Muslim for the sake of...?

 

A Muslim for the Sake of the Disbelievers

In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

By: Shaykh "Abu Nour"

(Copy pasted from a forum post)

I recently received this email from a brother.  Question:

"Aassalamualaikum sheikh. i loved your works, enjoyed and learned from them. i do desire to become one of the mujahideen but not as you describe. i desire to become a mujahid in da’wah and learning and believe this is the right path. I heard and read some of your views on what the muslims should do and belive them not to be true. i think you should review your works and when you find the true path, apologize about your previous works. jihad cant be the right path because this is a religion of peace and if we go around killing everyone, it would be wrong for us to call this religion a religion of peace. what the muslims should do is evacuate palistine and afghanistan and continue with the da’wah and the rest is with ALLAH inshalah."

Answer:

Just like there is a Muslim for the sake of Allah, there is a new phenomenon of a Muslim for the sake of the disbelievers. And just like the Muslim for the sake of Allah does everything thinking what will Allah will think of me, the Muslim for the sake of the disbelievers does everything thinking what the disbelievers would think of him. So when a Muslim speaks out he does so to please Allah and when our other Muslim does not speak out he does so in order to please the disbelievers. When a Muslim fights he does so for the sake of Allah and when this other Muslim does not fight -even though he has every reason to do so- he does that in order not to displease the disbelievers. Obviously this is not expressed as such but is packaged in nice terms such as ‘this is not good for dawa’, or ‘this would turn away the people from Islam’.

Allah says: “It is not your responsibility to guide people but it is Allah who guides whomever He wills”

This Muslim is obsessed with his image in front of the disbelievers. He is so obsessed with it that it becomes his standard for wala and bara. So he loves the Muslims who present the ‘good boy’ image to the disbelievers and he despises the Muslims who give Muslims a ‘bad name’.

Rasulullah (saaws) says: One of you does not achieve full Imaan until he loves for Allah, dislikes for Allah, gives for Allah and holds back for Allah.

This Muslim is so aggressive and intolerant with his fellow Muslims but is tolerant and kind towards the disbelievers. He is an extremist with Muslims and a moderate with disbelievers.

Whenever the interests of the disbelievers are threatened or harmed by Muslims he is the first to jump to their defense. He would speak against his brothers and betray them. He may even advise Muslims to spy against one another and report to the authorities. For him fighting for Islam, and for the ummah is terrorism, but he manages to shop for a fatwa that would allow him to serve in the armies of the disbelievers and fight against his brothers. Being a Muslim for the sake of the disbelievers permeates his every action. If he meets a Muslim he frowns and if he meets a disbeliever his face beams with a smile.

Infact there are some Muslims who are so much Muslim for the sake of kuffar that they do not even like Muslims who call the kuffar kuffar!

I mentioned that this is a new phenomenon because this only came about in these later times. The Muslims of the early times would care less about the kuffar, and if they ever did it was for the sake of Allah and not for their sake.

But lets put things in proper perspective:

Allah says about the disbelievers: “They are like cattle, nay, they are even more misguided”

And Rasulullah says about the believer: “Tearing down al Kaaba stone by stone is less than shedding the blood of a Muslim”

Pagan (shirk) origins of "Christmas"

 

Topic: the true meaning of Christmas

- Is Christmas a show of respect for the birth of Jesus?

- In ancient pagan times, the last day of winter in the Northern Hemisphere was celebrated as the night that the Great Mother Goddess gives birth to the baby Sun God. It is also called Yule, the day a huge log is added to a bonfire, around which everyone would dance and sing to awaken the sun from its long winter sleep.

In Roman times, it became the celebrations honouring Saturnus (the harvest god) and Mithras (the ancient god of light), a form of sun worship that had come to Rome from Syria a century before with the cult of Sol Invictus. It announced that winter is not forever, that life continues, and an invitation to stay in good spirit.

- You may wonder what this has to do with the birth of Jesus (as); let’s be clear- Christmas has NOTHING to do with the birth of Jesus and I’ll explain why

- To avoid persecution during the Roman pagan festival, early Christians decked their homes with Saturnalia holly. As Christian numbers increased and their customs prevailed, the celebrations took on a Christian observance. But the early church actually did not celebrate the birth of Christ in December until Telesphorus, who was the second Bishop of Rome from 125 to 136AD, declared that Church services should be held during this time to celebrate "The Nativity of our Lord and Saviour." However, since no-one was quite sure in which month Christ was born, Nativity was often held in September, which was during the Jewish Feast of Trumpets (modern-day Rosh Hashanah). In fact, for more than 300 years, people observed the birth of Jesus on various dates.

In the year 274AD, solstice fell on 25th December. Roman Emperor Aurelian proclaimed the date as "Natalis Solis Invicti," the festival of the birth of the invincible sun. In 320 AD, Pope Julius I specified the 25th of December as the official date of the birth of Jesus Christ.

