Friday, 21 March 2014

Fort Hood in light of the Quran How the Media keeps on allowing Taqiyah

By Nakdimon

An Open Letter To CNN

Dear CNN,
I have been engaging with Muslims for the past two years and have been studying their sources intensively, scrutinizing the Quran, the authentic Hadith collections and the commentaries on the Quran. I have also been following the events surrounding the
Fort Hood Massacre as the events unfolded for the past weeks. I read the article on your website called Murder has no religion written by Arsalan Iftikhar, and I noticed that the author quoted a verse from the Quran which he completely altered and misapplied. He begins his article with these words:

Most of the world's 1.57 billion Muslims know that the Holy Quran states quite clearly that, "Anyone who kills a human being ... it shall be as though he has killed all of mankind. ... If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he has saved the lives of all of mankind."

I’m sure that Mr Iftikhar knows full well that the text from Chapter 5:32, that he quotes to show that Islam is peaceful, is completely butchered to make it say what it actually doesn’t say. I will quote it in it’s entirety to show how Mr. Iftikhar is trying to dupe the masses, with the parts he had removed now highlighted with capital letters:

FOR THIS REASON DID WE PRESCRIBE TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL THAT whoever slays a soul, UNLESS IT BE FOR MANSLAUGHTER OR FOR MISCHIEF IN THE LAND, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; … [Quran 5:32, Shakir's translation]

See the difference if you quote it all? This is not a verse that applies to Muslims, it applies to the Children of Israel. This has nothing to do with Islamic behaviour and he knows it. Moreover, these soldiers at Fort Hood were not innocent people according to Islamic standards. They were on their way to Muslim countries to fight Muslims (Taliban) and spread mischief (
Unbelief/Democracy) there. In fact, this verse has nothing to do with the killing of non-Muslims. This is about killing of someone within the believing society. One must take into consideration that, according to Islam, Moses preached Islam to the Children of Israel, NOT Judaism. So when this was revealed to the Israelites, this is talking about Israelites killing Israelites, in other words, Israelite Muslims killing Israelite Muslims. Medieval commentator Ibn Kathir, who wrote “the most renowned and accepted explanation of the Qur'an in the entire world”, supports this view and says that the phrase “whoever slays a soul” is only applicable to Muslims:

Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "He who allows himself to shed THE BLOOD OF A MUSLIM, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding THE BLOOD OF ONE MUSLIM, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.''

Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah… "He who kills A BELIEVING SOUL intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode, …" (
Source; caps emphasis all mine)

So this is not talking about the souls of non-Muslims. Nidal Malik Hasan was not in violation of anything that the Islamic sources teach Muslims. When taking the entire verse into consideration it mandates the actions of Nidal Hasan, not the other way around as the edited version of the verse seems to imply. This whole thing becomes really interesting when we take a look at the following verse that does speak about how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims who oppose Islam:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, [Quran 5:33, Shakir's translation]

This is one of the most barbaric verses in the Quran and THIS verse is a command given to Muslims. Iftikhar simply tries to pull the wool over the eyes of the people. Not only that, he doesn’t read the very next verse that tells us that those that “wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land” are to be butchered. Now if we take the terms “wage war against Allah and His messenger” and “make mischief in the land” we see that, according to Ibn Kathir,

Making war against Allah and his messenger:
“here means, oppose and contradict, AND IT INCLUDES DISBELIEF, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways.”
Source; caps and bold face emphasis mine)

And making Mischief in the land  “refers to various types of evil” (Ibid.).

I want to strongly emphasise that Ibn Kathir is not a “Wahabi” or an “Islamic extremist”. This man lived in medieval times in a land where Muslims were dominant and had nothing to conceal from non-Muslims and therefore could speak forthright about Islam and what it really teaches. So in short this is what Islam is all about when it is dominant. Spreading disbelief, opposing the spread of Islam (i.e. nearly all non-Islamic behaviour) equals waging war on Islam. And that is precisely what Muslims think the US is doing in Afghanistan.

I wonder how much of the classical commentaries Mr. Arsalan Iftikhar has even read. If he had at all done so he would have known that Islam, as the early Muslims have practiced it, allows Muslims to lie to non-Muslims and pretend to be friends with them, lest Islam’s true face becomes apparent to the infidel and the infidel discovers how the Muslim is to treat him. This practice is known as “Taqiyah” or “Tuqiyah”. In fact, according to the classical Islamic teachings, Muslims aren’t even allowed to take Jews and Christians as friends. We go, again, to Ibn Kathir and his commentary on chapter 3 verse 28 of the Quran:
(unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, suchBELIEVERS ARE ALLOWED TO SHOW FRIENDSHIP TO THE DISBELIEVERS OUTWARDLY, BUT NEVER INWARDLY. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some peopleALTHOUGH OUR HEARTS CURSE THEM.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection." (
Source; caps and bold face emphasis mine)

Then, in Ibn Kathir’s explanation of the Quran, chapter 5 verse 51, we read:

The Prohibition of Taking the Jews, Christians and Enemies of Islam as Friends
Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them. Allah then states that they are friends of each other and He gives a warning threat to those who do this, (

Anyone who has seen the
PowerPoint presentation of the traitor1 Nidal Malik Hasan and studied the foremost Islamic sources knows that what he did was in complete agreement with classical and authentic Islamic teachings.

