt it is my wishful thinking:
"During his psychiatry fellowship at USUHS, Air Force Lt. Col. Dr. Val Finnell, a graduate school classmate in the MPH program, said that while other students' projects focused on topics such as water contamination, Hasan's project dealt with "whether the war on terror is a war against Islam." According to retired Colonel Terry Lee, "He said 'maybe Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor'. At first we thought he meant help the armed forces, but apparently that wasn't the case. Other times he would make comments we shouldn't be in the war in the first place."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...rt-hood-hasan7
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572405,00.html

he was in contact with sh. al-awlaki. if you can find a way (hint:ultrasurf) to read those links you would see what the sheikh says and why every Muslim who accepts the sheikh's teachings does exactly what major nidal did.

I had read these things at that time. Even at that time I got no impression that Major Hasan was on a mission of any kind. He simply displayed a Muslim mindset which can see through some of the American rhetoric. Nothing more than that.

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?

Or only the Pakistani military can be rightly attacked?

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?

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 military court will not get to hear my words but I would like to shout that Major Hasan is not guilty. Because of the above circumstances.

**FuXA8nQM** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

May I say lol akhi? Let me tell you the end result. I have gone through so many ideologies by now that these do not impress me any more. By now I am more interested in whether my Surah Fatiha is correct in Tajweed or not. ( It is not!) It weighs rather heavy on my conscience - heavier than the life after Higgs. I kid you not.

well that is rather unfortunate. it is not about being impressed or not. it is about duty.

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#1
allaboutauto.us Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 454 Senior Member	Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine The Islamophobic blogosphere has gone buck-wild. Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and the rest of the goof troop are pretty ecstatic that Major Nidal Hasan, a Muslim American, killed thirteen U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood. Nothing makes a neo-conservative happier than an attack on American soil; as the family of the victims mourn the dead, the anti-Muslim ideologues gleefully co-opt the situation to market their hate-filled beliefs. The Islamophobes claim that Major Hasan was simply “being a devout Muslim” when he opened fire on his fellow soldiers. According to them, this is a part of Jihad, an obligation in Islam. As such, the enemy is not just extremists, radicals, or terrorists; but rather, it is Islam itself. It is not then a gross perversion of a religion by zealots that result in such horrific attacks, but rather the exact opposite: it is a faithful understanding of the Islamic religion which results in terrorism. That’s what they claim at least. There is, according to these anti-Muslim bigots, a conspiracy by Muslim Americans to overtake the country from within. The tactics to do so can be non-violent (”Stealth Jihad”) or overtly violent (such as 9/11 or the Fort Hood Massacre), but the goal is the same: to overthrow the U.S. government, rip the Constitution to shreds, and enact Sharia (Islamic law) in the West. It is for this reason, you–the average American Joe–need to fear your Muslim neighbor. The Covenant of Security But experts of the Islamic legal tradition say differently. The Islamic religion commands believers to obey the laws of the land they live in, even if it be one ruled by nonbelievers. Muslim jurists consider citizenship (or visa) to be a covenant (aqd) held between the citizen (or visa holder) and the state, one which guarantees safe passage/security (amaan) in exchange for certain obligations (such as obeying the laws of the land); covenants are considered sacredly binding in Islam. The Quran commands: And fulfill every covenant. Verily, you will be held accountable with regard to the covenants. (Quran, 17:34) The Quran condemns those who break covenants as not being true believers: It is not the case that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throws it aside. Nay! The truth is most of them believe not. (Quran, 2:100) The Islamic prophet Muhammad described the religious hypocrite as follows: When he enters into a covenant, he proves treacherous. (Sahih al-Bukhari) Citizenship (and visa) is called in Islamic legal parlance as a “covenant of security” (aqd al-aman). For over a thousand years, Muslim scholars have rigorously affirmed the binding nature of the covenant of security. This covenant of security can be of two types: (1) a contractual agreement or (2) a customary understanding. Naturalized citizens in the United States enter into a contractual agreement with the government when they declare the oath of allegiance, as follows: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…” A Muslim is obliged to keep to his word, and thus this oath is religiously binding upon him. Natural born citizens, on the other hand, do not utter any such oath, so they fall under the second category under Islamic law. The covenant of security is considered for them a customary understanding, in the sense that even though they did not physically say an oath or sign a document of loyalty, it is understood that there exists between the citizen and the government a covenant of security; this, i.e. customary understanding, is considered by Islamic law to be just as binding as the contractual agreement. There is no difference between the two. Betraying the Covenant is Forbidden What the 9/11 hijackers did was a violation of Islamic law for multiple reasons. The most obvious of these is the prohibition of killing civilians, but it should also be pointed out that they violated the covenant of security between them and the United States, which granted them visas to enter the country. Using Islamic lingo, the U.S. government granted safe passage (amaan) to the 19 hijackers, and thus they entered into a covenant (aqd), which they subsequently violated. The United States government granted them visas with the understanding that they would come to the country to study, or seek medical treatment, or for sightseeing, etc., but not for waging war within their lands or killing their citizenry. Even if a Muslim country is at war with a non-Muslim one, it would not be permissible for a Muslim fighter to enter into enemy territory by requesting safe passage (amaan) and then subsequently killing enemy troops once he crosses over. The classical Islamic jurist, Muhammad al-Shaybani (died 805 A.D.) expounded: If it happens that a company of Muslims pass through the enemy’s front lines by deceptively pretending to be messengers of the Muslim’s ruler carrying official documents–or if they were just allowed to pass through the enemy lines–they are not allowed to engage in any hostilities with the enemy troops. Neither are they entitled to seize any of their money or properties as long as they are in their area of authority. Both the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan violated this sacred principle of Islam. They gained the trust of those whom they considered their enemies, and then when those they consider enemies were caught unaware, they killed them. In other words, these criminals took advantage of the fact that they had been trusted, and violated this trust. Such a thing is considered unacceptable in Islam. (It should be noted that Muslim Americans don’t see themselves as living in “enemy territory,” but the point is that even if Nidal Hasan saw the U.S. in that light, then he still wouldn’t be allowed under the Islamic belief system to do what he did. Of course, the point applies even more to those Muslim Americans who see themselves as distinctly American and who love the country.) The Quran does say that if the believers are being oppressed in some land, then the Muslims should come to their assistance. But it forbids fighting against those with whom a covenant exists. The Quran says: If [your coreligionists] ask for your aid in religion, then you must help them, except against people with whom you have covenants with. (Quran, 8:72) A Muslim American Must Obey the Constitution and Never Rebel Against the U.S. Government A Muslim must abide by his covenant, which includes obeying the laws of the land he lives in, no matter how he entered into the country, be it by birth, legal (or even illegal) immigration. (Entering countries illegally with forged documents is considered forbidden in Islam, but if one commits this sin, he cannot commit the further sin of then using it as an excuse to violate the laws of the land.) Salman al-Oudah, a senior religious cleric, says: [Islamic] scholars have stated that those who enter non-Muslim countries have to adhere to their respective laws and regulations even if they entered those countries illegally, and they have no excuse for breaking those laws, since they were entrusted to abide by those laws upon entry into those countries…As long as [a Muslim] agrees to live in a non-Muslim country, he is never to rebel against the people living in his choice of residence, even it seems too hard for him to endure. From a religious angle, Muslim Americans are forbidden to rebel against the U.S. government. They are not allowed to seek to overthrow the government, rip up the Constitution (which they gave an oath to uphold!), etc. They are not allowed to cheat on taxes, steal from anyone, kill or harm any of their fellow citizens, etc. Instead, they should be law-abiding citizens–according to the Islamic religion and the consensus (ijma) of the Muslim clerics since the last 1,400 years, in spite of Al-Qaeda’s reinterpretation (perversion) of religious doctrine. Even if hypothetically the U.S. law were to stipulate a condition which was against Islamic teachings, the Muslim American would still have to follow it, as the Islamic cleric I quoted above says: [Muslims] have to avoid whatever contradicts Islamic teachings. In case they are obliged by law to uphold something contrary to Islamic teachings, they have to adhere to the minimum that the law requires of them. This idea–that Muslim Americans should uphold the laws of the land–is taught in mosques across the country with great unanimity, so the Islamophobic fear mongering is ill-founded. Conclusion The actions of Islamic extremists–such as the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan–flout the normative tradition of Islam and the teachings which millions of Muslim Americans follow. It is therefore inappropriate to conclude that the religion of Islam itself advocates such things, or that these attackers were simply following their religion. Such a thing is offensive to say and quite frankly inaccurate. In any case, it is too early to say with any level of certainty what Major Hasan’s motivations were. Was he an extremist or simply a guy who lost his marbles like so many other shooters? Whatever the case, one thing is for sure: his actions do not reflect the Islamic teachings nor the millions of law-abiding Muslim Americans. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#2
nerohedfrs Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 563 Senior Member	So from now on we have to obey Fir3aun?.... wooow... we as muslims obey the laws as long as they are not wanting that we disobey ALLAH swt! wasalam Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#3
Finkevannon Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 461 Senior Member	Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine The Islamophobic blogosphere has gone buck-wild. Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and the rest of the goof troop are pretty ecstatic that Major Nidal Hasan, a Muslim American, killed thirteen U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood. Nothing makes a neo-conservative happier than an attack on American soil; as the family of the victims mourn the dead, the anti-Muslim ideologues gleefully co-opt the situation to market their hate-filled beliefs. The Islamophobes claim that Major Hasan was simply “being a devout Muslim” when he opened fire on his fellow soldiers. According to them, this is a part of Jihad, an obligation in Islam. As such, the enemy is not just extremists, radicals, or terrorists; but rather, it is Islam itself. It is not then a gross perversion of a religion by zealots that result in such horrific attacks, but rather the exact opposite: it is a faithful understanding of the Islamic religion which results in terrorism. That’s what they claim at least. There is, according to these anti-Muslim bigots, a conspiracy by Muslim Americans to overtake the country from within. The tactics to do so can be non-violent (”Stealth Jihad”) or overtly violent (such as 9/11 or the Fort Hood Massacre), but the goal is the same: to overthrow the U.S. government, rip the Constitution to shreds, and enact Sharia (Islamic law) in the West. It is for this reason, you–the average American Joe–need to fear your Muslim neighbor. The Covenant of Security But experts of the Islamic legal tradition say differently. The Islamic religion commands believers to obey the laws of the land they live in, even if it be one ruled by nonbelievers. Muslim jurists consider citizenship (or visa) to be a covenant (aqd) held between the citizen (or visa holder) and the state, one which guarantees safe passage/security (amaan) in exchange for certain obligations (such as obeying the laws of the land); covenants are considered sacredly binding in Islam. The Quran commands: And fulfill every covenant. Verily, you will be held accountable with regard to the covenants. (Quran, 17:34) The Quran condemns those who break covenants as not being true believers: It is not the case that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throws it aside. Nay! The truth is most of them believe not. (Quran, 2:100) The Islamic prophet Muhammad described the religious hypocrite as follows: When he enters into a covenant, he proves treacherous. (Sahih al-Bukhari) Citizenship (and visa) is called in Islamic legal parlance as a “covenant of security” (aqd al-aman). For over a thousand years, Muslim scholars have rigorously affirmed the binding nature of the covenant of security. This covenant of security can be of two types: (1) a contractual agreement or (2) a customary understanding. Naturalized citizens in the United States enter into a contractual agreement with the government when they declare the oath of allegiance, as follows: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…” A Muslim is obliged to keep to his word, and thus this oath is religiously binding upon him. Natural born citizens, on the other hand, do not utter any such oath, so they fall under the second category under Islamic law. The covenant of security is considered for them a customary understanding, in the sense that even though they did not physically say an oath or sign a document of loyalty, it is understood that there exists between the citizen and the government a covenant of security; this, i.e. customary understanding, is considered by Islamic law to be just as binding as the contractual agreement. There is no difference between the two. Betraying the Covenant is Forbidden What the 9/11 hijackers did was a violation of Islamic law for multiple reasons. The most obvious of these is the prohibition of killing civilians, but it should also be pointed out that they violated the covenant of security between them and the United States, which granted them visas to enter the country. Using Islamic lingo, the U.S. government granted safe passage (amaan) to the 19 hijackers, and thus they entered into a covenant (aqd), which they subsequently violated. The United States government granted them visas with the understanding that they would come to the country to study, or seek medical treatment, or for sightseeing, etc., but not for waging war within their lands or killing their citizenry. Even if a Muslim country is at war with a non-Muslim one, it would not be permissible for a Muslim fighter to enter into enemy territory by requesting safe passage (amaan) and then subsequently killing enemy troops once he crosses over. The classical Islamic jurist, Muhammad al-Shaybani (died 805 A.D.) expounded: If it happens that a company of Muslims pass through the enemy’s front lines by deceptively pretending to be messengers of the