- “Pagan customs centering around the January calends gravitated to Christmas.” Under “Natal Day,” Origen, an early Catholic writer, admitted, “…In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world”

Islamic texts that prohibit Muslims from saying "Merry Xmas" or celebrating it

 

Celebrating the holidays of the kuffar is an act of imitation which is forbidden in Islam. Allah's Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم warned us against it. At-Tirmidhi narrated that Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه reported that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: "He is not one of us who imitates other than us. Do not imitate the Jews or the Christians."

At-Tabarani and Abu Dawud narrated that Ibn Umar and Hudhayfah رضي الله عنه reported that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: "Whoever imitates a people, he is one of them."

Furthermore, there are many Islamic evidences that forbid the Muslims from having holidays other than Eid-ul-Fitr and Eid-ul-Adhaa. Al-Bayhaqi reported in his Sunan that Anas Bin Maalik رضي الله عنه said: "When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم came to Medina, the people had two holidays from the days of Jahiliyyah."

He صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: "When I came to you, you had two days which you used to celebrate in Jahiliyyah. Allah سبحانه وتعالى has replaced them for you with better days, the days of slaughter (Adhaa) and the day of fitr."

- Umar ibn al-Khattaab said: “Avoid the enemies of Allaah on their festivals.”It was reported with a saheeh isnaad from Abu Usaamah: ‘Awn told us from Abu’l-Mugheerah from ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr: “Whoever lives in the land of the non-Arabs and celebrates their New Year and their festivals, and imitates them until he dies in that state, will be gathered with them on the Day of Resurrection.”‘

- When people say “exchanging gifts is a sunnah and meeting with family”, are their relatives gathering on that day and exchanging gifts solely for the sake of the sunnah? Or is it to keep up with the Jones’s? If it is “because everyone has the day off so why not?” then ask yourself, do you mark may and august bank holidays with family gatherings and exchanging gifts or does everyone make a point of feeling December 25^th has to be marked with the roast dinner and mince pies?

- as Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allaah have mercy on him, said in Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah: "Congratulating the kuffaar on the rituals that belong only to them is haraam by consensus, as is congratulating them on their festivals and fasts by saying ‘A happy festival to you’ or ‘May you enjoy your festival,’ and so on. If the one who says this has been saved from kufr, it is still forbidden. It is like congratulating someone for prostrating to the cross, or even worse than that. It is as great a sin as congratulating someone for drinking wine, or murdering someone, or having illicit sexual relations, and so on.

- Whoever does anything of this sort is a sinner, whether he does it out of politeness or to be friendly, or because he is too shy to refuse, or for whatever other reason, because this is hypocrisy in Islaam, and because it makes the kuffaar feel proud of their religion. 

Allaah is the One Whom we ask to make the Muslims feel proud of their religion

- Also hasn’t it occurred to anyone that when Muslims take part in these things, it puts twice as much pressure on other Muslims trying to avoid it when you get Christians approaching them saying “oh but my Muslim colleague at work comes to Christmas parties every year” and then think how hard it gets for converts who are from non Muslim families as well.

- Besides, in light of what’s mentioned in the Sunnah about imitation of disbelievers (which is mainly regarding their religious practises, not their technology), how can anyone justify rebranding this as a sunnah knowing the origins of why this day was marked in the first place?

Capitalists took their economy as Ilah besides Allah (swt)

And, verily, We did destroy the places of which you see ruins about you, and We showed them Our signs in diverse ways that they might turn (away from their wrong ways to Us). So why did not those whom they had made their ilahs, and presumed to have access to Us, help them in their hour of doom? Far from helping, they abandoned them and made themselves scarce, exposing the hollowness of their falsehoods and fabrications.

(46 : 27, 28) Surat Al Ahqa'af

Now more than ever, this COVID 19 pandemic has exposed man’s inherent vulnerability and sheer helplessness before Allah (swt). It has also exposed the weakness of the Ilah (false deities) known as Capitalist economies: built by the kufaar to showcase their prowess, strength, dominance and arrogance and what they believed to be their superiority. They can make new tanks, new fighter jets and build as many military bases as they want wherever they want but they still cannot escape from Allah (swt). Centuries of medical knowledge and the latest technological advancements are still playing catch up.

Say (O Prophet) :"Do you see what it is you invoke besides God ? Show me what it is they have created on earth, or have they a share in the heavens ? ... And who is more astray than one who invokes besides God such as will answer him not (though he call to him till) the Day of Judgment"
(46:4,5) Surat Al Ahqaf

Many Muslims assume that these are “Christian” nations, but in recent decades, I have sensed that these nations no longer worship Jesus (as) as Ilah besides Allah (swt)- rather their faith, their ideology, their yardstick for deciding what is right and wrong is more steeped in the concepts of “rugged individualism” (work for what you get and leave no room for welfare or compassion in governance), “survival of the fittest” (and let the weaker ones in society flounder, become demonised as a burden on society and die) and the unspoken rule of “life’s purpose is to prop up our economy no matter what the cost”. This is why the governments in both Britain and America reacted to the pandemic with statements like “take it on the chin” and pushed for the economy to be the highest priority over and above the health and wellbeing of the general population and this is why they were initially quite happy with the idea of letting elderly (so called “inactive” or “unproductive) people die to avoid having to pay pensions. It was only when large numbers of young and working age people became sick and overwhelmed the hospitals that these governments took the pandemic more seriously- otherwise they would’ve been happy to let it run its course and to bump off as many elderly, sick and disabled people as possible to alleviate what they’d call a “burden on society” or “bed blockers”.