Could this be a case of Taqiyah on the part of Mr. Iftikhar? Well, we shouldn’t be surprised if that were the case, since Islam allows him to behave as such. And sadly Mr. Iftikhar doesn’t stand alone and many more have used this verse in a similar fashion to make it say what it doesn’t in an attempt to endorse Islam. After the planes crashed into the Twin Towers eight years ago, President Bush was given this same verse from the Quran (5:32) to be included in his speech to the nation in order to convince the citizens of America that Islam is actually a religion of peace. I don’t know if, up till then, President Bush had ever in his life read so much as a single verse from the Quran, but I’m pretty positive that the verse must have been handed to him this way by someone that was indeed familiar with the Quran. Needless to say that this person also heavily edited the verse and never mentioned the following verse, nor even bothered to reference where to look for the verse, just like Mr. Iftikhar hasn’t bothered to reference the verse from the Quran when he misquoted it, lest someone looks it up and finds out what’s really going on.

Whatever the case, one can see from the authentic sources of Islam, that were a Muslim to behave like Nidal Malik Hasan did at Fort Hood, he would not violate the stipulations of classical and authentic Islamic teachings. Therefore, anyone that claims that what Nidal Malik Hasan did at Fort Hood is “un-Islamic” is either ignorant of Islamic teachings and doesn’t know any better or is simply deliberately trying to deceive the people who are indeed ignorant of Islam. I hope that Mr. Iftikhar will be called into account for his misrepresentation of his own sources to make them say what they actually don’t.

In conclusion, we have seen that Mr. Arsalan Iftikhar has been dishonest to the readers of CNN and the entire media. He has done so by taking a verse, chopping it into bits and pieces and take the parts out that may make Islam look like it condones the actions of Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood. However, when reading the entire verse and consulting the classical commentaries of Islam, the very text from the Quran that Mr. Iftikhar used to try to prove that the Quran repudiates the actions of Nidal Malik Hasan actually proves that the Quran endorses such actions. Were this to happen the other way around, i.e. a non-Muslim chopping up Quran verses to misrepresent the Islam and make the religion look bad (which I personally would condemn), I know for a fact that Muslims would be up in arms and all over the US media to have the writer, that misrepresented Islam and put it in a bad light, either fired or at least publically exposed. I think that when the opposite happens, i.e. a Muslim misrepresenting verses from his holy books as Mr. Iftikhar has clearly done in this case, this also should get the necessary attention.

Sincerely, a European concerned for America’s well-being,


1 Let’s call a spade a spade. This man, in a time of war against “Islamic extremism”, sided with the enemy against the country he swore allegiance to – and that not only as a common citizen but specifically as a soldier! If this isn’t treason then we need to redefine that word altogether.



Friday, 14 March 2014

A Faithful Muslim Who Proved That He Wasn’t Treacherous A Look At Nidal Malik Hasan's Actions In Light Of Islamic Teachings Pt. 2

Continues From Ib
Sam Shamoun

We continue with our discussion.

Islam on the permissibility of a Muslim plunging himself into battle against the infidels knowing that he might be killed in the process

Imam Zaid Shakir wrote that,

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] …
[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
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
(Responding to the Fort Hood Tragedy (Nidal Hasan); underline emphasis ours)

Shakir is quite selective in his citations from Islamic scholarship since there are many Muslim theologians who assert that it is permitted for amujahid
(a jihadist) to thrust himself into the enemy even if this results in death:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: On the day of the battle of Uhud, a man came to the Prophet and said, “Can you tell me where I will be if I should get martyred?” The Prophet replied, “In Paradise.”
The man threw away some dates he was carrying in his hand, and fought till he was martyred. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 377)

It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: Messenger of Allah, where shall I be if I am killed? He replied: In Paradise. The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed
(i. e., he did not wait until he could finish the dates)… (Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4678)

… So the Messenger of Allah and his Companions proceeded towards Badr and reached there forestalling the polytheists (of Mecca). When the polytheists (also) reached there, the Messenger of Allah said: None of you should step forward to (do) anything unless I am ahead of him. The polytheists (now) advanced (towards us), and the Messenger of Allah said. Get up to enter Paradise which is equal in width to the heavens and the earth. 'Umair b. al- Humam al-Ansari said: Messenger of Allah, is Paradise equal in extent to the heavens and the earth? He said: Yes. 'Umair said: My goodness! The Messenger of Allah asked him: What prompted you to utter these words (i. e., ‘my goodness!’)? He said: Messenger of Allah, nothing but the desire that I be among its residents. He said: Thou art (surely) among its residents. He took out dates from his bag and began to eat them. Then he said: If I were to live until I have eaten all these dates of mine, it would be a long life. (The narrator said):
He threw away all the dates he had with him. Then he fought the enemies until he was killed. (Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4680)

The tradition has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Qais. He heard it from his father who, while facing the enemy, reported that the Messenger of Allah said: Surely, the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords. A man in a shabby condition got up and said; Abu Musa, did you hear the Messenger of Allah say this? He said: Yes. (The narrator said): He returned to his friends and said:
I greet you (a farewell greeting). Then he broke the sheath of his sword, threw it away, advanced with his (naked) sword towards the enemy and fought (them) with it until he was slain. (Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4681)

The following is taken from the writings of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization:

B. Verdicts of the Learned
Ulema Regarding the Legitimacy for a Single Man to Attack a Large Number [of Enemies] Even If It Is Certain That He Will Die. Muhammad bin al-Hassan al-Shebani said: “There is no wrong for a man to carry out a campaign single-handedly against the enemy–even if he thinks he will be killed–as long as he perceives that he will accomplish something by way of killing, scarring, or defeating [them]. However, if he believes that he will not be able to harm them, then it is not permissible for him to launch [himself] against them. The condition, then, is that his endeavor against them must cause them clear damage.