Muslim’s ruler carrying official documents–or if they were just allowed to pass through the enemy lines–they are not allowed to engage in any hostilities with the enemy troops. Neither are they entitled to seize any of their money or properties as long as they are in their area of authority. Both the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan violated this sacred principle of Islam. They gained the trust of those whom they considered their enemies, and then when those they consider enemies were caught unaware, they killed them. In other words, these criminals took advantage of the fact that they had been trusted, and violated this trust. Such a thing is considered unacceptable in Islam. (It should be noted that Muslim Americans don’t see themselves as living in “enemy territory,” but the point is that even if Nidal Hasan saw the U.S. in that light, then he still wouldn’t be allowed under the Islamic belief system to do what he did. Of course, the point applies even more to those Muslim Americans who see themselves as distinctly American and who love the country.) The Quran does say that if the believers are being oppressed in some land, then the Muslims should come to their assistance. But it forbids fighting against those with whom a covenant exists. The Quran says: If [your coreligionists] ask for your aid in religion, then you must help them, except against people with whom you have covenants with. (Quran, 8:72) A Muslim American Must Obey the Constitution and Never Rebel Against the U.S. Government A Muslim must abide by his covenant, which includes obeying the laws of the land he lives in, no matter how he entered into the country, be it by birth, legal (or even illegal) immigration. (Entering countries illegally with forged documents is considered forbidden in Islam, but if one commits this sin, he cannot commit the further sin of then using it as an excuse to violate the laws of the land.) Salman al-Oudah, a senior religious cleric, says: [Islamic] scholars have stated that those who enter non-Muslim countries have to adhere to their respective laws and regulations even if they entered those countries illegally, and they have no excuse for breaking those laws, since they were entrusted to abide by those laws upon entry into those countries…As long as [a Muslim] agrees to live in a non-Muslim country, he is never to rebel against the people living in his choice of residence, even it seems too hard for him to endure. From a religious angle, Muslim Americans are forbidden to rebel against the U.S. government. They are not allowed to seek to overthrow the government, rip up the Constitution (which they gave an oath to uphold!), etc. They are not allowed to cheat on taxes, steal from anyone, kill or harm any of their fellow citizens, etc. Instead, they should be law-abiding citizens–according to the Islamic religion and the consensus (ijma) of the Muslim clerics since the last 1,400 years, in spite of Al-Qaeda’s reinterpretation (perversion) of religious doctrine. Even if hypothetically the U.S. law were to stipulate a condition which was against Islamic teachings, the Muslim American would still have to follow it, as the Islamic cleric I quoted above says: [Muslims] have to avoid whatever contradicts Islamic teachings. In case they are obliged by law to uphold something contrary to Islamic teachings, they have to adhere to the minimum that the law requires of them. This idea–that Muslim Americans should uphold the laws of the land–is taught in mosques across the country with great unanimity, so the Islamophobic fear mongering is ill-founded. Conclusion The actions of Islamic extremists–such as the 9/11 hijackers and Major Nidal Hasan–flout the normative tradition of Islam and the teachings which millions of Muslim Americans follow. It is therefore inappropriate to conclude that the religion of Islam itself advocates such things, or that these attackers were simply following their religion. Such a thing is offensive to say and quite frankly inaccurate. In any case, it is too early to say with any level of certainty what Major Hasan’s motivations were. Was he an extremist or simply a guy who lost his marbles like so many other shooters? Whatever the case, one thing is for sure: his actions do not reflect the Islamic teachings nor the millions of law-abiding Muslim Americans. Every single point made in this article is a denial of the fundamental principles of Islam and makes halaal what Allah has made haraam and makes haraam what Allah has made halaal. I would cite legal evidence but not a single proof from a single reliable source in Islam was cited. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#4
agolutuaddiff Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 422 Senior Member	Every single point made in this article is a denial of the fundamental principles of Islam and makes halaal what Allah has made haraam and makes haraam what Allah has made halaal. I would cite legal evidence but not a single proof from a single reliable source in Islam was cited. Who's this article written by? The author seems being the Ikhwani-leaning Suhaib Webb.. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#5
Loovikeillilen Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 459 Senior Member	A similar article was written by Imam Zaid: Responding to the Fort Hood Tragedy By Imam Zaid on 12 November 2009 Category: Teachings This is my response to the Fort Hood tragedy and events both associated with it and ensuing from it. I begin by expressing my deepest condolences to the families of all of the dead and wounded. There is no legitimate reason for their deaths, just as I firmly believe there is no legitimate reason for the deaths of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians who have perished as a result of those two conflicts. Even though I disagree with the continued prosecution of those wars, and even though I believe that the US war machine is the single greatest threat to world peace, I must commend the top military brass at Fort Hood, and President Obama for encouraging restraint and for refusing to attribute the crime allegedly perpetrated by Major Nidal Malik Hasan to Islam. We pray that God bless us to see peace and sanity prevail during these tense times. Introduction One of the greatest foundations of Islam is truth. One of the ninety-nine names of God is al-Haqq (the Truth) It is unfair to distort the truth, to present falsehood as fact, or to present half-truths as definitive declarations. Truth, along with Goodness and Beauty are the three great transcendental realities that Islam and all other religions strive to aid us towards both realizing and actualizing in our lives. In the Arabic/Islamic lexicon these are known as al-Haqq (the Truth), al-Ihsan (Goodness), and al-Jamaal (Beauty). Concerning the truth, our Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, taught us to pray, Allahumma Arinal Haqqa Haqqan wa Zurqnat Tiba’ahu, “O God! Show us the truth as truth and bless us to follow it.” The Qur’an presents the truth as a powerful, self-evident reality that is distinguishable from falsehood without any need for extraneous clarification (2:256). The mere presence of the truth is enough to dispel the clouds of darkness and falsehood (17:81). Therefore, a great objective of our religion is discovering and then following the truth. One of the unfortunate consequences of tragic and highly emotive events like the shootings that recently occurred at Fort Hood, Texas, is that such events are used to advance agendas that by their very nature make a mockery of the truth. This event is no exception. There are those who seek to use this event to portray the Muslim community in this country as an inherent menace whose very existence has to be challenged. Traveling the length and breath of this country in the service of that community, I know this is not the truth. The Muslim community in this country is a peace-loving, law-abiding community that has in ways great and small advanced the general welfare of this nation and its citizenry. To present it otherwise is a blatant lie. Like any other community that has a fairly large percentage of immigrants among it members, the Muslim community does have those elements, especially older members or those newly arrived from the Muslim world whose strongest sentiments, emotional and cultural attachments may