These ideological concepts are heavily pushed by both the mainstream (and hard right wing) media, big businesses and the governments in America, Britain as well as Hungary, Brazil and some other countries. Gradually France, Germany and Austria seem to also be heading in the same direction in recent years.

Have you noticed the men who has made his selfish desires his ilah ? Can you assume any responsibility about such a one?
(25:43) Surat Al Forqa'an

“Here we have yet another concept of ilah... Here there is no element of the supernatural. The ilah here is some human being, or man's own selfish ego or selfish desires. No prayers are offered to it, nor is it regarded as being in a position to will any harm or benefit to someone nor is it looked to for help or succor. It is an ilah in the sense that its dictates are accepted and obeyed to such extent that that which it declares to be permitted or prohibited is treated as such, and it is deemed to have an inherent right to make us do or not do certain things, with no higher or superior authority whose approval might be necessary for its orders or which might be appealed to against them.”- Maulana Mawdudi

In this context, “Ilah” does not even refer to someone who is prayed to, but rather someone or some thing that is given supreme authority to make life and death decisions and whose judgement is taken as criteria for defining right and wrong, even when it is known to be inconsistent, contradictory and wrong. This should serve as a wake up call to all those Muslims who were mesmerised by the West and taught to replace their reverence for the ideology of Islam with reverence for the nations who posed as role models of Capitalist democracies. They sold a lie that if the general public poured life long efforts into serving and dying for this golden calf known as “the economy”’, that it’ll pay them back dividends in the form of a better life for their children- only to discover that in return for all their efforts, higher education has become unaffordable, the NHS is being sold off and outsourced like a golden arches franchise, affordable housing is increasingly out of reach and even before this crisis, over a million people in Britain were in “food poverty” (ie too poor to afford food) and one in four children in London were turning up to school hungry. These numbers of desperately poor and hungry people will rise exponentially under the lockdown and homelessness will rise even more when the lockdown is lifted.

We’ve been conditioned to ASPIRE to a way of life like that. People are crying out to RETURN to that when we know full well the evils of Capitalism has not only caused harm and misery to the lives of millions of their own citizens, it has also caused misery to millions in the Muslim world being bombed daily. It has also caused misery to millions in developing nations in South America, Africa and Asia. The Primark factory fire in Bangladesh should have been a wake up call that Unfair trade and exploitation are the default standards under Capitalism around the world and examples of this can be found everywhere. Child labourers are used to find minerals in Africa for our mobile phones and slave labour is being used in the chocolate industry. Isn’t it time we broke the shackles of our conditioning and unlearned those values to make room in our minds and our hearts for what the Creator (swt) ordained for us? And who can know better as to which way of life, which economic and justice system, which values, which criteria for right and wrong is best for creation other than the One who created us?

And He alone is the Ilah in the heavens and the Ilah in the earth; and He alone is the all-Wise, the all-Knowing (that is, He alone possesses the wisdom and the knowledge required for governing such a Domain).
(43:84) Surat Az Zukhruf

Can He Who creates, and he who does not, be alike ? Have you not sense to realize this simple fact ? ...And those whom the people pray to other than Allah, do not create anything and are themselves created ;your ilah is only one Ilah.(16 : 17-20) Surat Al Nahl

O mankind: Call unto mind the grace of God unto you; is there any Creator besides Allah, to give you sustenance from heaven or earth ; there is no ilah but He; how, then, are you deluded from Truth ?
(35 : 3) Surat Fatir

Permission to share. I also recommend reading this article by Mawlana Maududi discussing the meaning of “Ilah”: https://www.islam101.com/tauheed/ilah.htm

(Originally posted in May 2020 during the Covid 19 pandemic lockdown)

Muslimah feminists

Allah (swt) created humans and jinn to worship Him. Our purpose in life is to seek the pleasure of Allah. The way we conduct ourselves should be on the basis of accepting what is halal and avoiding what is haram. I am not seeing that here.

Whereas a Muslimah's dhikr should be "SubhanAllah, Alhamdullilah, Allahu akbar", the daily dhikr of this place is "Misogyny, misogyny misogyny". If an Islamic rule suits what you like, then you pursue it and if an Islamic rule is not to your liking, you pretend it's haram, accuse second wives of committing adultery cos' YOU don't like their nikah and whether Allah (swt) accepts the nikah or not is irrelevant.

You shared the post from a so called "sista" a couple of months back whose posts are more reflective of the "Quran only" kufar or some kind of apostate as she had the audacity to demean people who turn to "ancient texts" as a source of guidance. When I tried pointing this out, everyone was too busy applauding her BS to even notice because who cares whether this is acceptable in Islam or not, as long as it's in keeping with the whole bandwagon you've got going on here.