There is no harm if a single man attacks a thousand men alone, as long as he hopes to escape or cause harm [to his enemies]; otherwise, it is disliked, for he exposes himself to destruction without any benefit to the Muslims. However, if he does not expect to escape or harm [his enemies] but instead seeks to embolden the Muslims so they may emulate his [courageous] deed, then there is no objection to his doing so. Likewise, if he does not expect escape or damage [to the enemies], and yet he does this to terrify the foe, then it is permissible–for this is even more preferable to destruction and benefits the Muslims.”

Al-Jassas said, regarding the above: “What Muhammad [al-Shebani] said is true and legitimate. If his own destruction produces a benefit for the religion, then this undertaking [of his] is noble. Allah praised the Companions of the Prophet for this in His Word: ‘For Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and worldly goods in exchange for Paradise. They fight on behalf of Allah, killing and being killed’ [9:111]. And He said: ‘Do not think that those who were slain fighting in the path of Allah are dead–nay! They live in the presence of their Lord and are well provided for’ [3:169]. And he said: ‘Among men is he who sells himself to seek the pleasure of Allah’ [2:207].’”

The Sheikh of Islam, Ibn Taymiyya, said: ‘Muslim narrated in his authentic account the story of the people of the ditch [see
hadith on P. 146]. The youth ordered his own death in order to help empower the faith. Therefore, all four schools of jurisprudence have made it permissible for a Muslim to immerse himself in the ranks of the infidels, even if his better judgment tells him that they will kill him–if by so doing the Muslims gain an advantage.

Ibn Hajar said: “Regarding the question of one man taking on many foes, it is collectively agreed that if he undertakes such an initiative in order to magnify his courage, thinking that by so doing he will terrify his enemies, or that he will embolden the Muslims against them, or something to that effect–then it is good. But if it is done merely out of rashness, then it is forbidden.”

Al-Qurtubi said: “There is no wrong for a man to single-handedly attack a mighty army–if he seeks martyrdom–provided he has the fortitude. If, however, he is not strong enough, this is [self-]destruction. When the Muslim soldiers encountered the Persians, the Muslims’ horses fled from the [Persians’] elephants. So one of the men undertook the making of a clay elephant and accustomed his horse to its presence, till his horse no longer feared elephants. Thereafter the man drove his horse straight into the elephants. The men cried out: They [the elephants] will kill you! The man replied: There is no harm if I die while opening the way for the Muslims. Likewise at the battle of Yamama, the Hanifa tribe made their forts impregnable. So a Muslim man said: Place me in a sling and hurl me into them. They did so. He fought them alone and opened the gates.”
“Sahih Muslim narrates that the Messenger of Allah along with seven of the Ansar faced the Quraish at the battle of Uhud. When the Quraish approached, he [Muhammad] said: ‘Whoever repels them from us gains Paradise; he will be my companion in the Garden.’ So one of the Ansar advanced and fought till he was slain. This continued till all seven were slain. Thus whoever sacrifices his life in order to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil attains the highest level of martyrdom. Allah Most High said: ‘[E]njoin the good and forbid the evil, and bear patiently that which befalls you’ [3:17].”
(The Al Qaeda Reader, edited and translated by Raymond Ibrahim, introduction by Victor Davis Hanson [Broadway Books, NY, 2007, First Paperback Edition],Part I: Theology, 4. “Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents,” Part One: The Sharia’s Perspective on Martyrdom, 2. Permission For A Solitary Fighter To Attack A Great Number Of Enemies In The Jihad, pp. 154-156)

The copious referencing of Islamic sources demonstrates that al-Qaeda’s actions are thoroughly Islamic and that these terrorists know their religion better than what the media and so-called Western Islamic scholars would have non-Muslims believe.

Al-Qaeda even quotes some of the very hadiths that we cited above to further confirm that their actions are in complete compliance with the teachings of Islam. Here is one that we didn’t include:

4. Aslam bin Usman said: “We were at Constantinople, when a mighty phalanx of Romans [Byzantines] came forth. A Muslim man launched into the Roman phalanx until he penetrated their center. The people screamed, Allah Almighty! ‘With his own hand he has cast himself into destruction!’ [4:29]. So Abu Ayub responded: O you people, you apply this verse wrongfully. This verse was revealed because of us, the Ansar [the “helpers” of Medina]. When Islam was dignified by Allah and had received many other supporters, we said secretly among ourselves that our money was lost and that we should attempt to replenish it. At that time, Allah revealed this verse–thus ‘destruction’ is in response to what we purposed [i.e., forfeiting
jihad in order to prosper materially].” There is also an authentic hadith from Mudrik bin Awaf, who said to Omar: “I have a neighbor who hurled himself into battle and was killed. In response, the people said: ‘With his own hand he has cast himself into destruction!’ Omar replied: They lie! Instead, he has purchased the Hereafter with this life.” And at [the battle of] Yarmuk, Akruma bin Abu Jahl was behaving manly. So Khalid [bin al-Walid] said to him: “Don’t do it; for your death would hit the Muslims hard. He said: Leave me be, O Khalid; for you were with [i.e., supported] the Messenger of Allah in the past, while I and my father were among the most critical toward him.” So he quit him and he was killed. (Ibid., pp. 153-154)

This leads us to our final section.