be towards the lands they have come from than to the country they find themselves in. This is true for many members of most immigrant populations. However, generally speaking, such attachments are not found among Muslims born and raised here, nor do they translate into animosity towards or a desire to do harm to this country. Saying that is not to deny the existence of Muslims who may be agitated by the injustices and inequities they find in American foreign policy, or the increasingly prejudicial or even racist attitudes being advanced by some parties towards America’s Muslims. Among them is a small minority whose anger and frustration may render them vulnerable to the appeal of demagogues who would attempt to exploit their emotions to advance a nefarious agenda, or a number of factors may converge in their lives pushing them towards acts of violence against their fellow citizens. This might prove to be the case for Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who has been identified as the shooter at Fort Hood, and a few other random individuals. However, it is not and never will be anything that can even begin to approach the norm in our community. There are those who will argue that the problem is those random “few” Muslims who may snap at any time. That is certainly a problem. However, if the recent history of this country is any indication, those few have been less in number and responsible for far less carnage than the “few” from the non-Muslim population, the postal workers, high school or university students, or the random individuals who have snapped and gone on to wreak havoc in our society.One of the great tragedies in this situation is to view the crime Major Hasan is being accused of as a specifically Muslim problem. It is a human problem and if it approached as such perhaps we can learn something from it that will help us to get to the roots of the violent outbursts that are becoming increasingly widespread in our society. We can debate the issue of violence at large in our society and we can debate the issue of “Muslim” violence. What is unequivocally true about the latter, to the extent that it does exist, is that attacks against the lives or property of American citizens in this country have nothing to do with Islam. There are no teachings from the normative corpus of Muslim political writings that allow a Muslim to violate the security of the public square, to endanger the lives of the general public, to attack non-combatant civilians, even in a battlefield situation, or to aggress against soldiers who are not in a battlefield. This is especially true where Muslims have entered into an explicit or implicit covenant of protection from non-Muslim political authorities and constitute a distinct minority in a particular land. Much of the balance of this article will be dedicated to presenting Islamic teachings that substantiate what I have mentioned above concerning the duties of Muslims to protect the public square in a non-Muslim land they may find themselves in, and those teachings that warn against foolhardy, ill-conceived attacks that only bring harm and hardship to innocent, unsuspecting people, Muslims among them. My argument is a direct refutation of Muslims who seek to distort Islamic teachings to motivate ignorant Muslims to undertake ill-advised and unsanctioned actions against the citizenry of this country. It also restates my position on this issue. [1] No Room for Vigilante Treachery in the Divine Law In his expansive work, al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi al-Siyasa al-Shar’iyya (Sanctioned Warfare and Fighting in the Divine Law) Muhammad Khayr Haykal mentions, concerning the implications accruing from an oath of protection: [2] The cessation of hostilities that is mentioned here might be a consequence of an oath of protection given by non-Muslims to Muslims, or a consequence of an oath of protection given by Muslims to non-Muslims. In both cases, it obligates a cessation of hostilities against the members of the opposing community who might technically be at war with the Muslims. [This is so] whether the Muslims have granted the oath of protection or it has been granted to them. [3] Haykal continues: It is not permissible for Muslims who have been granted an oath of protection from members of other communities to launch into fighting them, because this is treachery. [4] Two concepts are critical in what Haykal mentions here, one is the idea of treachery, and the other is the idea of reciprocity. Islam is predicated on honorable behavior. It is the height of dishonor to violate the trust that is extended to a person given the right to move about freely in a particular land based on the assumption that that person has accepted the responsibility to protect and preserve public order in that land and the lives and property of its people. In his commentary on al-Mughni, one of the definitive compendiums of Islamic law according to the Hanbali rite, Imam al-Maqdisi mentions in this regard, “If an oath of protection is given to a non-Muslim population, it is forbidden to fight them, usurp their wealth, or to expose them to any harm.” [5] Imam al-Shafi’i clarifies that this includes Muslims who have entered into a non-Muslim land. He states, “If a group of Muslims enter the land of non-Muslims with an oath of protection, the others are safe from them […] they [the Muslims] have no right to oppress or betray them.” [6] It should be clear that a Muslim is not allowed to transgress against non-Muslims as long as he or she resides in their lands under their protection. Any aggression from their quarter is unsanctioned treachery. If they feel they can no longer accept the perceived or real abuses or injustices of the host people then they are obliged to leave that land if remaining there would push them into acts of violence or aggression against the host community. The idea of reciprocity is critical in this particular area of inquiry. All of our major legal texts discuss this idea. It is the idea that the responsibilities expected of non-Muslims minorities in Muslim lands are incumbent on Muslims in non-Muslim lands. Hence, just as it would be unacceptable for a non-Muslim residing in a Muslim land to attack the people of that land, civilian or military, it is unacceptable for a Muslim residing in a non-Muslim land to engage in similar acts. This is an undeniable principle in our law. Hence, respecting it is not a stratagem or a convenient contingency; it is upholding an inviolable principle. It is also well-known amongst Muslim scholars that it is prohibited to undertake any acts that will result in widespread harm returning to Muslims. This is based on the prophetic Hadith, “There is no initiating or reciprocating harm.” [7] This Hadith has given rise to the legal maxim, “Harm is to be removed.” Hence, any action that is likely to result in widespread harm to Muslims is unsanctioned and necessarily removed. In the current political climate in America where the demonizing of Muslims has evolved into an industry, where rules of civility and the rejection of any meaningful anti-defamation statutes allow for indiscriminate calls to murder Muslims on public airwaves; where Mosques and other Muslim organizations are infiltrated by agent provocateurs who are encouraging Muslims to engage in acts that could potentially unleash waves of anti-Muslim venom, it is clear to anyone with a modicum of intellect that attacks such as the one occurring at Fort Hood have no Islamic sanction, neither in principle nor from a tactical point of view. Such attacks only give credence to those foul elements who desire to justify ongoing wars against Muslim populations. There are those in the Muslim world who think that by calling for such attacks they can draw America into deeper involvements in places such as Iraq or Afghanistan which will then become America’s Vietnam. Little do they realize that there are fanatical elements in these western lands that use such attacks to argue for a full-blown assault on Muslim lands as opposed to the current limited engagement. Some of those calls are for nuclear attacks, and their advocates would not be bothered seeing the number of dead Iraqis resulting from our involvement in that country growing from the currently lamentable number of over one million to five or six million. Little do those Muslims realize that