It's not exactly a secret that this reference to "ancient texts", she wasn't being ambiguous in suggesting that the guidance of the Sunnah and our Sahaba and classical scholars (may Allah be pleased with them) is somehow outdated, irrelevant. As such "ancient texts" are not in keeping with the whole "Let's put what us group of women want first and fit bits of Islam in only where it suits us (the same thing you accuse men of doing)", you habitually discard parts of Islam because Islam comes second and your crusade against misogyny comes first.

I'm not oblivious to the problems of the Ummah. Even Islam is not oblivious; that is why Islam forbids forced marriage, Islam forbids oppression, Islamic law punishes rape and so on- so it is Islam that can prevent many of these societal ills and Islam would prevent them if it were applied instead of being discarded due to the whims and desires of people (men or women) with vested interest agendas. I'm not oblivious to the crimes committed against Muslim women, whether by fellow Muslims or by non Muslims, but where we should be turning to Islam for the solutions to our problems, too many people here are more interested in discarding the parts of Islam that aren't in keeping with their agenda. Islam is not good enough for you that you have to look elsewhere and prefer the answers of the people of misguidance- this is shirk. Shame on you! Peace be upon those who follow guidance.

(This message was my final post before I left a so called “Muslim women’s” online group which had little to do with Muslims/Islam and was more about pushing a hardcore feminist agenda-)

(Originally posted on Facebook in June 2017)

Is it haram to vote in a democracy?

The creed of ISLAM is not only spiritual

Islam is incorrectly understood and portrayed as a religion that deals only with belief in a "God", life after death, rituals and moral issues. However, many are aware that Islam is a complete way of life that provides solutions for life’s affairs. There are laws dealing with economics, politics, judiciary, war and international relations. These all stem from the same source as do the laws governing rituals and morals. Even though Muslims still pray and fast in the same manner as did their predecessors - according to the Divine Law revealed to the Last Prophet Muhammad (saw) - they are not referring nowadays to the same source when it comes to ruling and politics.

If the creed of Islam is correctly understood then it will result in unique behaviour, having shaped those who have both understood and believed in it. Not only will such people pray and fast according to what Allah has revealed, they will also refer to the Divine revelation to solve problems politically. The Qur’an, which mentions prayer and fasting, also mentions ruling by Islam. The Messenger (saw) of Allah (swt) not only prayed and fasted; he (saw) was also the head of the Islamic State in Medina. He (saw) sent envoys to other countries, battles were fought and the society was governed according to Islam alone under his (saw) authority. Those who led the Muslims after the death of the Messenger of Allah (swt) were known by the title of Khalifah or Imam or Sultan. They ruled over the Muslims, all of whom had at least a pledge of allegiance on their necks to them.

The existence of kings, presidents and prime ministers ruling over Muslims in the Islamic lands has absolutely no validity whatsoever. Also, countries with those rulers with titles such as "Sheikh", "Emir" and "Sultan" are equally invalid. These counties have fixed borders and are considered "sovereign states" by the so-called international community. In reality Muslim lands were, and should be, one state (under one leader) whose frontiers are temporary, not permanent. This is because the Islamic State should expand, liberating people from living under systems of disbelief.

Monarchies and republics are products of the human mind and are therefore a source of the misery the world is experiencing today. Enslavement occurs in the name of freedom and democracy. These supposedly sanitised terms are used to cover up the corruption inherent in Capitalism. Communism itself claimed to provide justice but proved to be just as deceptive as Capitalism.

The creed of Islam is unique in that it is both a spiritual and a political creed. It is the correct creed that agrees with human nature and convinces the mind. The unique systems emanating from this creed are not from man - they are from Allah (swt), the Creator of humanity and the universe. The creed of Islam does not allow itself to be mixed with any other way of life. Simply, there is Islam and Kufr (i.e. non-Islam). This incompatibility with all other ways should leave the Muslim nation standing firm and proud.

Democracy

Democracy is the political framework of the Capitalist thought, i.e. the ruling system that the Capitalist states and their like implement. Democracy, for those who embrace it, means that people rule themselves by themselves with the systems that they choose. Oftentimes, Capitalists refer to their system as “The Democratic System”, but such a connotation is incorrect for more than one reason: Democracy was not innovated by the Capitalists but had been preceded by the Greeks. Moreover, they were not the only ones who implemented it; the Marxist-Socialists claimed that they were democrats and they consistently pretended that they implemented democracy.

The most important element of democracy is that it makes the human being and not the Creator as the legislator, which is logical for those who call for the detachment of religion from life because this detachment means to transfer the right to legislate from the Creator to the human being. The Capitalists, in this issue did not discuss whether the Creator has obliged man to follow a certain law and implement it in his life, nor did they even examine this issue at all, rather they appointed man as the legislator without any discussion.

