Continues From Ib
We 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.  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.”  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)  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.  …
 Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi, Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar’iyya (Beirut: Dar al-‘Ilm li’l Malayin, 1374/1974), p. 165
 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).
 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)
Chapter 41: IN PROOF OF THE MARTYR'S ATTAINING PARADISE
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.
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
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
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
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 Twitter.com, 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)
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD PROPAGANDISTS 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:
CAIR-endorsed 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
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.