they are encouraging elements that would bomb Afghan towns and villages with the same insane impunity that was visited upon places like Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg of Berlin during World War II; for they are arguing that Islam, like fascism, poses an existential threat to America and western civilization. One of the things giving any credence to their perverse arguments and turning a hesitate public towards their camp are belligerent actions they hope can be attributed to Muslims. We should neither contribute to such actions in deed nor should we applaud them. Ibn Juzayy mentions in Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar’iyya: If the Muslims know that they will be slaughtered in wholesale fashion it is fitting that they abandon fighting. If they know that they will be slaughtered and that their losses will do little to alter the strategic balance vis-à-vis the enemy forces, it is absolutely obligatory that they abandon any encounter. [8] Any Muslim who thinks that an unsanctioned act of violence he may undertake in this country is going to alter the strategic balance is grandly deluded or inexcusably ignorant. His undertaking any violent act in this country is additionally forbidden because he is likely going to be killed, gravely injured, or captured in the encounter. Imam al-Shawkani mentions in al-Sayl al-Jarrar, “It is well-known legal reasoning that one who strikes out [against an enemy] knowing beforehand that he will be killed, captured or vanquished, has hurled himself to destruction.” [9] Imam al-Shawkani goes on to explain that such an act is forbidden based on the Qur’anic verse, Do not hurl yourself to destruction with your own hands. (2:195) [10] The discouragement of foolhardy acts of desperation based on this verse, is also made by Ibn ‘Abideen in his commentary on al-Durr al-Mukhtar. [11] There is another salient point that we must mention in this context. No one, even in a Muslim land, has the right to undertake violent acts, even against a recognized enemy when the political authorities of that land determine that those acts will incur harm to Muslims [or other innocent people]. Dr. Haykal elaborates on this point at length: The lawful authorities in a land possess the right, and this right is similarly conferred by valid legislative principles, to absolutely prevent any method, or any organization whose very nature would result in consequences that would expose the Muslims to grave danger and harm. Therefore, when the legislative authorities perceive that something that may originally be permissible has consequences that involve any degree of harm, it is their responsibility to prevent that harm. Rather, it is incumbent on them to prevent it. This is accomplished by preventing individuals from arming themselves and preventing them from forming armed militias that are independent of the standing army. Indeed, the divine law has given the authorities a number of legislative principles to use in order to cut off any path where the winds of harm may blow from. [12] If this is the case for a Muslim country, what is the permissibility for vigilante acts and underground militias in a non-Muslim land where Muslims are forbidden to threaten public order or to independently implement any Islamic teachings related to strategic affairs? Finally, as implied above, Muslim leaders have the responsibility to protect the faithful from foolhardy acts that will lead to unnecessary lose of life, and to warn them again individuals who would lead them towards such acts. For this reason, ‘Umar bin al-Khattab, warned against reckless commanders who would expose the faithful to unnecessary hardship. This led to him advising his governors, “Do not appoint al-Bara’ ibn Malik over any Muslim army.” [13] This warning was issued owing to al-Bara’s known recklessness and his ill-consideration of the consequences of his actions for his troops. It is a shame that there are Muslims who have no connection with this country yet are recklessly and insensitively endorsing actions that endanger innocent Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They are not on the ground in this country and are therefore not attuned to the nature of the struggles and vulnerabilities of our community. Conclusion So what are the Muslims of this country to do in the aftermath of the tragedy at Fort Hood? We have to do the good things we were doing before it occurred. Indeed, we need to increase that good. Our civil rights can be assailed, we can be denied equal protection under the law, our lawful and law-abiding organizations can be closed down, but no one can take our dignity from us, no one can prevent us from being decent neighbors, honest workers, dedicated students, faithful citizens, and pious believers. Furthermore, no one can prevent us from engaging in a heroic struggle to secure our God-given and constitutionally-mandated rights, and from working for the creation of the kinds of policies that will prevent the current bloodletting that is occurring in some Muslim lands with the active complicity of our country’s military and security apparatuses. Certainly, the heightened levels of hate speech, the whispers of a coming backlash, and the elected officials who have gone on record promising to do nothing to mitigate such a backlash are all unsettling. However, if we preserve and remain ever mindful of the wise commandments that are available to guide our steps, we should rest assured that God will not abandon us. He states in the Qur’an, You will surely be tested in your property and your persons. And you will hear from [some of] those given the Scripture before you, and from the idolaters much abuse. If you patiently persevere, and remain mindful of God, surely this is a manifestation of prophetic resolution. (3:186) So brothers and sisters, at this time when very powerful and well-financed interests are rallying against us; at this time when we can entertain no real hope of meaningful support from any Muslim country, we have to redouble our dependence on God; we have to live for Him and seek our strength through him. Whoever remains mindful of Allah, He makes for him a way out, He bestows His sustenance upon him from directions he could never imagine, and one who places his trust in God finds that He suffices him… (65:2-3) This is the way of the Prophets, peace upon them. Let it be our way. Imam Zaid Shakir 11/11/09 Notes: [1] My position on a number of controversial issues has been stated at length, among other places in my book, Scattered Pictures: Reflections of an American Muslim, published in 2005 by the Zaytuna Institute, and a 4-CD set entitled, Looking Back to Look Ahead, produced by Zaytuna Institute in 2006. [2] In the modern context, such an oath of protection may result from the acceptance of citizenship, residency permits, visas issued for tourism, study or work, and other well-known means. [3] Muhammad Khayr Haykal, al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi al-Siyasa al-Shar’iyya (Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 1417/1996), 3:1499 [4] Haykal, 3:1502 [5] Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, al-Sharh al-Kabir ‘ala Matn al-Muqni’ (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi, 1372/1972), 10:555 [6] Imam Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i, Kitab al-Umm (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifa, nd), 4:248 [7] Ibn Majah, no. 2341 [8] Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi, Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar’iyya (Beirut: Dar al-‘Ilm li’l Malayin, 1374/1974), p. 165 [9] Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Shawkani, al-Sayl al-Jarrar (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1405/1985), 4:519 [10]There are those who argue that the correct interpretation of this verse is the opposite of what is implied here. Namely, it was encouraging those who stayed away from a battle in order to mind their crops and cattle to go forth to the fray lest they be destroyed by the advancing enemy forces. However, Imam al-Shawkani and others argue that the meaning is contingent on the situation. While that meaning may be the one applicable to the occasion of the verse’s revelation, to argue that the verse is discouraging involvement in foolhardy acts of desperation is also operative. This is so based on the interpretive principle, العبرة لعموم اللفظ لا لخصوص السبب al-‘Ibra li ‘Umum al-Lafdh, la li Khusus al-Sabab (The applicability of a verse is based on the generality of its wording not the specificity of its revelation). [11] See Imam Ibn ‘Abideen, Radd al-Muhtar ‘ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar (Cairo: Matba’ Khidaywi Isma’il, 1286), 3:337 [12] Haykal, 2:1008 [13] Imam Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Sarkhasi, Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir (Cairo: Jami’ al-Makhtutat Jami’ al-Duwal al-‘Arabiyya, 1372/1972), 1:62 Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#6