For Muslims to adopt democracy means to disbelieve in all - may Allah forbid - the decisive and conclusive evidences, among which are many Qur’anic verses which oblige them to follow the law of Allah and to reject any other law. Moreover, these verses consider any one of them who does not follow or implement the law of Allah as either a Kafir, a zalim, or a fasiq:

"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are non-believers (kafiroon)." [TMQ 5:44]
"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are oppressors (zalimoon)." [TMQ 5:45]
"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are transgressors (fasiqoon)." [TMQ 5:47]

Thus, whoever does not rule by whatever Allah has revealed, denying Allah’s right to legislate, as is the case with those who believe in democracy, is a Kafir according to the explicit words of the Qur’an, because by doing so he is rejecting those decisive verses, and denying a conclusive text makes a person a Kafir as the Muslim Fuqaha’ agreed unanimously.

Non-Muslim governments and their agents who rule the Muslim countries, as well as all those who call for democracy who are counted from among the Muslims, whether they are individuals or movements, realise that the basis for democracy is the rejection of the law of Allah and putting man in the place of the Creator. For this reason, they do not present democracy from this perspective, but instead claim that democracy means people ruling themselves by themselves, with equality and justice prevailing among the people, and the accountability of the ruler guaranteed. Although democracy explicitly implies the rejection of the laws of Allah and following the law of His creation, the advocates of democracy intentionally avoid addressing the issue of rejecting the law of Allah.

The remaining claims of democracy have no actual reality; the claim that people rule themselves by themselves is a major fallacy. In all Capitalist Democratic societies, people do not rule themselves by themselves. In reality, people are ruled by a certain group of influential people, such as the prominent Capitalists in the United States and the aristocrats in England, which are two of the most deeply rooted Capitalist Democratic countries. These influential groups in the Capitalist countries hold the necessary means to bring whoever they want into the government and legislative assemblies (parliaments) so that the laws that are passed and those charged with their implementation would be serving their interests.

Regarding what is claimed about equality, justice, and accountability of the rulers, these are all theoretical, without any compatibility with reality. It is enough for one to look to America, the leader of the democratic world, to find that equality, justice, and accountability are all selective, enjoyed and practised by those who have a particular colour, religion, race, or financial wealth.

The suffering faced by the blacks, Indians, those of Latin and Asian origins, those who are not Protestant, and those who are not from Western European backgrounds are evidence enough that what is claimed of democracy is - despite some exceptional cases - merely theory. Consequently, it is not allowed for a Muslim to accept democracy, because it gives man what is entitled exclusively for the Creator. It is obligatory upon every Muslim to reject it.

The correct way to organise life's affairs can only come from the creator of human life
Human beings have clearly been created - they have not always existed and have thus been brought into existence from non-existence by their Eternal Creator, Allah (swt), Who did not leave humanity without a way to satisfy it's needs, whether these be related to the instinct of religiousness, survival of the species or survival of the self. These needs are from Allah (swt), human beings themselves being totally unable to discard them.

Many people falsely claim that all religions are 'different ways to God', the implication being that each is as valid as the other. However, just because someone says that they believe in a particular creed doesn’t make that belief or set of beliefs correct. For example, beliefs such as there being more than one god or that God is 3 persons in 1 trinity are absolutely incorrect as they are not based on reason, just like the creeds of Communism and Capitalism. The common denominator is that they are all products of the fallible human intellect, claiming that they can attain nearness to God, meaning therefore that limited human beings can have knowledge of their Creator, Who has no beginning and no end – something which is absolutely false. That they worship lifeless matter which has absolutely no power to harm or benefit should indicate how declined such people are, for how you live life depends upon your concepts about it.

There is nobody or nothing worthy of worshipping except Allah (swt), The Eternal Creator. No human can know not just how to worship Allah (swt) but, also, why we exist and how to live in the life of this temporal world can only be known through Divine revelation i.e. via messengers sent by The Creator. The final messenger of Allah (swt), Muhammad (saw), was sent to show us all how to worship The Creator of everything. It was to Muhammad (saw) that the Qu'ran was revealed in the Arabic language, the Qu'ran being the speech of The Creator and His Shariah (Law); and it is the Qu'ran which provides the (continuous) proof that Muhammad (saw) is indeed sent by The Creator of the universe, for no human is capable of producing the like of the Qu'ran – a matter of irrefutable fact. It should, therefore, be very clear that humanity has not been left without the way in which to live in the life of this world, so that success may be achieved in it as well as in the Hereafter which will not end.

The root cause behind sectarian violence in Iraq

“Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners,” Zolqadr said. “If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers”.
This article was written a few years ago but the contents are still relevant.
The arrest of two British agents disguised as Shiite “terrorists” with a car full of explosives in Basra suggests that British occupation forces are involved in Iraq’s so-called sectarian bombings, which, until now have been unclaimed and unexplained acts of senseless violence.

After shooting and killing Iraqi police and civilians in Basra, two British agents from the Special Air Service (SAS) or a branch organization of the special forces, disguised as suicide bombers from the Mehdi Army, were caught “red-handed” in a car loaded with explosives. After failing to secure the release from the local police of their two captured agents through negotiations, British forces took extraordinary action and bulldozed the prison in Basra and threatened the Iraqi police officers at gunpoint until their agents of terror were turned over.