Taqiyyist’s Finest
Surely Muslims like Zaid Shakir know all this since they have spent much of their lives studying what Islam teaches concerning all of these various issues. Why, then, would they claim that Islam forbids violent acts such as what occurred at Fort Hood?

The simple answer is that Muslims such as imam Shakir are engaging in outright lies and blatant deceptions in order to mislead non-Muslims until they reach a point in which they can attack and subdue the disbelievers.

Lest we be accused of slander or misrepresenting the beliefs of these Muslims notice what imam Shakir himself said concerning the permissibility of Muslims attacking U.S. soldiers:

In his lectures, Shakir preaches treachery against the United States. He once told a Muslim audience that hijacking U.S. military aircraft is fair game in jihad, as a forthcoming chapter will detail.

Shakir, who recently confided to the
New York Times that he “would like to see America become a Muslim country” ruled by Islamic law, is a regular speaker at CAIR and ISNA events. Recently, he helped host workshops or delivered the keynote speech at banquets held at CAIR chapters in Chicago, Orlando, and San Diego, among others.

Perhaps the cleric has tempered his jihadist views? Not a chance: “I don’t regret anything I’ve done or said,” Shakir says. (P. David Gaubatz & Paul Sperry,
Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America [WND Books, October 15, 2009], Part I, Introduction, Chapter Four: Terror Suspect Group, pp. 55-56)

If Shakir thinks its fair game to hijack military aircrafts then surely he must believe that what Major Hasan did was thoroughly acceptable and justified according to the precepts of Islam! There’s more:

But Saleh, whose policy portfolio under Meeks includes homeland security, is a fan of pan-Islamist, prop-jihadist
imam Zaid Shakir, according to Saleh’s post on, where he tweets under the name “blackjihad.” Shakir has declared the 82nd Airborne and other U.S. military fair game in jihad, and has urged followers to transform the U.S. into a “Muslim country” ruled by Islamic law. (Ibid., Chapter Eleven: Co-Opting Congress, p. 185)


like imam Zaid Shakir preach to the Muslim community in America about waging a cultural jihad now, and a violent jihad later–once the proper “infrastructure” is in place.
The work we should be doing is laying an infrastructure–the administrative, logistical infrastructure–putting that into place, so that if Allah put us in a situation where we did have to fight, physically, we could translate that fighting into tangible political gains,” Shakir advised Muslims during a lecture in the San Francisco bay area, the contents of which are being revealed publicly here for the first time. (Ibid., Part II, Chapter Sixteen: The Plan, p. 259)

Shakir is not the only Muslim employing lies and deceits in order to cover up what Islam truly teaches concerning the treacherous and murderous actions of Muslims like Nidal Hasan:

imam Zaid Shakir also contradicts what CAIR is saying publicly. Shakir, a frequent guest speaker at CAIR events, tells his Muslim audience: “Jihad is physically fighting the enemies of Islam to protect and advance the religion of Islam. This is jihad.”

Acceptable targets of jihad, he says, include U.S. military aircraft.
“Islam doesn’t permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people,” Shakir says. However, “if you hijack an airplane filled with the 82ndAirborne, that’s something else.” The 82nd
Airborne Division’s elite paratroopers fly out of Fort Braggs, North Carolina, which is part of North Carolina state senator Larry Shaw’s district. Shaw happens to be CAIR’s new chairman.

Shakir also givers his blessing to the use of bombs as a weapon of jihad, as long as the explosives hit “select” targets and are not indiscriminate in their destruction. Civilians can be legitimate targets, he says, if “there’s a benefit in that.”

Even “old elderly men” and “women who are conscripted”–including Israeli and American women in uniform–are eligible enemy combatants in jihad. “This is
Shariah,” Shakir asserts in a CD recording of one of his lectures, which the authors obtained from a mosque bookstore in Brooklyn.

Shakir, a black convert, has been portrayed as a moderate in the mainstream media, including the
New York Times, which recently ran a positive profile of him. His pro-jihad statements revealed here have not been previously reported.

Then there’s CAIR advisor and fundraiser [Siraj] Wahhaj, who also completely contradicts what CAIR is telling the media about the meaning of jihad.
“If we go to war, brothers and sisters– and one day we will, believe me– that’s why you’re commanded [to fight in] jihad,” the
imam has told his flock in New York. “When Allah tells us to fight we’re not stopping and nobody’s stopping us.”

Sheikh Qaradawi has ruled that jihad can be offensive means of expanding the Muslim state as well as a defensive response to attack:

In the jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and remove obstacles standing in its way. The repulsing jihad takes place when your land is being invaded and conquered…. [In that case you must] repulse [the invader] to the best of your ability. If you kill him he will end up in Hell, and if he kills you, you become a martyr.

So not only does CAIR’s guru believe that jihad is warfare, but he refutes those who believe that only defensive jihad is permissible in Islam.

This makes a mockery of CAIR’s additional claim that “the Quran teaches peace” and not violence.