Patabeamn Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 447 Senior Member	Who's this article written by? The author seems being the Ikhwani-leaning Suhaib Webb.. In fact the entire premise was first developed by the Rand Corporation and the US Pentagon in conjunction with the MI6 to enlist media savy Muslims, particularly westerners, who could rally some modernists scholars who pose as traditoinalist to opiate the Muslims of the west into quietism as western nations attempt a recolonization of the Muslim world. A simple perusal of the Qur'anic verses regarding the obligation of hijra, their commentaries along with the subsequent legal rulings regarding sulhi, amaan, jizya, mu`ahida would easily debunct the entire premise of the argument. It builds its argument on a false pretext of a distorted understanding of 'contract'. The reality is that in Islam a contract is only valid if the contract is initially permissible. For example, if I were to follow the argument that would obligate a person to adhere to a contract which was initially forbidden in the first place. It would imply that if a person contracted a marriage contract with his sister that he wold herefore be obligated to adhere to the contract simply because he made the agreement! This is an illusion! There is not a single proof in Islam that [1] it was lawful for a muslim to immigrate and accept citizenship in a land governed by non Muslims in the first place; [2] even if this 'contract' were legal and binding, Islamic jurisrupence is unanimous regarding a non Muslim land which willfully invades a Muslim land, that any and all contractual agreements between Muslims and that land is invalidated automatically. The entire premise of the argument is based upon a modernist LIE rapped in the turban of 'tradition'. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#7
Filling25 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 425 Senior Member	In fact the entire premise was first developed by the Rand Corporation and the US Pentagon in conjunction with the MI6 to enlist media savy Muslims, particularly westerners, who could rally some modernists scholars who pose as traditoinalist to opiate the Muslims of the west into quietism as western nations attempt a recolonization of the Muslim world. A simple perusal of the Qur'anic verses regarding the obligation of hijra, their commentaries along with the subsequent legal rulings regarding sulhi, amaan, jizya, mu`ahida would easily debunct the entire premise of the argument. It builds its argument on a false pretext of a distorted understanding of 'contract'. The reality is that in Islam a contract is only valid if the contract is initially permissible. For example, if I were to follow the argument that would obligate a person to adhere to a contract which was initially forbidden in the first place. It would imply that if a person contracted a marriage contract with his sister that he wold herefore be obligated to adhere to the contract simply because he made the agreement! This is an illusion! There is not a single proof in Islam that [1] it was lawful for a muslim to immigrate and accept citizenship in a land governed by non Muslims in the first place; [2] even if this 'contract' were legal and binding, Islamic jurisrupence is unanimous regarding a non Muslim land which willfully invades a Muslim land, that any and all contractual agreements between Muslims and that land is invalidated automatically. The entire premise of the argument is based upon a modernist LIE rapped in the turban of 'tradition'. , THIS IS FIQH!! It's a real pleasure to have you on this forum, hope your collaboration will keep going and being fruitful insha'Allah! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#9
911_993_911 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 574 Senior Member	Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh! Takbeer! Allahu akbar! Takbeer! Allahu akbar! Takbeer! Allahu akbar! May Allah ta'ala give you a blessed death as shaheed fee sabeelillah! Amin! May Allah azza wa jallahu grant you a blessed death as shaheed fee sabeelillah! Amin! May Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala grant you a mubarak death as shaheed fee sabeelillah! Amin! My paining hearth needs more of this cool wind of truth blowing into my heart. Brother, please share more of your writings. Wassalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#10
Maydayvar Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 511 Senior Member	In fact the entire premise was first developed by the Rand Corporation and the US Pentagon in conjunction with the MI6 to enlist media savy Muslims, particularly westerners, who could rally some modernists scholars who pose as traditoinalist to opiate the Muslims of the west into quietism as western nations attempt a recolonization of the Muslim world. A simple perusal of the Qur'anic verses regarding the obligation of hijra, their commentaries along with the subsequent legal rulings regarding sulhi, amaan, jizya, mu`ahida would easily debunct the entire premise of the argument. It builds its argument on a false pretext of a distorted understanding of 'contract'. The reality is that in Islam a contract is only valid if the contract is initially permissible. For example, if I were to follow the argument that would obligate a person to adhere to a contract which was initially forbidden in the first place. It would imply that if a person contracted a marriage contract with his sister that he wold herefore be obligated to adhere to the contract simply because he made the agreement! This is an illusion! There is not a single proof in Islam that [1] it was lawful for a muslim to immigrate and accept citizenship in a land governed by non Muslims in the first place; [2] even if this 'contract' were legal and binding, Islamic jurisrupence is unanimous regarding a non Muslim land which willfully invades a Muslim land, that any and all contractual agreements between Muslims and that land is invalidated automatically. The entire premise of the argument is based upon a modernist LIE rapped in the turban of 'tradition'. simple logic really .... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#11
wrenjmerg Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 579 Senior Member	Major Nidal Hasan Conundrum This is a conundrum to US only. For the rest of the humanity it should not be very difficult to understand as to what went wrong. Here is the time line of the episode we are talking about. November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan of Fort Hood, Texas, USA killed thirteen servicemen and injured dozens in a shooting spree. His cousin, Nadir Hasan, later on told Fox News that Major Hasan had complained of of harassment because of his "Middle Eastern ethnicity" and had tried to leave the army. Maj Hassan, a military psychiatrist, was due to be deployed in Iraq. Maj Hasan was paralysed from the chest down after being shot by police during the incident at Fort Hood. He is being held at a special hospital cell about 15 miles (25km) from the base. His trial is in progress but might be delayed because he now sports a beard and that make his identification by the witnesses difficult. Major Hasan says that he has a premonition of death and would not like to die in a state of sin - by shaving his beard. The problem is, for the authorities court marshaling him, is whether to shave him forcibly or not. That is not the conundrum we are talking about. The conundrum is why did he behave the way he did. Some other facts that came out of the investigation are as follows. Major Hasan had given a talk in which he averred that those servicemen who want to leave the services should be allowed to do so because they do not