While the front pages of British papers on Sept. 20 carried photos of a burning tank involved in the first attempt to release the men, the much more significant – but largely obscured – story was in thedetails of the two British agents “whose arrest set Basra ablaze,” as the Daily Mail wrote.

The International Herald Tribune, the American-based paper published by The New York Times, did not even mention the important events in Basra that appear to have exposed an actual source of the so-called sectarian terrorism in Iraq. The Washington Post reported that the two Britons had been accused “of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives.” The governor of Basra, Mohammed al-Waili, said the British agents had been arrested after shooting two policemen and killing one.“They were driving a civilian car and were dressed in civilian clothes when a shooting took place between them and Iraqi patrols,” an official said. “We are investigating and an Iraqi judge is on the case questioning them.”

“The men were said to have had guns and explosives with them,” the BBC and British papers reported. Paul Wood of the BBC said the two British agents were probably on a covert mission to get intelligence needed to stop further attacks on British troops. “Their weapons, explosives and communications gear are standard kit for British special forces,” Wood said. He did not mention if that was also the case with their wigs or Arab clothing.

However, it seems highly unlikely that the two non-Arab British agents with wigs could have gotten past the front door in any infiltration attempt. Their disguises would have failed to fool any Iraqi who got close enough to speak with them.

In a statement, British Brigadier John Lorimer said that under Iraqi law the “soldiers” should have been handed over to coalition authorities. When negotiations failed to secure the release of the British agents, a British armoured personnel carrier flattened a wall of the prison. The attack on the prison involved a dozen military vehicles and helicopters. The British command was clearly urgently concerned about what the men might have revealed to Iraqi police under interrogation.

Gov. al-Waili called the operation a “barbaric act of aggression.”

While the significance of the British terrorists in disguise was not discussed in the mainstream media, it was more fully investigated by Socialist Worker, an on-line news site of the Socialist Party of Britain.
Sheikh Hassan al-Zarqani, a Basra-based spokesperson for rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, told Socialist Worker that the two British agents had been armed with explosives and a remote control detonator.
The two bearded British agents had been wearing black wigs and disguised as members of Sadr’s militia, the Mehdi Army, when they were caught. This is a commonly employed tactic of “false flag terrorism” often used by the Israeli secret services in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The Arab disguises are meant to guarantee that eyewitnesses of whatever terror operation the men were involved in saying that it been carried out by Iraqis.The incident in Basra, according to Sheikh Hassan, began when a senior official of Sadr’s movement, Sheikh Ahmad Fartusi, was arrested on Sunday, Sept. 18.

“We called a protest outside the mayor’s office on Monday demanding the Sheikh be released,” Hassan said. “This protest was peaceful.“But events in our city took a sinister turn when the police tried to stop two men dressed as members of the Mehdi Army driving near the protest. The men opened fire on the police and passers-by. After a car chase they were arrested,” Hassan said.

“What our police found in their car was very disturbing – weapons, explosives and a remote control detonator,” he said. “These are the weapons of terrorists. We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets, and thanks be to God, they were stopped and countless lives were saved.

"The two men were taken to the police station to answer questions about their activities. That afternoon the British army came in tanks and armored cars demanding the two be released..“The police refused as they were considered to be planning terrorist attacks, and as they were disguised as members of the Mehdi Army, the police wanted to know who their target was.
“Thousands of people gathered to defend the police station. British troops opened fire and the crowds responded with stones and firebombs.“Why were these men dressed as Mehdi Army?” Hassan asked. “Why were they carrying explosives and where were they planning to detonate their bomb?"

"Were they planning an outrage so that they could create tensions with other communities? Were they going to kill innocent people to put the blame on Al Qaida, who do not have any support in our city?

“The soldiers drove a tank into the police station and threatened to kill the police officers if they did not hand over the two terrorists,” Hassan said. “It is only then, to save any further loss of life, that the men were released.”

Five days before the arrest of the two British agents in Basra,Al Jazeera had reported on the growing suspicion that the occupation forces are the real perpetrators of bomb attacks in Iraq in an interview with Iran’s top military commander, Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr.

Zolqadr said the United States and Israel were behind the so-called sectarian bombing attacks that have killed thousands of civilians in Iraq.The occupation forces, Zolqadr told senior officials, need these attacks to justify the continuation of their military presence in Iraq.

“The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies,” Zolqadr said.

“Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners,” Zolqadr said. “If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers”.

The U.S. wanted to remain in Iraq to “plunder the country’s wealth, bring the Middle East under its control, and create security for Israel, which is on the verge of annihilation,” according to Zolqadr.
The most obvious strategy of the “false flag” terrorism is to foment civil strife in Iraq leading to the “Balkanization” of the state into three ethnic statelets, as was done with the former Yugoslavia.
British forces have employed such “false flag” terror tactics to advance the “divide and conquer” strategy in other conflicts in the past...
(Originally posted on facebook in July 2016)

Terminology: No such thing as 'hoejabi'

 Salam,

 

Can everyone please stop using the term 'hojabi' or 'hoejabi'- it's really really getting on my nerves.  Is there ever an appropriate situation to refer to your sister in Islam as a 'hoe'?  Even if she behaves and dresses in an inappropriate way- is using derogatory names the Islamically correct way of dealing with the problem?  On top of that, take a moment to think of the word 'hijab'.  It's the general term people resort to when referring to sisters who cover (at least cover their heads but also people who wear jilbab and niqab are often referred to with the same terminology).  