In fact, the only real peace that the Quran teaches is peace for Muslims–which it says will come when all non-Muslims are converted or “subdued.”

When no fewer than twenty-six chapters of the Quran deal with military fighting and violence, and when it repeatedly states that fighting is “prescribed” upon believers, it’s risibly false to claim it promotes no violence.

But don’t take our word for it. Listen to Wahhaj, who preaches that Islam sanctions violent insurrection in infidel lands–including America.

But he cautions Muslims that their violence has to be “selective.” Wait, train, be patient; then strike when the time is right.
“Believe me, brothers and sisters, Muslims in America are the most strategic Muslims on Earth,” Wahhaj says, because our government cannot drop bombs on Muslims in America without causing collateral damage to U.S. cities and Americans who aren’t Muslims.

Muslims in America also have an army of potential recruits in inner the city, he says, especially among minority gangs. Once they are converted to Islam, he says, they will be fearless in the jihad.

The U.S. government’s “worst nightmare is that one day the Muslims wake these people up” in South Central Los Angeles and other inner-city areas, Wahhaj fumes in a videotape of a sermon obtained by the authors.

He exhorts the faithful to go into the ‘hood’ and the prisons and convert disenfranchised minorities, and then arm and train them to carry out an Uzi jihad in the inner cities.
“We don’t need to arm the people with 9mms and Uzis,” he says. “You need to arm them with righteousness first. And once you arm them with righteousness first, then you can arm them [with Uzis and other weapons].”

He says inner-city gang members will make formidable fighters because they are not afraid of death. All they lack is discipline, Wahhaj says, and Islam can provide that.
“They need to get out of the street and get into the
masjid [mosque], learn Islam and then get [back] in the street,” he preaches, “because these people have guts and courage that a lot of Muslims don’t have. Some of these people are ready to stand in front of anyone and fight.”

In contrast, “some Muslims have lost the desire to fight,” Wahhaj adds. “Muslims have become soft. And they love the soft life. And they hate death. And this is why all over the world Muslims are getting their butts kicked–except those Muslims who fight back like in Afghanistan.” (Ibid., Chapter Eight: CAIR’S Ten Biggest Whoppers, pp. 135-137)

There you have it folks. Islam’s finest scholars and apologists speaking with a forked tongue in order to deceive non-Muslims into thinking that Islam does not condone violent and murderous acts such as those committed by Major Hasan.

Our examination has proven that what Major Hasan did is completely in line with the teachings of the Quran, the so-called authentic sunna of Muhammad, and the teachings of Muslim scholars across the board.

In our analysis we discovered that:
- Islam forbids aiding and abetting non-Muslims, especially when the latter are seeking to “invade” and “attack” Muslim countries.
- Islam commands Muslims to resist and fight those who seek to wage “war” against Allah and his “messenger,” as well as those whose purpose is to spread “mischief” in the lands of Muslims.
- Islam permits Muslims to plunge themselves into the “enemies” of Allah, even if it results in death, since such an action may embolden fellow Muslims and/or strike fear in the hearts of the disbelievers.
- Islam encourages the dissolution of vows and agreements, especially when doing so is in the best interests of the religion and Muslims.

Thus, Major Hasan was being a very good Muslim and any Muslim who says otherwise is either ignorant of the teachings of Islam or is simply using taqiyya in order to deceive non-Muslims from knowing what Islam truly teaches concerning such actions.

Related Articles



Friday, 7 March 2014

A Faithful Muslim Who Proved That He Wasn’t Treacherous A Look at Nidal Malik Hasan's Actions in Light of Islamic Teachings Pt. 1b

From Part I

Returning to the issue at hand, according to the Muslim scholars Q. 9:5, commonly referred to as the “sword verse,abrogated every treaty and peace agreement that Muhammad had with the disbelievers:

This is the
Ayah of the Sword...

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honourable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayatallowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations... In the two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn ‘Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, EVERY TREATY, AND EVERY TERM."
Al-‘Awfi said that Ibn ‘Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise ever since Sura Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi’ Al-Akhir." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Surat Al-A’raf to the end of Surah Yunus, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri
[Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: May 2000] Volume 4, pp. 375, 377; capital and underline emphasis ours)

The following quotes were taken from this

Ibn Juzayy:
(Then when the sacred months are over)
i.e. the four months designated for them. Those who say that they are Shawwal, Dhu’l-Qa’da, Dhu’l-Hijja and al-Muharram, says that they are the well-known Sacred Months - with the addition of Shawwal and omission of Rajab. They are called "sacred" because the majority dominates in an Arabic phrase. Those who say that they last until Rab' ath-Thani calls them sacred because of their inviolability and because fighting in them was forbidden.
(kill the mushrikun wherever you find them)
ABROGATING EVERY PEACE TREATY IN THE QUR’AN. It is said that it abrogates, "by setting them free or ransom." (47:4) It is also said that it is abrogated by it and so setting them free and ransom are permitted. (seize them) means to capture, and the one taken is the captive.
(If they make tawba)
after disbelief. Then He connects belief to the prayer and zakat. That is an indication that one should fight anyone WHO ABANDONS THE PRAYER AND ZAKAT as Abu Bakr as-Siddiq did. The ayat encompassed the meaning of the Prophet’s words, "I am commanded to fight people until they say, 'There is no god but Allah and establish the prayer and pay the zakat." (let them go on their way) granting them security