agree with the objectives of war. Technically he did have that choice, it was allowed by the rules but the people he consulted gave him the opposite impression. Major Nidal Hasan, being US army psychiatrist, had the job to motivate the soldiers being deployed. In layman's terms his job will be to motivate US soldiers to kill Iraqis - his fellow Arabs. US expectations were and perhaps still would be that it will be alright, natural and logical for him to do the bidding. Is it really that simple? On the face of it we know Major Hasan just cracked up. In the history of mankind there have been very rare examples where people gave preference to the call of duty and acted against their family and near and dear ones. In India the most famous scripture, Gita, after the Vedas, is about that. It needs Krishna to motivate Arjun to go for the war against his own relatives. In Islam it was the company of the beloved Prophet (PBUH) and his rigorous training that could prevail upon some Companions (RA) to fight against their family members. In any society it is difficult to wage war against your family, blood relatives or your clan or race. US expectations from Major Hasan to motivate soldiers to kill Iraqis should be looked in that perspective. Not the perspective that the US media is clutching to - Major Nidal Malik Hasan's contact with Anwar Al-Awlaki - the only American targeted and martyred by the US in a missile attack in Yemen. It is strange that a country that is so advance in all academic discipline should be so naive in one of them - psychology. It is not rocket science - to use a cliche. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#12
Deseassaugs Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 457 Senior Member	It is simple really, they should allow people to leave the army if they want to...forcing someone to kill others on your behalf is just unacceptable. Major Nidal Hasan Conundrum This is a conundrum to US only. For the rest of the humanity it should not be very difficult to understand as to what went wrong. Here is the time line of the episode we are talking about. November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan of Fort Hood, Texas, USA killed thirteen servicemen and injured dozens in a shooting spree. His cousin, Nadir Hasan, later on told Fox News that Major Hasan had complained of of harassment because of his "Middle Eastern ethnicity" and had tried to leave the army. Maj Hassan, a military psychiatrist, was due to be deployed in Iraq. Maj Hasan was paralysed from the chest down after being shot by police during the incident at Fort Hood. He is being held at a special hospital cell about 15 miles (25km) from the base. His trial is in progress but might be delayed because he now sports a beard and that make his identification by the witnesses difficult. Major Hasan says that he has a premonition of death and would not like to die in a state of sin - by shaving his beard. The problem is, for the authorities court marshaling him, is whether to shave him forcibly or not. That is not the conundrum we are talking about. The conundrum is why did he behave the way he did. Some other facts that came out of the investigation are as follows. Major Hasan had given a talk in which he averred that those servicemen who want to leave the services should be allowed to do so because they do not agree with the objectives of war. Technically he did have that choice, it was allowed by the rules but the people he consulted gave him the opposite impression. Major Nidal Hasan, being US army psychiatrist, had the job to motivate the soldiers being deployed. In layman's terms his job will be to motivate US soldiers to kill Iraqis - his fellow Arabs. US expectations were and perhaps still would be that it will be alright, natural and logical for him to do the bidding. Is it really that simple? On the face of it we know Major Hasan just cracked up. In the history of mankind there have been very rare examples where people gave preference to the call of duty and acted against their family and near and dear ones. In India the most famous scripture, Gita, after the Vedas, is about that. It needs Krishna to motivate Arjun to go for the war against his own relatives. In Islam it was the company of the beloved Prophet (PBUH) and his rigorous training that could prevail upon some Companions (RA) to fight against their family members. In any society it is difficult to wage war against your family, blood relatives or your clan or race. US expectations from Major Hasan to motivate soldiers to kill Iraqis should be looked in that perspective. Not the perspective that the US media is clutching to - Major Nidal Malik Hasan's contact with Anwar Al-Awlaki - the only American targeted and martyred by the US in a missile attack in Yemen. It is strange that a country that is so advance in all academic discipline should be so naive in one of them - psychology. It is not rocket science - to use a cliche. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#13
TpDoctorOneTp Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 384 Senior Member	It is simple really, they should allow people to leave the army if they want to...forcing someone to kill others on your behalf is just unacceptable. Technically it was allowed but the people he consulted gave the opposite impression - perhaps they themselves did not know. There is power point presentation by Major Hasan where he explicitly says that people who do not agree with these wars should be allowed to leave. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#14
Argurnenoni Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 344 Senior Member	Technically it was allowed but the people he consulted gave the opposite impression - perhaps they themselves did not know. There is power point presentation by Major Hasan where he explicitly says that people who do not agree with these wars should be allowed to leave. Are you sure they are allowed? I think it is very difficult because many people might leave and they would be stuck without an army if they allowed anyone to leave. Quite a few go AWOL absent without leave and they are hunted as deserters. Bush and others escaped the military draft by some legal device. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#15
apatteopipt Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 392 Senior Member	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. the aim was to strike fear and terror into the hearts of kuffar. the terror is greater when the enemy is struck in their homeland rather than in the battlefield. it was not an emotional reaction to his impending deployment in afghanistan. yes he found this attack to be a way out of it but why he did it was because muslims cannot aid kuffar against fellow Muslims when the result of their aid is death of fellow Muslims and establishment of Kufr government. this point seems to be missing on many Muslims and esp Muslim rulers. among the many who have deemed such people out of Islam is Allama Qurtubi (rh) in his tafseer q qurtubi. people conveniently forget what the US did to Islam from 1948 to 2001 (when it was paid back some amount) .they conveniently forget what the US and its allies are doing to islam right now and the plans they have for Islam. all they see is their own American citizenship or residence and anybody threatening that is their enemy. they deem mujahideen as terrorist left right and center and that too without any strong evidence (you will notice that in their fatawa). for other Muslims in other countries J!had can be waged everywhere but inside their own countries. major nidal was in correspondence with sh. al-awlaki (rh). it may be worth reading the sheikh's views here (page 41; in english) also please see a fiqh discussion on this by sheikh nasir bin hamd al fahad (rh) who is imprisoned in saudi arabia. this booklet is in urdu (soon in english). Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#16