 

This post is not concerning how non Muslims perceive hijab or covering but more specifically aimed at Muslims.  Knowing full well that within the Ummah, the term 'hijab' is a term of respect for those sisters who adhere to the Islamic rules of covering- is there any justification in the deen at all for coupling the term 'hoe' with it?

 

Some of you may respond with anecdotes; "Oh so and so's daughter covers her head but still wears skin tight jeans and goes clubbing", "Oh that guy's sister covers her head when she leaves the house but then sneaks off secretly with her boyfriend".  Yes I know this stuff goes on, but that's not really my point.  My point is regarding why an Islamic term of respect for women is manipulated into something so disgusting?  

 

As for the stories of women who cover their heads and get up to bad things... well first of all, those who cover their heads but continue to wear skin tight or revealing clothes- that doesn't really count as 'hijab' anyway as hijab really is a lot more than just a headcovering.  Secondly, even if a girl does cover properly and gets up to haraam like sneaking off with a boyfriend etc- why are you blaming her clothes for that?  Shouldn't you be taking issue with her unislamic behaviour rather than her Islamic clothing?  The sin she commits is in doing the haraam act, the clothes she wears are not responsible for her sin.  Aside from which, if your best response is "you can't respect the headscarf so you shouldn't wear it"... in that case, you are advising her to commit more sins!  If she's committing one sin by (for example) having a boyfriend she's committing two sins by resorting to dress in an unIslamic way as well!  Would you like to face Allah (swt) on the day of judgement with the knowledge that you assisted a Muslimah in committing more haraam than she was already involved in?

 

And finally; why is it that whenever people discuss inappropriate behaviour by Muslimahs- they always pick on the hijabis?  Aren't uncovered Muslim women bound by the same rules of Islam as the rest of us?  Aren't they required to practise any faraid themselves?  What makes you think they're absolved of responsibility?  The headcovering is a fard (duty/obligation according to the rules of Islam) for all Muslim women (yes I know there are other rules such as avoiding tabaruj, wearing loose clothing, covering all the awrah etc etc that's a whole other discussion)- it is not our place to discourage other Muslim women from fulfilling a fard, even if they are committing haraam or neglecting other fards.  

 

One consequence of putting all the focus on hijabis, is that i've seen many times when non hijabi Muslimahs sincerely take an interest in the deen and in hijab- but they feel scared, intimidated and put off (by other Muslims).  They say things like "I'm not Islamically ready yet"- as if there needs to be some certification of religious knowledge and purity before a person can just get on with fulfilling a fard that should've begun since they became women anyway.  In ramadan, pretty much everyone fasts with no questions asked (even a lot of non practising Muslims)- no one asks them "Are you Islamically ready yet?", everyone just gets on with it.  Why isn't the same said about covering the head?  They feel that they're held up to a higher standard and more rigorous scrutiny if they cover and don't know if they can handle that level of pressure.  I think all Muslimahs (and Muslim brothers when it comes to other Islamic issues) need to be held accountable and placed under scrutiny- not just save all the attention for the ones who wear religious attire.

Takfeer (accusing others of disbelief)- by Sh Albaani

 Salam,

I don't normally quote Sh. Albaani but happened to find this Q&A on a forum and HAD TO share as this topic has come up so many times and I totally agree with his response to the questioner:

 

Al-Albaani Destroys, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”Ref: http://shaikhalbaani.wordpress.com/2...re-against-us/

 

Questioner: There are principles, O Shaikh, which some of the youth act upon, from these rules is, ‘Whoever does not declare a disbeliever to be a disbeliever then he is a disbeliever. Whoever does not declare an innovator to be an innovator then he is an innovator,’ and another rule, ‘Whoever is not with us, then he is against us.’

 

What is your opinion about these rules, O Shaikh?

 

Al-Albaani: And where have these rules come from?! And who laid them down?!

 

This reminds me of a joke that is told in my motherland, Albania, my father, may Allaah have mercy on him, related it in a sitting. In the story he said that a scholar visited a friend of his at his house and then when he left he declared his friend to be a disbeliever.

 

He was asked why …

 

In our country we have a custom, and I think it is [something] uniform in the countries of non-Arabs, they glorify and respect, and revere the scholars with some customs and habits which differ from country to country. From these is that when a scholar enters a house, visiting someone, upon leaving his shoes are supposed to be turned around so that the scholar will not have to burden himself by turning around–he should just find the shoes are ready for him to slide his feet into.

 

So when this scholar visited his friend and then went to leave he found that his shoes were just as he had left them, i.e., the host had not respected the Shaikh and had just left them as they were.

 

So ‘the scholar’ said that this is disbelief.

 

Why? Because the host had not respected the scholar, and the one who has not respected a scholar has not respected knowledge, and the one who does not respect knowledge does not respect the one who brought the knowledge–and the one who brought the knowledge is Muhammad عليه السلام and he carried on in this way until he got to Jibreel and then the Lord of the Worlds, and thus the host is a kaafir.

 

This question [of yours], this rule [you mentioned], reminded me of this fable!

 

It is not a condition at all that someone who has declared a person to be a disbeliever or has established the proof against someone, that [as a result of that] all of the people have to be with him in that judgement of takfir, because he [i.e., the person’s situation] may be open to interpretation and [thus] another scholar may hold that it is not permissible to declare that individual to be a disbeliever, and the same goes for declaring someone to be a faasiq or an innovator.

 

This reality is from the trials of the present day, and from the hastiness of some youth who falsely claim knowledge.

 

So the point is that this chain [of deduction] or making this binding is not incumbent at all.

 

This is an open/expansive issue, one scholar may hold something to be obligatory and the other may hold that it is not. And the scholars of before and those who came later never differed except due to the fact that the door of ijtihaad does not make it incumbent on others to take his opinion, ‘that others have to take his opinion.’ It is only the blind-follower [muqallid] who has no knowledge who has to blindly-follow [yuqallid].

 

The scholar, who sees another declare an individual to be a disbeliever, or a faasiq or an innovator, but does not agree with his opinion–it is not incumbent upon him at all to follow that [other] scholar.

 

And this is a calamity which, inshaa Allaah, has not spread from your country to others?

 

Questioner: By Allaah, O Shaikh, it is present in our country, the issue of declaring people to be innovators and declaring them to be disbelievers.

 

Al-Albaani: As for the Jamaa’atut-Takfeer then it is well-known that it is a group that started in Egypt and their fitnah was here in Ammaan before I settled here, i.e., about fourteen years ago. But Allaah the Mighty and Majestic guided them and they became upright on the Sunnah with us. Likewise some of them came to Damascus before I came here, and they tried to spread the fitnah of declaring other people to be disbelievers there, but again, our Lord did not give them success and they returned empty-handed. As for this misguidance, it is still present in Egypt and I fear that some of it may have reached the students of knowledge, and Allaah’s Aid is sought.

 

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 778.      

Muslim self censorship

 As a prime example of how Muslims are under pressure to censor themselves, allow me to introduce you to the Shahada flag:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=m%2fHD1Ftd&id=A1020BC76F2D7D431F53373FC422F4CF06805B0A&thid=OIP.m_HD1FtdahxiLkCorkpX8gHaEK&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fterrortrendsbulletin.files.wordpress.com%2f2014%2f12%2fflag_split.png&exph=507&expw=902&q=shahada+flag&simid=608036211955007491&selectedIndex=10&ajaxhist=0

(the shahada flag image appears to have been censored as it's no longer appearing on the post so I have replaced it with the above link to a google image search of images along similar lines)

The Shahada is the declaration of faith that applies to every Muslim and is at the core of what all Muslims believe and the Shahada (which translates as "I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad [peace be upon him] is the Messenger of Allah) is what is written in Arabic on this flag.  It is not a specific 'ISIS' flag- ISIS do not have a monopoly on the Shahada or this flag.  

I introduce it to you here today as a statement that this flag is linked to the identity of all Muslims whether they support ISIS or not and I am not ashamed of it.  There is a trend among many Muslims to feel the need to censor themselves, knowing that certain images and statements integral to Islam (such as this flag) are taken as a symbol of something media hysteria has blown out of all proportion and depicted as something we're expected to reject or condemn.  

As a consequence, many Muslims have this tendency to keep quiet about things they should speak up about, to hide away such symbols out of fear of being stigmatised or labelled as if certain aspects of our beliefs are something we shouldn't uphold or be proud of.... or worse, they jump on the apologist bandwagon of trying to appease non Muslims with statements like "we are all peace loving, we are not like those 'extremist' types".  Bit by bit in trying to prove themselves as "acceptable" Muslims, such people will not just stick to the facts or stick to telling the truth- they go a step further in attempting to "distance themselves" from images and statements such as those represented by this flag, even if it means compromising their values. This is gradually chipping away at our identity so we need to really be aware of this and stop doing it:

"Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the reward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do."- TMQ Surah Baqarah v85

I realise that line quoted from the Quran may make some people uneasy, but does that mean we hide it away and pretend it doesn't exist out of fear of how others may perceive it?  Isn't this precisely the reason our Prophets (as) from Abraham, to Lot, to Jesus, to Muhammad (saw) and others were mistreated by their own people, simply because they conveyed the message even if it meant facing hostility from the people around them?  And don't take this lightly- with the strength to carry the message came the ability to shake whole governments and societies.  It is that powerful- that is why we are under so much pressure to conform, to fit in with what western governments and culture deem to be "acceptable" or "moderate" or "civil democratic" and to either keep quiet or reject the parts of our Islamic identity that aren't in keeping with that.

(permission to share)

Episode 1: China (How China influences our opinions and actions)