This [Q. 9:5] is an
Ayat of the Sword WHICH ABROGATES PARDON, TRUCE AND OVERLOOKING. (seize them) is used as evidence for the permission to take captives. (and besiege them) is permission for besieging and raiding and attacking by night. Ibn Abi Hatim reported that Abu 'Imran al-Jawfi said that ribat in the way of Allah is found in the words, "lie in wait for them on every road." (if they make tawba and establish the prayer and pay the zakat, let them go on their way) Repentance from shirk is not enough to let them go their way until they establish the prayer and pay the zakat. Ash-Shafi'i took this as a proof FOR KILLING ANYONE WHO ABANDONS THE PRAYER and fighting ANYONE WHO REFUSES TO PAY ZAKAT . Some use it as a proof that they are kafirun. (Capital and underline emphasis ours)

The Quran also informs Muslims to break their treaties with those who have proven to be treacherous:

And if thou fearest treachery from any folk, then throw back to them (their treaty) fairly. Lo! Allah loveth not the treacherous. S. 8:58

Again, what could be more treacherous than Western armies “invading” Muslim lands and aiding them in that purpose? In fact, is there anything worse from an Islamic point of view than western forces coming to Muslim lands with a purpose of establishing democratic governments based on western values as opposed to helping to set up a system which seeks to implement Shariah or the rule of Allah as “revealed” in the Quran and the sunna of his messenger? And what could be evil Islamically speaking than Muslims inviting or allowing such “infidel” armies to come and wreak “havoc” in their lands by taking over in order to set up their “infidel” forms of government?

After all, didn’t we read where the Quran warns Muslims against taking Jews and Christians as their allies (cf. Q. 5:51)? And didn’t we also see how Muslim scholars claim that it is expressly forbidden to fight alongside the “disbelievers,” especially when its against fellow Muslims? Here is another example:

Praise be to Allaah.
Taking the kaafirs as friends (muwaalaah)
means supporting them and helping them in matters of kufr, SUCH AS THE MUSLIMS FIGHTING ALONGSIDE THE KUFFAAR, such as when the kaafirs launch an assault against a Muslim country and a Muslim befriends them and supports them and helps them in fighting against that country, whether that is with weapons or by supplying them with anything that will help them to fight the Muslims. This is muwaalaah, or a type of friendship THAT IS HARAM, because it means joining them and supporting them against other Muslims.

With regard to seeking their help, that depends of the purpose to be served.
If that serves the Muslims’ interests, there is nothing wrong with it, on the condition that we must beware of their evil and treachery and there be no risk of them betraying us. But if that serves no interest then it is not permissible to seek their help because there is no good in them
. (Fatwa No. 10421: The difference between taking the kaafirs as friends and seeking their help; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Now as far as oaths are concerned we find in the so-called sound-narratives Muhammad expressly telling his followers that they could break their word and promises if it means doing something that is better:

Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Samura:
The Prophet said, "O 'Abdur-Rahman! Do not seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking (for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it. If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 260)

Again, what could be better from an Islamic perspective than killing the “enemies” of Allah who were planning to “attack” Muslim lands?

Muhammad himself had no problems breaking his oaths:

O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which Allah has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Allah has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.) and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise. And (remember) when the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to another i.e. 'Aishah), and Allah made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said: "Who told you this?" He said: "The All-Knower, the All-Aware (Allah) has told me". If you two (wives of the Prophet, namely 'Aishah and Hafsah) turn in repentance to Allah, (it will be better for you), your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet likes), but if you help one another against him (Muhammad), then verily, Allah is his Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers. S. 66:1-4 Hilali-Khan

We are told that these verses refer to Muhammad making an oath to his wife Hafsah that he would not have conjugal relations with his slave girl Mariah the Copt anymore:

O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Māriya — when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa, who had been away, but who upon returning [and finding out] became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own bed — by saying, ‘She is unlawful for me!’, seeking, by making her unlawful [for you], to please your wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful, having forgiven you this prohibition. (
Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

Verily God has prescribed, He has made lawful, for you [when necessary] the absolution of your oaths, to absolve them by expiation, as mentioned in the sūrat al-Mā’ida [Q. 5:89] and the forbidding of [sexual relations with] a handmaiden counts as an oath, so did the Prophet (s) expiate? Muqātil [b. Sulaymān] said, ‘He set free a slave [in expiation] for his prohibition of Māriya’; whereas al-Hasan [al-Basrī] said, ‘He never expiated, because the Prophet (s) has been forgiven [all errors]’. And God is your Protector, your Helper, and He is the Knower, the Wise. (
Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

However Allah permitted him to break his word, something which he did often whenever it suited his purposes:

Narrated Zahdam: We were in the company of Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari and there were friendly relations between us and this tribe of Jarm. Abu Musa was presented with a dish containing chicken. Among the people there was sitting a red-faced man who did not come near the food. Abu Musa said (to him), "Come on (and eat), for I have seen Allah's Apostle eating of it (i.e. chicken)." He said, "I have seen it eating something (dirty) and since then I have disliked it, and have taken an oath that I shall not eat it." Abu Musa said, "Come on, I will tell you (or narrate to you). Once I went to Allah’s Apostle with a group of Al-Ash'ariyin, and met him while he was angry, distributing some camels of Rakat. We asked for
mounts but he took an oath that he would not give us any mounts, and added, ‘I have nothing to mount you on.’ In the meantime some camels of booty were brought to Allah's Apostle and he asked twice, ‘Where are Al-Ash'ariyin?" So he gave us five white camels with big humps. We stayed for a short while (after we had covered a little distance), and then I said to my companions, ‘Allah's Apostle has forgotten his oath. By Allah, if we do not remind Allah's Apostle of his oath, we will never be successful.’ So we returned to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah's Apostle! We asked you for mounts, but you took an oath that you would not give us any mounts; we think that you have forgotten your oath.’ He said, ‘It is Allah Who has given you mounts. By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67 ,Number 427)

Keep in mind that the oath mentioned in Q. 66 was not a vow or oath sworn to Allah, but an oath sworn by Muhammad to his wives. Now if Muslims can even dissolve oaths to their wives, why should anyone assume they cannot dissolve oaths sworn to foreigners and infidels with the explicit backing of Islamic teaching?

Muhammad also expressly violated one of the stipulations of the treaty which he made with the Meccans:

After Al-Hudaybiyyah, Emigrant Muslim Women may not be returned to the Disbelievers
Surat Al-Fath, we related the story of the treaty at Al-Hudaybiyyah that was conducted between the Messenger of Allah and the disbelievers of Quraysh. In that treaty, there were these words, "Everyman (in another narration, EVERY PERSON) who reverts from our side to your side, should be returned to us, even if he is a follower of your religion." This was said by `Urwah, Ad-Dahhak, `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd, Az-Zuhri, Muqatil bin Hayyan and As-Suddi.

So according to this narration, this
Ayah specifies and explains the Sunnah. And this is the best case of understanding. Yet according to another view of some of the Salaf, it abrogates it.

Allah the Exalted and Most High ordered His faithful servants to test the faith of women who emigrate to them. When they are sure that they are faithful, they should not send them back to the disbelievers, for the disbelievers are not allowed for them and they are not allowed for the disbelievers. In the biography of `Abdullah bin Abi Ahmad bin Jahsh in
Al-Musnad Al-Kabir, we also mentioned that `Abdullah bin Abi Ahmad said, "Umm Kulthum bint `Uqbah bin Abi Mu`ayt emigrated and her brothers, `Umarah and Al-Walid, went after her. They came to Allah’s Messenger and talked to him about Umm Kulthum and asked that she be returned to them. ALLAH ABOLISHED THE PART OF THE TREATY BETWEEN THE PROPHET AND THE IDOLATORS ABOUT THE WOMEN PARTICULARLY. So He forbade returning Muslim women to the idolators and revealed the Ayah about testing them" …

Then `Umar bin Al-Khattab divorced two of his wives, who were idolatresses, and one of them got married to Mu`awiyah bin Abi Sufyan, while the other got married to Safwan bin Umayyah.

Ibn Thawr narrated that Ma`mar said that Az-Zuhri said, "This
Ayah was revealed to Allah's Messenger while he was in the area of Al-Hudaybiyyah, after making peace. He agreed that WHOEVER COMES from the Quraysh to his side, WILL BE RETURNED TO MAKKAH. When some women came, this Ayah was revealed. Allah commanded that the dowery that was paid to these women be returned to their husbands. Allah also ordered that if some Muslim women revert to the side of the idolators, the idolators should return their dowery to their Muslim husbands ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) (Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun), Volume 9, pp. 599-600, 602; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Al-Tabari, another renowned Muslim expositor, also admitted that Muhammad broke the treaty by refusing to return the Meccan women who had defected:

… So the Messenger of God said, "Write: This is that whereon Muhammad b. ‘Abdallah has made peace with Suhayl b. ‘Amr. The two have agreed on these terms: that warfare shall be laid aside by the people for ten years, during which the people shall be safe and refrain from [attacking] each other; that, WHOEVER shall come to the Messenger of God from Quraysh WITHOUT THE PERMISSION of his guardian, [Muhammad] shall return him to them; that WHOEVER shall come to Quraysh from those who are with the Messenger of God, they shall not return him to [Muhammad] …” (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, 1997], Volume VIII, p. 86)


Ibn Ishaq added in his account: Umm Kulthum bt. ‘Uqbah b. Abi Mu‘ayt emigrated to the Messenger of God during that period. Her brothers, ‘Umarah and al-Walid b. ‘Uqbah, went to the Messenger of God to ask him to return her to them ACCORDING TO THE TREATY BETWEEN HIM AND QURAYSH AT AL-HUDAYBIYAH, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO:
GOD HAD REJECTED IT. (Ibid., p. 92; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

A more recent Muslim writer, the late Muhammad Asad, in his notes to Q. 60:10, confirms that women were included within the agreement between Muhammad and the pagans:

11 Under the terms of the Truce of Hudaybiyyah, concluded in the year 6 H. between the Prophet and the pagan Quraysh of Mecca, any Meccan minor or other person under guardianship who went over to the Muslims without the permission of his or
HER guardian was to be returned to the Quraysh (see introductory note to surah 48). The Quraysh took this stipulation to include ALSO MARRIED WOMEN, whom they considered to be under the "guardianship" of their husbands. Accordingly, when several Meccan women embraced Islam against the will of their husbands and fled to Medina, the Quraysh demanded their forcible return to Mecca. This the Prophet refused on the grounds that married women did not fall within the category of "persons under guardianship". However, since there was always the possibility that some of these women had gone over to the Muslims not for reasons of faith but out of purely worldly considerations, the believers were enjoined to make sure of their sincerity; and so, the Prophet asked each of them: "Swear before God that thou didst not leave because of hatred of thy husband, or out of desire to go to another country, or in the hope of attaining to worldly advantages: swear before God that thou didst not leave for any reason save the love of God and His Apostle" (Tabari). Since God alone knows what is in the heart of a human being, a positive response of the woman concerned was to be regarded as the only humanly attainable - and, therefore, legally sufficient - proof of her sincerity. The fact that God alone is really aware of what is in a human being's heart is incorporated in the shar’i principle that any adult person's declaration of faith, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, makes it mandatory upon the community to accept that person - whether man or woman - as a Muslim on the basis of this declaration alone. (The Message of the Qur’an, translated and explained by Muhammad Asad, pp. 1097-1098; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

Another more recent Muslim translator, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, did as well:

Under the treaty of Hudaibiya [see Introduction to S. lxviii, paragraph 4, condition (3)], women under guardianship (INCLUDING MARRIED WOMEN), who fled from the Quraish in Makkah to the Prophet’s protection at Madinah
WERE TO BE SENT BACK. But before this Ayat was issued, the Quraysh had already broken the treaty, and some instruction was necessary as to what the Madinah Muslims should do in those circumstances… (Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary, p. 1534, fn. 5422 on Sura 60:10; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

And here is what Ali wrote regarding the conditions of the treaty:

4. A peaceful Treaty was therefore concluded, known as the Treaty of Hudaibiya. It stipulated: (1) that there was to be peace between the parties for ten years; (2) that any tribe or person was free to join either party or make an alliance with it; (3) that if a Quraish person from Mecca, under guardianship, should join the prophet without the guardian’s permission, he
(OR SHE) should be sent back to the guardian, but in the contrary case, they should not be sent back; and (4) that the Prophet and his party were not to enter Mecca that year, but that they could enter unarmed the following year. (Ibid., introduction to Sura XLVIII (Fat-h), p. 1389; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

In light of this Muhammad stands condemned by his own words since he is reported to have said the following:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr: The Prophet said, "Whoever has the following four (characteristics)
will be a pure hypocrite and whoever has ONE OF the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up.
1. Whenever he is entrusted, he betrays.
2. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie.
Whenever he makes a covenant, he proves treacherous.
4. Whenever he quarrels, he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 33)

Hence, according to the Islamic sources Muhammad was a treacherous hypocrite for breaking the covenant he had made with the pagans!

Since the Quran sets forth Muhammad as model for the believers to emulate,

Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much. S. 33:21 Hilali-Khan

And verily, you (O Muhammad) are on an exalted standard of character. S. 68:4 Hilali-Khan

It is not surprising that Major Hasan broke the “covenant” he had with the disbelievers in order to do that which was in the best interests of Islam and Muslims.

It is now time to move on to
part 2.

Muslim dawagandist Bassam Zawadi: Nidal Malik Hasan clearly committed treachery because: 1) He was under a covenant with the US government and military.
2) He broke that covenant without informing the other side.
It is apparent that Zawadi hasn’t bothered to study Major Hasan’s power point presentation. In that presentation which was given two years before Nidal Hasan went on his murder spree he had warned the U.S. that they suffered the risk of potential attacks if they refused to allow Muslims the right to refuse to join U.S. forces in their military campaigns against fellow Muslims.
In slide 2 Hasan writes:
- Identify what the Koran inculcates in the minds of Muslims and the potential implications this may have for the U.S. military.
- Describe the nature of the religious conflicts that Muslims may have with the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Identify Muslim soldiers that may be having religious conflicts with the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In slide 13 Hasan gives examples of U.S. Muslim soldiers who either attacked their fellow soldiers or defected:
- Hasan Akbar: 101st
 Airborne Division’s 326th Engineer Battalion– Through grenades killing/wounding many.
- Army Capt. James Yee– charged with espionage; later acquitted.
- Marine Cpl. Waseef Ali Hasoun; deserted in Iraq; Cited disapproval of war as a Muslim.
- Army Sergeant Abdullah William Webster; refused to deploy to Iraq based on religious beliefs

Here is what Hasan says in slide 49:
- God expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell.
- Muslims may be seen as moderate (compromising) but God is not.
- “I love the Koran and being a Muslim, but I don’t want to live under Islamic rule”.
- Fighting to establish an Islamic state to please God, even by force, is condoned by Islam.
- Muslims [sic] Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly… will vary!

Nidal Hasan concludes his presentation with the following tacit warning:

Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as “Conscientious objectors” to increase troop morale AND DECREASE ADVERSE EVENTS. (Capital emphasis ours)

It is clear from this that Hasan did inform the U.S. army that any contract that he had with them would be broken since he had given them ample warning that they should not force Muslims to join them in fighting against fellow Muslims. Hasan clearly stated that this could lead to potential attacks against U.S. troops. This shows that Nidal Hasan does not meet Muslim propagandist Zawadi’s own criteria for treachery and his actions actually prove that he was being a very faithful Muslim both in warning the U.S. army and in subsequently attacking them!


Continues with Part II