Tarrccrys Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 588 Senior Member	Are you sure they are allowed? I think it is very difficult because many people might leave and they would be stuck without an army if they allowed anyone to leave. Quite a few go AWOL absent without leave and they are hunted as deserters. Bush and others escaped the military draft by some legal device. When the story unfolded at the time of the incident this is the point that came out - that he did have the option but the advisers gave him the opposite impression. It is true there are deserters but that is a different problem. 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. the aim was to strike fear and terror into the hearts of kuffar. the terror is greater when the enemy is struck in their homeland rather than in the battlefield. it was not an emotional reaction to his impending deployment in afghanistan. yes he found this attack to be a way out of it but why he did it was because muslims cannot aid kuffar against fellow Muslims when the result of their aid is death of fellow Muslims and establishment of Kufr government. this point seems to be missing on many Muslims and esp Muslim rulers. among the many who have deemed such people out of Islam is Allama Qurtubi (rh) in his tafseer q qurtubi. people conveniently forget what the US did to Islam from 1948 to 2001 (when it was paid back some amount) .they conveniently forget what the US and its allies are doing to islam right now and the plans they have for Islam. all they see is their own American citizenship or residence and anybody threatening that is their enemy. they deem mujahideen as terrorist left right and center and that too without any strong evidence (you will notice that in their fatawa). for other Muslims in other countries J!had can be waged everywhere but inside their own countries. major nidal was in correspondence with sh. al-awlaki (rh). it may be worth reading the sheikh's views here (page 41; in english) also please see a fiqh discussion on this by sheikh nasir bin hamd al fahad (rh) who is imprisoned in saudi arabia. this booklet is in urdu (soon in english). I'll try to read the links but you are allowing your wishes to cloud the reality. If you see the power point presentation by Major Nidal Hasan it is clear that he was wishing for a way out of the US army. He was ready to pay the Army back. This clearly indicates that there was no intention on his part to single handely take on the US might. It was simple frustration of being put in an impossible situation. Major Hasan is a victim of an insensitive, actually inapt, system - not a rebel. PS: Both links have been blocked by my local admin. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#17
courlerwele Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 393 Senior Member	I'll try to read the links but you are allowing your wishes to cloud the reality. If you see the power point presentation by Major Nidal Hasan it is clear that he was wishing for a way out of the US army. He was ready to pay the Army back. This clearly indicates that there was no intention on his part to single handely take on the US might. It was simple frustration of being put in an impossible situation. Major Hasan is a victim of an insensitive, actually inapt, system - not a rebel. PS: Both links have been blocked by my local admin. i did not say that it wasnt one of the reasons. i am saying it wasnt the only reason. i doubt it is my wishful thinking: "During his psychiatry fellowship at USUHS, Air Force Lt. Col. Dr. Val Finnell, a graduate school classmate in the MPH program, said that while other students' projects focused on topics such as water contamination, Hasan's project dealt with "whether the war on terror is a war against Islam." According to retired Colonel Terry Lee, "He said 'maybe Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor'. At first we thought he meant help the armed forces, but apparently that wasn't the case. Other times he would make comments we shouldn't be in the war in the first place." http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...rt-hood-hasan7 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572405,00.html he was in contact with sh. al-awlaki. if you can find a way (hint:ultrasurf) to read those links you would see what the sheikh says and why every Muslim who accepts the sheikh's teachings does exactly what major nidal did. it is an ideology that requires time to understand. (my 4shared account has been blocked? the second link is from there) Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#18
Farson Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 538 Senior Member	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? Or only the Pakistani military can be rightly attacked? 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? 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. 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. the aim was to strike fear and terror into the hearts of kuffar. the terror is greater when the enemy is struck in their homeland rather than in the battlefield. it was not an emotional reaction to his impending deployment in afghanistan. yes he found this attack to be a way out of it but why he did it was because muslims cannot aid kuffar against fellow Muslims when the result of their aid is death of fellow Muslims and establishment of Kufr government. this point seems to be missing on many Muslims and esp Muslim rulers. among the many who have deemed such people out of Islam is Allama Qurtubi (rh) in his tafseer q qurtubi. people conveniently forget what the US did to Islam from 1948 to 2001 (when it was paid back some amount) .they conveniently forget what the US and its allies are doing to islam right now and the plans they have for Islam. all they see is their own American citizenship or residence and anybody threatening that is their enemy. they deem mujahideen as terrorist left right and center and that too without any strong evidence (you will notice that in their fatawa). for other Muslims in other countries J!had can be waged everywhere but inside their own countries. major nidal was in correspondence with sh. al-awlaki (rh). it may be worth reading the sheikh's views here (page 41; in english) also please see a fiqh discussion on this by sheikh nasir bin hamd al fahad (rh) who is imprisoned in saudi arabia. this booklet is in urdu (soon in english). Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#19
ImapFidaarram Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 537 Senior Member	i did not say that it wasnt one of the reasons. i am saying it wasnt the only reason. i doubt it is my wishful thinking: "During his psychiatry fellowship at USUHS, Air Force Lt. Col. Dr. Val Finnell, a graduate school classmate in the MPH program, said that while other students' projects focused on topics such as water contamination, Hasan's project dealt with "whether the war on terror is a war against Islam." According to retired Colonel Terry Lee, "He said 'maybe Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor'. At first we thought he meant help the armed forces, but apparently that wasn't the case. Other times he would make comments we shouldn't be in the war in the first place." http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...rt-hood-hasan7 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572405,00.html he was in contact with sh. al-awlaki. if you can find a way (hint:ultrasurf) to read those links you would see what the sheikh says and why every Muslim who accepts the sheikh's teachings does exactly what major nidal did. I had read these things at that time. Even at that time I got no impression that Major Hasan was on a mission of any kind. He simply displayed a Muslim mindset which can see through some of the American rhetoric. Nothing more than that. 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? Or only the Pakistani military can be rightly attacked? 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? 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 military court will not get to hear my words but I would like to shout that Major Hasan is not guilty. Because of the above circumstances. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#20
FuXA8nQM Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 586 Senior Member	May I say lol akhi? Let me tell you the end result. I have gone through so many ideologies by now that these do not impress me any more. By now I am more interested in whether my Surah Fatiha is correct in Tajweed or not. ( It is not!) It weighs rather heavy on my conscience - heavier than the life after Higgs. I kid you not. well that is rather unfortunate. it is not about being impressed or not. it is about duty. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote