Monthly Archives: July 2015

The ikwaan al Muslimeen

Sheikh Abu Muhammad Al Maqdisi said in his letter “Al Insaaf Hullathul Ashraaf” (Fairness is the garment of the respectable)  he said, may Allah protect him:


Shaykh Maqdisi

“Is the saying of the one who said after the disaster faced by the Ikhwaan in Egypt that “The Ikhwaan are more evil than the secularists and Murtadeen” just and fair? And is the one who makes these types of unchecked statements upon their normal members – if he doesn’t fear Allah and correct himself – by proper statement, capable of being fair with the people and judging between them with justice if they took over authority while the people have amongst them the general public, the disobedient ones, those with mistakes and those who differ, and the rebellious ones and others who are more evil than the Ikhwan? Indeed whoever sees what the secularists of Egypt have done to the Muslim Brotherhood -towards their men and women, their old and young – and sees their enmity towards Islam even against its name, and their war on the Shariah, even on its symbols, will surely know that these kinds of unchecked statements and fiery declarations, are unjust statements and the one who issued them has not shown concern for the sanctities of these Muslims nor for their rights nor has he taken to consideration their afflicted ones and their tribulations that they are undergoing. And he has put on the same level the one who is at war with the religion of Allah and who does not honour either kinship or covenant with regard to a believer and between an obedient or a disobedient Muslim.

And this is neither justice nor the scales by which the heavens and the earth had been established. And let the entire world know that we do not make Takfeer on the Muslim Brotherhood, rather we see them as Muslims even if they differ with us in many issues, some of them being in Manhaaj (methodology) and others in Usool (fundamentals). And their followers and helpers and supporters are in thousands being on different levels. Amongst them are people of knowledge and also ignorant ones, and amongst them are the obedient (Muslims) and also rebellious ones, and amongst them there are the students of knowledge and there are those from the general Muslims. And from amongst them are those who have fallen into some of the nullifiers of Islam by ruling by other than what Allah sent down and participating in legislation, or swearing to respect the Kufr constitutions, or praising the man made laws and their judges and their courts. And from amongst them there are those who have committed none of these. And everyone is treated based on what he deserves.

And it is not allowed to exceed the boundaries of Allah when dealing with them by treating all of them in the way we treat the one who we see falling into some of the nullifiers (of Islam) as it would harm the innocent from amongst them by the offence of the perpetrator. And this is not justice in any way whatsoever, especially as they are not a fighting group nor withholding by using force, but they are a group that is being fought against for their Islam and their religion. And it is not allowed – and this situation is like that – to disobey Allah with regards to them even if they disobey Him while dealing with us. And we do not slander them even if some of them slander us and oppress us and describe us as terrorists and Takfeeris. We do not oppress them even if they oppress us, but we obey Allah in regards to them even if they disobey Him in regards to us. We deal with them in a way which is just and fair even if some of them oppress us and do not fear Allah in regards to us. This is how the mode of our movement should be and this should be the way of its sons and the manner of its leaders, Shaykhs and qualified people. And they, more than anyone else should be just to the people even while the people oppress them. And they are more deserving than others to be fair towards the people even if the people slander them. This is because the one who tastes oppression should be from the strongest of people in hating it and in fleeing from adopting it.

And whoever has tasted the bitterness of being slandered by his unjust adversaries and by the lying Kaafir regimes needs to be the furthest of people from the attribute of lying and slandering. And they should be the ones most hating these habits and the ones most eager for justice and fairness. This is how our religion is. And these are our character. We treat the people based on this and we do not treat them by following their mannerism.

And it is neither chivalry nor manhood to rejoice at the misfortune of those Muslims who oppose us, during their calamities and the overpowering of the enemies of Allah over them and them violating their sanctities. And the one who has shown enmity to them because of their Islam which they describe as moderate, he is more severe in his enmity towards us and our Islam which he describes as extremist and strict and terrorist. And whoever from amongst the followers of this movement has fallen under the hands and the tongues of the enemies of Allah, will grasp what I am saying and know it very well. And indeed from the strongest bonds of Iman which we have studied and which we continue to teach and call to it is for the Muslims to support each based on the support he deserves, and based on his closeness to the religion and obedience, and that we differentiate between the Muslims and the criminals and that we distinguish between the people of Islam and the enemies of Islam. And even the disobedient and the corrupt ones amongst those affiliated to Islam are not treated unjustly by us nor do we cross the limits set by Allah in regards to them. And even the rebellious one from this religion has the right of support and assistance”.


The ruling on Parliaments and on those who enter them


What is the ruling on parliaments, and the ruling on those who enter them? And are there details to this?



The ruling on parliaments is that they are not allowed and they are places of Shirk and Kufr, and we see them as Thaghut because they are places of legislation and of making laws and judging by other than what Allah has sent down (the Shariah). And the basis of parliaments and democracy is “judgment of the people for the people” and the people are the ones who legislate through their representatives who are called “parliamentarians”. And this goes against singling out Allah alone for judging and legislating and ordering and forbidding.

Allah says:

إن الحكم إلا لله

“The judgment is for none but Allah”

Surat Al An’am 6:57

And it (judgment) is not for the people.

And Allah says:

   أفحكم الجاهلية يبغون

“Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance?”

Surat al Ma’idah 5:50

And Allah says:

ولا يشرك في حكمه أحدا

“He makes none to share in His Decision and His Rule.”

Surat Al Kahf 18:26

It is not for the parliament, or for the people, or for anyone.

As for the claim of the one who says that the foundation of democracy and parliaments is established upon Shura (Islamic consultation) then this is either lie and deceit or ignorance and misguidance. It is not established upon the Islamic Shura, rather it is based on legislation, and they consult amongst themselves not on those issues that are permitted, rather they consult in order to legislate laws that contradict the Shariah. And this is the reality of them.

As for the ruling on those who enter them (parliaments), then there are some details to this:

1) If he enters them and legislates man made laws which contradict the Shariah, or agrees to or is pleased with a law that contradicts the Shariah or votes for it, then this person is a Mushrik (Polytheist) Kaafir (Disbeliever), and he is not excused for ignorance or misinterpretation or (for considering it as bringing) benefits.

Allah says:

أم لهم شركاء شرعوا لهم من الدين ما لم يأذن به الله

“Or do they have partners (false gods) with Allah, who have legislated for them a religion which Allah has not allowed?”

Surat Ash Shuraa 42:21

And Allah says:

إن الحكم إلا لله

“The judgment is for none but Allah”

Surat Al An’am 6:57

And Allah says:

ولا يشرك في حكمه أحدا

“He makes none to share in His Decision and His Rule.”

Surat Al Kahf 18:26

2) If he enters and swears to respect the Kufr constitution knowing that the constitution contradicts the Shariah, then this is Kufr (disbelief) and Riddah (apostasy), whether he was serious (in his oath) or not, and whether it was done for benefit or not. He has indeed committed this act of Kufr by choice, knowingly and intentionally. And he is like the one who takes an oath to respect Al Laat and Al Uzza, or takes an oath to respect the laws of the Quraish during the time of the Messenger, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

3) He does not take an oath to respect the constitution, and does not legislate or participate in legislation which contradicts the Shariah, but he rejects that and votes against it – this person is mistaken and misguided and he goes against the guidance of the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam in bringing change and reform and in establishing the Islamic State, but he is not a Kaafir even though he has taken a path of misguidance and Shirk as a path for Dawah and bringing change and reform.

Allah says:

فماذا بعد الحق إلا الضلال

“And what is after truth, except falsehood”

Surat Yunus 10:32

And we have discussed this issue in our book “Al Jam’u wa Thajreed Fee Sharh Kitaab At Tawheed” in the chapter “The call to Tawheed”, and it is the issue of the ruling on entering the parliaments”

Shaykh Ali Bin Khudayr al Khudayr



A Letter to those affiliated with ISIS





All praise is to Allah, to proceed..

My young sincere Mujahid brother in the land of Sham, my young sincere brother who gives support on the internet, who is still connected to the Islamic state group (ISIS)…

I know that your heart is ignited with desire, by the likes of the saying of Allah “Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives”…. and I know that you are anxiously burning with concern by the likes of the saying of Allah “So judge between them by what Allah has revealed”... And I know that you are boiling from the injustices of the Arab governments…. And I know that you are distressed by the rage and bitterness between your faction and the other factions …. And I know that you are angered at some of the people of knowledge in their excessive flattery of the those who are in authority.

But this is not everything…..

And all of this does not justify for you in the Shariah of Allah the major events which have happened, and we are beginning to see the preparation for that which is of its kind or even greater than it.

And all of this is not a proof for you on the day when you will meet your Lord in a hour which is nearby, about which Allah says “But stop them, verily they are to be questioned”.. And Allah says about it “The Day when mankind will stand before the Lord of the worlds”

The innocent blood which was previously spilled was all incidents and news which would be narrated by the people in agreement. And some arguments would take place by the online supporters with regards to their details. But the matter today, on this day to be specific, has reached its peak over its foundation that is now announced. All of what used to be narrated such as events and incidents and news, we have gone beyond them now. And the ISIS group has announced the matter as an ideology and a basic principle announcing it without any ambiguity in it.

Tonight I listened to the official statement issued by ISIS, through Al Furqan Foundation for Media Production, issued on this day, the 5th of Ramadaan, 1436 H. And it was delivered by the main spokesman of ISIS, Abu Muhammad al Adnani. And by Allah, when it reached me, it caused me distress to the utmost and I did not think that the matter would reach to this unveiled public statement by adopting a fabricated principle which contradicts the Shariah and which ISIS used to strive hard to deny having adopted it. And they used to explain away the events based on which that fabricated principle would be attributed to them and they would accuse the one who attributed that to them as being a slanderer and a liar.

The factions in Sham would tell the people that ISIS makes Takfeer on all those who oppose them and fights them from amongst the Muslim Mujahideen and would consider their blood permissible and they would apply on him the most severe law of apostasy and they would conceal this belief due to it being extremely repulsive and would not announce it.

And the supporters of ISIS used to spread on the internet that this is a lie and a false accusation against them that intends to distort their image and alienate the people from them and that they are being oppressed.

Then the official spokesman of ISIS, Abu Muhammad Al Adnani came out in the month of Jumadi al Ula in the year 1435 H. with an official audio statement entitled “Then let us supplicate and invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars” in which he not only denied the claim that they make Takfeer on whoever fights them from the Muslims and to have permitted his blood, and he not only stated that this is a lie against them, but he announced a Mubahala denying this claim regarding them. And he invoked the curse of Allah upon himself if he was lying in regards to that. Abu Muhammad al Adnani said in that official statement “Here I shall mention some of them to which I call him for a Mubāhalah, and let him agree to this Mubāhalah if he is truthful. So O believers, say “Ameen” and invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars. O Allah, verily Abū ʿAbdullāh Ash-Shāmī claimed that we..”

Then he listed the claims that were made against them and he said about it “That the State is using lies and deceit to show that it is upon the correct method ..and that it is customary for them to make false oaths…and that the State views everyone who fights against it to be fighting against Islam and that they have left the religion…and that it makes Takfeer based on Lawaazim, inferences, doubts, possibilities and consequences”(Translators note: Takfeer by Lawaazim means to make Takfeer by inferences, or Takfeer based on “what it necessitates”, that is, to make Takfeer on a person who made a statement whose consequences would lead to Kufr, but he did not intend that consequence. This is what is meant by Takfeer by Lawaazim or Takfeer based on “what it necessitates” as a consequence of it.)

 Then he said denying and declaring himself free of the claims “O Allah, verily I call you to witness that what I have just pointed out are lies and slanders against the State, and that it is not from its Manhaj nor does it believe in it, and neither does it intend to do any such things, rather it denounces whoever does such things. Oh Allah, whoever from amongst us is lying then send your curse upon him, and show us a sign in him, and make an example of him. Oh Allah, whoever from among us is lying then send your curse upon him, and show us a sign in him, and make an example of him. Oh Allah, whoever from among us is lying then send your curse upon him, and show us a sign in him, and make an example of him”

And these quotes which I have mentioned are the exact wording of the audio speech.

So you would note oh brother Mujahid and oh brother supporter… that he denied and rejected with the most strongest statement that ISIS makes Takfeer on whoever fights them from the Muslims and makes their blood permissible, and he declared himself innocent from the claim that fighting against ISIS was a nullifier of Islam, rather he invoked upon himself the curse of Allah if he was lying.

Then the supporters of ISIS began to circulate this speech profusely and began to refer to this Mubahalah a lot in their remarks against those who differed with them… and they claimed that it was a truthful Mubahalah whose effects have come upon the one who differed.

And on this day, this day specifically, the fifth of Ramadaan in the year 1436 H. ISIS released an official statement read by Al Adnani himself and he announced in it that he adopts those things which he had previously denied and declared innocence from. And he revealed with absolute clarity and frankness that ISIS believes in the fabricated principle that contradicts the Shariah, which Adnani invoked the curse upon himself if he has adopted it, when he said in this statement entitled “Oh our people, respond to the caller of Allah”, what follows:

“So beware, for by fighting the Islamic State you fall into Kufr whether you realize it or not”

This is the text quoted word for word and letter for letter from his statement spread today!

And thus ISIS claims that “Fighting against ISIS” is from the nullifiers of Islam!

Oh Allah….! What a fabricated principle is this which clearly contradicts the Fiqh of the Shariah in the issue relating to blood? And towards what kind of ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is he calling to when he claims that he struggles to rule by what Allah has sent down? And what a new innovated principle in Tawheed and Aqeedah and in the nullifiers of Islam and in the topic of names and rulings is this?

Until recently he used to mention this allegation “that the state sees everyone who fights it as fighting Islam and so they have exited the religion” and he would invoke curse upon himself if he believes in this fabricated principle which clearly contradicted the Shariah…. And today he revealed that he believes in this fabricated principle which contradicts the Shariah, “So beware, for by fighting the Islamic State you fall into Kufr whether you realize it or not”

And if someone says that perhaps he believes that this is a nullifier of Islam on the basis of “what it necessitates and its results”, that is that he believes that one who fights ISIS, then this “necessitates” that the rule of the Shariah will be removed in whatever land he takes over, and he believes that this will “lead” the matter towards ruling by legislated laws which contradict the Shariah. And it is due to his belief in “what it necessitates and its results”, that he judged whoever fights ISIS to be apostates and to have gone out of Islam. And the answer to this is that Adnani himself did not leave for his followers a way out, for in the same Mubahalah, he invoked the curse of Allah upon himself if ISIS believes in Takfeer based on “what it necessitates and its results”. He stated word for word the allegations that which he denies and denounces, and that is “That the State views everyone who fights it to have become a fighter against Islam having left the religion and that it declares Takfeer based on (Lawaazim) “what it necessitates”, doubts, possibilities and consequences”

And in the Mubahalah as we have seen, he denied the claim that ISIS makes Takfeer on whoever fights them, and he denied the claim that ISIS makes Takfeer based on “what it necessitates and its results”… and he invoked the curse of Allah on himself if he was a liar…. And today he opens his chest to the listeners and admits that ISIS believes in just that… he believes in the very thing he struggled for a year to deny from his group.

My truthful Mujahid brother, my truthful supporting brother.., do you know that this fabricated principle which ISIS has announced in their official statement “So beware, for by fighting the Islamic State you fall into Kufr whether you realize it or not”, is amongst the greatest fabricated principles which contradict the law of the Shariah?! Do you know that this principle is from the most extreme type of ruling by other than what Allah has sent down?

And if the texts of the Shariah has censured ruling by other than what Allah has sent down in the issues of money, like the case of usury which is an agreement by mutual consent between two parties, then how about ruling by other than what Allah has sent down in that matter of Fiqh which needs the greatest caution and that is the issue of blood?

And you oh my brother, remember that ruling by other than what Allah has sent down is an enormous breach in Tawheed and in singling out Allah for obedience and compliance and submission, and singling out the Prophet ﷺ alone for following…. And this newly invented fabricated principle “So beware, for by fighting the Islamic State you fall into kufr whether you realize it or not”, it is an enormous breach in Tawheed.

I had intended to mention the texts of the scholars regarding the enormity of the one who says that fighting him and attacking him is from the nullifiers of Islam….. and then I felt embarrassed from myself and from the reader… Has the religion become so strange to this extent? Have the fabricated rulings which contradict the shariah reached this low?

In the book “As Saarim Al Maslool” by Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah, he mentioned the sayings of the scholars on “that the one who kills a Prophet is a Kaafir”, and he transmitted from Imaam Ishaq bin Rahooyah the Ijma (consensus) on that. [As Saarim Al Maslool 2/15] By Allah, have we become in need of proving to a fighting group of our time that they are not Prophets that whoever fights them becomes a Kaafir and out of Islam?

Has the situation become such for a fighting group of our time that it believes that it shares this characteristic with the Prophets and that whoever fights them has disbelieved and exited from Islam just like those who fight the Prophets?

To Allah we belong and to Him we return…. How has the deviation in Tawheed reached this level?

Do you think that we are in need of giving those youth a pat on their shoulders, and we try to be gentle with them and tell them that your efforts are appreciated, but we wish only to convince you that you Inshaallah, are not Prophets that those who fight you are judged to be Kaafirs?! Have we reached to this level oh man?

Rather what is really amazing, is that you may find one who is silent about this great breach in Tawheed and the nullifiers of Islam and the issue of blood and judging by what Allah sent down…And that is for no reason other than a weakness in Al Walaa and al Baraa (loyalty and disloyalty) in their hearts … that is Al Wala Wal Baraa for a group and not Al Waala Wal Baraa for Allah, glory be to Him …In fact Allah has said about His intimate friend Ibrahim “And (remember) when Ibrahim  said to his father and his people: “Verily, I am innocent of what you worship”

Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah has spoken about the one whose fanaticism has reached to such an extent that he makes a fighting group as the basis on which he shows allegiance and enmity and has named this as “Jihad in the path of the Shaythan” and stated that they are from the category of the Tarters and that it is not Jihad in the path of Allah. Ibn Taymiyyah says:

“Whoever allies with a person because he supports those he has supported and shows enmity to those he has shown enmity to, he is from the same class as the Tartars fighting in the path of Shaytan, and the one who is like this is neither from the Mujahideen in the path of Allah nor from the Muslim soldiers. And it is not possible for people like these to be from the soldiers of the Muslims, rather they are from the soldiers of the Shaytan.” Al Fataawa 28/19

Ibn Taymiyyah considers whoever shows alliance and enmity based on a fighting group of being from the same class as the Tarters and that it is a Jihad in the path of Shaytan. So how about if you see oh Abu Abbas (Ibn Taymiyya) a fighting group in our time that believes that whoever fights them has fallen into Kufr and has apostated from Islam! “So beware, for by fighting the Islamic State you fall into Kufr whether you realize it or not”

If Ibn Taymiyyah considers the one who becomes an ally and an enemy based on a specific fighting group to be a Mujahid in the path of Shaytan, then what would he say about the one who believes that whoever fights his group or party is an apostate from Islam? What would Abu Abbas (Ibn Taymiyyah) say, if he heard ISIS saying: “So beware, for by fighting the Islamic State you fall into Kufr whether you realize it or not”?

Then please note that this statement is not a tweet out of excitement… nor  an utterance which slipped in a television conversation nor is it a statement which strayed from the tongue of an unprepared speaker… rather it is reported in an official statement which was written and prepared in advance and recorded in audio in the voice of the official spokesman of the group.

And despite that, whoever now comes to us being shackled in chains of partisanship towards his group and he attempts to legitimise this fabricated principle “that fighting ISIS is from the nullifiers of Islam” and he wants to consider it a Quranic and Prophetic Shareeah principle, then it is necessary for him to consider that what ISIS rejected in the Mubahalah, is a rejection of a Quranic Prophetic Shariah principle regarding the issue of blood and names and rulings and the nullifiers of Islam.

If the Mujahid and the supporter who is affiliated to ISIS wants to endorse and support and strengthen what ISIS had stated in the Mubahalah and that he rejects “That the State views everyone that fights it to be a fighter against Islam who has left the religion..that it declares Takfeer based on Lawaazim (“what it necessitates” by inference), doubts, possibilities and cnsequences”, then it is necessary for him to fear Allah and to remember that Allah will ask him regarding his rejection and denouncement of this innovated fabricated principle which goes against judgment by the Shariah, and is a breach in ruling by what Allah has sent down and that it is the “eleventh nullifier” of Islam of our times based on partisanship : “So beware, for by fighting the Islamic State you fall into kufr whether you realize it or not”

A sincere seeker of truth may ask: How did ISIS fall into making a statement and announce this man made law which contradicts the Aqeedah of judging by what Allah sent down and thus contradicted Tawheed?

And the answer is that the objective independant researcher, who is far from polemics which are known from the internet supporters, and who knows that he will meet Allah on a day which is close by and nothing will benefit him except truthfulness, “Allah will say: “This is a Day on which the truthful will profit from their truth”, if he considered the individual events and incidents and what happened with ISIS, then he may be allowed to have some specific interpretations of those lone events, but if he looks at the whole complete picture he will know that the matter is not an Islamic Khilafah state nor an innovated Khawaarij state, rather these two conflicting interpretations which are circulating today are the furthest interpretations possible. And I will explain it here briefly and I hope to elaborate on that in another place.

So the Khilafa state in Islam is a state based on consultation in which the leadership is established by the “consent of the ummah” as stated by Allah, “Their affairs are by consultation amongst them”. And Allah has ordered His Prophet ﷺ with that and said “Consult them in the affairs”. Ibn Taymiyya said regarding this verse: “So those other than him ﷺ are more duty-bound to consultation” (Majmoo Al Fataawa : 28/387). And Ibn Taymiyyah said regarding the Bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) to the rightly guided Khalifa Abu Bakr Siddeeq, “If it was supposed that Umar and those with him had sworn allegiance to Abu Bakr, while the rest of the companions abstained from giving their allegiance to him, he would not have become a leader by that. Indeed he only became a leader by the allegiance of the majority of the companions who are the people of power and strength.” (Minhaaju Sunnah 1:530) And Ibn Taymiyya said regarding the Bay’ah to the rightly guided Khalifa Umar ibn alKhattab, “Similarly Umar, when he was designated by Abu Bakr, indeed he only became a leader when they gave their Bay’ah (allegiance) to him and they obeyed him. And if it was assumed that they did not carry out what Abu Bakr had entrusted them with and did not swear allegiance to him, then he would not have become a leader regardless of whether that was permissible or not.” (Minhaaju Sunnah 1:530) And in Bukhari, the rightly guided Khalifa Umar ibn al Khattab states,“Whoever gives Bay’ah (swears allegiance) to a man without having consulted the Muslims, then he is not to be given Bay’ah nor the one who gave him the Bay’ah, lest they both get killed”. (Bukhari 6830). And Bukhari states regarding the Bay’ah to the rightly guided Khalifa Uthman, “And the people remained with Abdul Rahman consulting him during those nights”. (Bukhari 7207) The Imam of Ahlu Sunnah Ahmed bin Hanbal states “Do you know who the Imam is? The Imam is the one over whom the Muslims have consensus, all of them saying “This is the Imam”. So this is what it means”. (Minhaaju Sunnah 1:529)

What is meant is that the Islamic Khilafa is a description of a consequence and a result. And that is by the selection of the Muslims and their consent. It is not a primordial description that is made by appointing a man and naming him a Khalifa even before the people have made him their Khalifa, and after that by him demanding the people to give him their allegiance after he has appointed himself as the Khalifa. This then is of the type of “Thaghallub” (overpowering by force) and “leadership by subjugation” and not the Islamic Khilafa or the Islamic leadership. And whoever has named a person as a Khalifa before even the people have made him their Khalifa is like the one who has named a barren land as a “palace” just based on his desire to build a lofty palace on it. So it is a kind of naming figuratively by extension and is not from the names for religious realities.

And one of the greatest characteristics of the Islamic Khilafa and Islamic leadership is striving utmost to apply the laws on “all” the people without discrimination and by the Islamic methods, not by innovated and fabricated methods which contradict the Shareeah.

And from the characteristics of the Islamic Khilafa is mercy towards the Muslims and being gentle with them. In fact, the Imams and the Fuqaha have stipulated this as a condition for the leaders of battle like how Imam Ahmed has said with regards to the leadership for battle “They only fight with the one who has compassion and care for the Muslims” (Al Mughni 13:14). And being kind towards the Muslims is not restricted to turning away his harm from the Muslims, rather kindness requires that he does not lead them towards destruction. Ibn Qudama said with regards to the characteristics of the one who has assumed the position of leadership of battle, “There should be trustworthiness, kindness and advice towards the Muslims…and let him approach the one to whom he has given the command, to not lead the Muslims towards destruction”. (Al Mughni 13:16) And such similar statements are widely known under the subject of Jihad in the books dealing with the branches of the religion.

And whoever compares the religious description for the Islamic Khilafa and the Islamic leadership will realize that it is extremely humiliating and degrading to attribute the noble Islamic Khilafa to the ISIS group and its practices by a leadership that uses force without consulting the Ummah, and to their discrimination while applying the Shareeah and introducing in it fundamental rules that are new to Tawheed and Shareeah, and in their torture of Muslims.

As for the one who describes this group to be a “Khawarij state”, then this is far from the truth in many aspects. Amongst them is that the renegade group that is mentioned in the texts of Hadiths, and has subsequently been described as “Khawaarij” and “Harooriyyah” and “Shuraat” and “Muhakkimah” is an ideological group that is identified by its beliefs and they would apply them to the leader as well as their followers to the extent that they would order their leaders to repent many times, rather they would withdraw from a statement and then would order their leaders to repent from their repentance. Abul Hasan Al Ash’ari, the one who is the most knowledgeable person of Maqaalaat ul Islamiyeen, has transmitted samples for that (look for example Maqaalaat Islamiyeen 92, 110) contrary to the one who deceptively applies statements of extremism for his benefit in his group.

Rather the nearest that can be said based on the scales of the reformer is that “Some extremists of our times are more severe in extremism that the ancient Harooriyya” in many aspects. Amongst them is that the Khawarij were people of principles who would apply their innovated principles on the leader as well as the followers and they would ask him to repent while the ISIS group evade from applying their principles considering leadership and influence. And amongst them is that “most” of the ancient Khawarij make Takfeer for the major sins while major sins are great disobedience in which the commands of Allah are violated. Whereas the extremists of our times make Takfeer on what is less than major sins and they even make Takfeer for matters that are in fact permissible which neither invalidates one’s faith and is not a major sin! Another aspect is that the ancient Harooriyya would be devoted to worship by reciting the Quran and by prayers while some of the extremists of our times are amongst the most neglectful of people with regards to carrying out acts of worship, and a lot of them spend their days listening to exciting Nasheeds (songs/poetry) and by internet IDs by which they claim to support their people by hurling abuses and insults towards their opponent. And another aspect is that the Harooriyya are more truthful in speech than many of the extremists of our times who permit lying to support his fighting group, and so they lie while mentioning the virtues of their group and they lie while mentioning the defects of their opponent.

Rather, the one who ponders over the characteristics of the Khawarij and of some of those affiliated to the Dawla group will know that he needs to apologize to the Khawarij because of having oppressing them by him attributing these people to them.

It is also important to note that the matter to be considered in regards to the “Thaaifah Al Maariqa” (the group that leaves the religion) is what has come in the religious texts in the Quran and the Sunnah. And amongst the widespread mistakes is confining the characteristics of the Thaaifah Al Maariqa that has come down in the texts by limiting them to sayings of the Khawarij in history. This is a widespread academic mistake. Indeed the Prophet ﷺ has informed us about the existence of many groups and appearances. And one of the most distinct characteristics of the “Thaaifah Al Maariqa” which the Prophet ﷺ has ordered to fight against is the statement of the Prophet ﷺ “They will kill the people of Islam” as has been narrated in the two Sahihs (Bukhari and Muslim). And the meaning is that they will kill the people of Islam as an act of worship. And the rest are either descriptions that are secondary or occasional or contextual or features. Then there has appeared manifestations in history for this “Thaaifa Al Maariqa”. So whoever has restricted the religious texts with the historical manifestations has committed a mistake. So the Khawarij whom the transcribers have written about are some who have come in the texts about the Thaaifa Al Maariqa and these texts are not to be restricted based on how they behave. Rather the texts remain general and they are not to be restricted except with a religious text that restricts them. And amongst the ways of restricting religious texts based upon historical incidents is making it a condition to reject the Sunnah or to make Takfeer on major sins etc. And all of these were not mentioned in the religious texts. They only appeared as some of the manifestations of the Khawarij in history. And it will also be necessary then on the one who does that to restrict the description of the Khawarij for example, over the statement that the Quran is created. In fact Al Ashary has written, “All the Khawarij say that the Quran is created”. (Maqalaat Al Islamiyeen: 108) And similar to that for example is their dispute regarding the children of the Mushrikeen over which the Khawarij had a lot of differences.

And the most common type of restriction that I have seen is the belief of some that the most distinct description of the Thaaifa Al Maariqa from the Khawarij and the Harooriyaa are those “who make Takfeer for major sins unrestrictedly”. And this is a mistake both based on texts and history as the religious texts mention the killing of the Muslims. And the killing of Muslims can be for any reason that is not acceptable by the Shareeah for permitting the spilling of blood, whether it is for a major sin or not. And from the point of history, then not every group of Khawarij would make Takfeer for major sins unrestrictedly. Indeed Abul Hasan Al Ashari has said, while he is the most accurate man in transmitting the statements, that “There is an agreement amongst them, ie. the Khawarij, that every major sin is Kufr except the Najdi Khawarij and they do not say so”. (Maqaalatul Islamiyeen: 86) So this causes a problem for the one who has restricted the description of the Thaaifa Al Maariqa and the Harooriya and the Khawarij to be those that make Takfeer for every major sin unrestrictedly and that no group can be described as Khawarij and as the Maariqa group unless they have made Takfeer for every major sin. Rather what is absolutely true is that everyone who permits the blood of the Muslims making it an act of worship and for a reason that is not permissible is from the Thaaifa Al Maariqa about whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ has stated.

In addition to the meaning of the Khawaarij being those who make Takfeer on major sins, there is a more precise meaning beyond that which some of the extremists imagine. That is that whoever makes Takfeer on actions which are not a reason for Takfeer, then it will either be: a major sin or what is less that that. So whoever makes Takfeer for a major sin, then he is a Hurooriyah, and whoever makes Takfeer on what is not a nullifier and not a major sin, then this means he makes Takfeer on that which is Wajib (obligatory action) or Mustahab (recommended) or Makrooh (detested but not Haram) or on the minor sins. So this person is more evil than the Khawaarij! And some of the extremists make Takfeer on actions which are not a reason for Takfeer and then say that we do not make Takfeer on major sins. And they don’t know that the result is that they are worse than the Khawaarij! Because the thing which is not a nullifier or a major sin is an action which is less than those two.

So if ISIS is too far away for the noble Islamic Khilafah to be tarnished by their association with it, and if it is injustice towards the Khawaarij for the likes of this group to be attributed to them who are more extreme than them from some angles, then what is the correct description of this group?

What is correct in my view is that this group is neither a Khilafah state nor a Khawaarij state, but it is a state of “kingship and power” which employs extremism to achieve its goals of leadership, and they would adopt the features of tyrant kingship. And they would apply some of the laws of the Shareeah in the manner of kings and autocratic rulers. And from the signs that point out to this description are as follows:

It has been transmitted widely that they deal with the upper level leaders of the group in a discriminatory manner and they are not presented to judgment of courts nor any other judgment just like how the common people are presented,  and it is not allowed for anyone to speak a word against them. This is how the oppressive kings and tyrant rulers apply the Shareeah and it is not the way of the Islamic Khilafa in applying the Shareeah. And in the two Sahihs (Bukhari and Muslim), the Prophet stood up to give a sermon and said, “Indeed those who were before you perished due to them leaving the noble one if he steals but when the weak one would steal they would apply the punishment on him. I swear by Allah, if Fathima the daughter of Muhammad would steal, I would cut off her hand” (Bukhari:3475, Muslim:1688)

The individuals of the group themselves know that the Shariah that is applied upon the courtiers takes the most wide Fiqh opinions. And as for the Shariah that is applied upon the opponent, then they take the most narrow Fiqh opinions.

Narrations have also become widespread regarding the discriminatory treatments between the one who has given Bay’ah and the one who has not given Bay’ah (to them). And the soldier who has given Bay’ah is given an ease in the Fiqh opinions which is not given to the one who did not give Bay’ah.

And an example of this is in the Fiqh of crimes. With regards to the adversaries and opponents of the group, they take the most easy sayings in incrimination or in the proof and evidence, and they take the most difficult sayings for the prevention of punishment.

How they deal with the differences in Fiqh to conform to their leadership goals and partisan objectives is a type of tyrannical rule of kings and is transgression against the Shariah.

I had once discussed with one of those who were inclined towards them, and he said to me: Do you know that ISIS punished some of their members because of them falling into issues of extremism? And when I investigated into the matter, I found out that they punished those whose extremism reached to an extent of trespassing on the group itself to the extent that they made Takfeer on some of its leaders, like what happened in the tribulation of Al Hazmee amongst them. And thus the so called ruling by the Shariah is in fact the ruling pursuant to leadership and the ruling of tyrannical kings, about which the Messenger of Allah said: “Those before you were ruined only because when a noble person amongst them committed theft, they would leave him, but if a weak person amongst them committed theft, they would execute the legal punishment on him. By Allah, were Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, to commit theft, I would have cut off her hand.” – Narrated in the two Saheehs.

And from the manifestations of judging by the Shareeah based on partisan leadership amongst them is their misuse of the Shariah principle of “being mindful of the talk of the people” which the Prophet ﷺ would apply at times. From them is when the head of hypocrisy Ibn Ubay said “the more honourable (meaning himself, i.e., Abdullah bin Ubaiy) will drive out from there (Medina) the meaner one (meaning Messenger of Allah ﷺ).” And Umar said “allow me to cut off his head” and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said “Leave him, lest the people say that Muhammad kills his companions.” (Bukhari 4907, Muslim 2584) And another example is the source of the Khawaarij, Dhul Khuwasirah when he said to the Prophet “be just, oh Muhammad” and Umar said “allow me to strike off his neck” and the Prophet ﷺ:”I seek refuge in Allah that the people say that I kill my followers” (Muslim: 1063) And there are similar examples for these elsewhere. And what is meant is that “being mindful of the people’s talk” is a Shariah principle which is considered in judging by the Shareeah while hastening it, or delaying it or doing it gradually. And under the meaning of the “talk of the people” comes the issue of the reputation of Islam and the image of Islam and the distortion of judging by the Shariah etc

And if the sincere researcher carefully considers the attitude of ISIS towards this principle, they will see that they use it by manipulating it. And if it was the adversary and the one who opposes them and the opponent from amongst the Jihadi or Dawah groups the one who applies this principle, they would exaggerate in scorning and being cynical and scoffing, saying that they were weak, compromising, defeated and had become servile followers of the worshippers of the cross and Arab tyrants. On the contrary, if they were the ones who wanted to use it then they would conceal a lot of issues regarding their affairs and their behavior and their interpretation, on the pretext of protecting the reputation of the group and for preventing any door from being opened for anyone who would cause disruption for them and make distortions about them. Rather they would even lie by denying things which would soon be established to have been done by them. And the story of the Mubahalah for denying their Takfeer on the one who fights their group and then announcing that they adopt this is just one heartbreaking example of this lying.

And this is not the action of the truthful Muslim who seeks to rule by the Shariah. And whoever does not pay attention to the principle of “being mindful of the talk of the people” for the reputation of Islam, and exaggerates in preserving the benefit of the reputation of the fighting group that he belongs to, it becomes clear that he is using extremism in disregarding the people’s talk, as a tool for leadership and kingship and authority, for rebuking the adversaries and inciting the people against them.

And from another angle, what ISIS would announce in their statements by criticizing the Jihadi and Da’wah groups who are adopting the principle of “being mindful of the talk of the people” is from amongst the fabricated principles which contradict ruling by the Shariah in the methodology of this group. And its results are serious, for the results of this contempt is the degrading of my master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ who legislated this principle. And it is known that the purpose of this principle is to proceed gradually in ruling by the Shariah, hastening it and delaying it in accordance with power and capability. And it is not a distortion of the Shariah itself.

And from the indications of being manipulative pursuant to the interests of the group and leadership goals is the use of the principle “preserving the Maslaha (Shareeah benefits/interests)” in Jihad, and so they would narrow the principles of the Shareeah Maslaha (benefits) for their opponents in Jihad or Dawah and they would convert it into an idol and an image and slander them for it. And they would open for their group the widest doors of Maslahah, but it is not the Maslaha that takes care of the interests of the Shariah and Islam and the Muslims, rather it is a Maslaha for the group.

And from the manifestations of political maneuvering is using harshness and gentleness and the underhand dealing in this. And that is by attacking the Muslim who differs with them at the time of being in power, and coming out with a show of caution and piety in dealing with blood and showing concern for unity and solidarity at the time of facing serious threats. And this manifestation had appeared during this month and there had appeared writings and audios speaking for taking caution in matters relating to blood, and requesting solidarity. And all of that would contain a clear feeling of terror and panic, after they had striven to cause the people to hate the scholars and the Mujahideen and the preachers and the general people and others. And this worry increased with their losses in their recent battles and with their feeling that the hatred of all the factions towards them has reached its utmost and that they have decided to deal with them in the like manner, rather in a manner that is far less (as compared to ISIS atrocity towards them)  as no one from those affiliated to fighting in Islam has reached their level in the persisting in bloodshed and sophistication in enraging the Muslim who opposes and the feeling of superiority and arrogance to such an extent that one of the noble friends when he saw their latest publications asking for solidarity and unity, he said what would mean “oh ISIS, are you showing gentleness during your weakness and wickedness at the time of your strength..?”

One of the greatest evidences and indications of ruling with the Shariah for the sake of leadership and partisan goals is the phenomenon of “subordination of the Shariah judge to the military commander” and the absence of independence for the Shariah judges and the breaking of every Fiqh guarantee for the independence of the judges. And this is the judicary of kings and Sultans and those seeking leadership, and it is not a judiciary of the Islamic Khilafah. And this is a fabricated principle similar to the man-made laws which contradict the rule of the Shariah and this is not from the nature of the extremists and the Khawaarij. The Khawaarij are people who follow the principles in what they believe more than following desires.

And from their fabricated principles which contradict ruling by the Shariah is that they do not refer in the issues of the Shariah to those who are mentioned in the Quran and they are the “Ahlul Dhikr” (the scholars) about whom Allah said in His book two times “And ask Ahul Dhikr (the people of knowledge)”. Rather they refer back to their military leadership, or to whoever gives them the juristic justifications for the decision of the military leadership. And this is just like the actions of kings and sultans who are surrounded with people who are prepared to cover up their decisions with some Fiqh sayings.

And this is linked to the emergence of the problems of deviant fighting groups, and that is, the military predominance over Fiqh and political consideration. In a Shariah system the word is for the Shariah, and in a legislative system the word is for the politicial leader, and as for the autocratic system, then the man in charge of security is the one who is in control, and that is why many of the leaders of the partisan fighting groups are bearded generals.

And from the greatest indications of it being leadership oriented is “greed for Bay’ah” or anxiety for Bay’ah. And this indicates a deficiency in Ihklaas (sincerity) for Allah in Jihad and it is not a Jihad to raise the word of Allah, rather it is to raise the word of the group. So you will find the followers rejoicing at the news of a faction giving them Bay’ah, many times more than they rejoice at the victory of a Jihadi faction against the fighting Kafir enemy. Rather they may not even rejoice at all but consider it to be the news of a competitor. And this is the ultimate proof of their hearts being devoid of the desire to raise the word of Allah, and that the desire is to raise the word of their group, and that it is a group over kingship and leadership which uses extremism, and it is neither a Khilafah on the methodology of the Prophet nor a Khawaarij state that fights upon an opinion and a stable Aqeedah.

And another sad matter which is related to this is “seeking to rally the people and trying to compete in their numbers”. Jihad has various type of needs, and sometimes it needs bodies and at other times it needs money, and sometimes it needs the public masses and sometimes it needs specialists, and sometimes it needs weapons and sometimes and it needs media etc. And the truthful ones who are seeking to raise the word of Allah, will weigh the need according to its situation. As for those anxious for leadership, they do not stop at calling the youth to join them and fancifying their numbers and competing over their convoys. And thus they rejoice at the news of the Bay’ah many times more than their joy at the victory of Muslims who are from other groups.

And from the signs and evidence of it being over kingship and leadership amidst them is “making the Fiqh of differences as per group basis” by discriminating in dealings by the using the principles of permissible differences and non permissible ones in accordance with their group desires. And if the person who differs with them is from their adversaries and opponents, they restrict a lot the permissibility of the Fiqh of differences and if it is from their leaders or those who have given Bay’ah to them or their allies, then they open their chests to the differences. As for them belittling the permissible differences, then the best book on the Fiqh of differences and on making excuse (for those who differ), is the book“Raf’ul Malaam” by Abul Abbas, Ibn Taymiyyah.

And from the greatest of innovations which contradict the ruling of the Shariah within them in the “method of verification” is them making sitting with and negotiating (with Kuffar) as an evidence for allying (with them) and for supporting them, and them using as evidence the pictures of gathering or eating food or smiling etc. Besides they also practice deceit in accordance to their leadership goals and group benefits in applying that. So if an opponent of theirs sits with a Kafir, they say that this is an evidence for allying (with the Kuffar) and is a nullifier of Islam. And if they if they themselves faced the need to negotiate, then they would sit with the worst type of Kuffar. And this deceitfulness in applying the extremist principle is a new testimony that they are a group over leadership and kingship which is employing extremist principles in accordance with benefits for their group.

And also from the innovations within them which contradict the rule of the Shariah is “Takfeer based on ambiguous words”, like the word Sahawaat and the word Democracy and others such as these. And all of these are ambiguous words that do not cause the one who says it to become a Kaafir until what he meant by them has been made clarified. How many have entered into democracy while he believes that none has the right to rule other than Allah and that it is not allowed to put the Shariah for the people’s opinion. Rather he enters it because he finds himself incapable (of any other option) and that the obligations are in accordance with strength and capability and that this is what is under his capability, and that he will try to decrease the evil and increase the good to the best of his ability. And this is the general opinion of the Imams of our time like Ibn Sa’adi, Ahmad Shakir and Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymeen and others. And I have mentioned their statements in the article “Keys of Islamic politics” and elsewhere.

And from the innovations of theirs which contradict the Shareeah is “Takfeer on the Mujahideen for not applying the Hudood (legal punishments) in the land of the battle” even though this is well known to be an issue of difference of opinion and it has details and conditions, and this is not the place to discuss them.

And from their innovations is “Takfeer on those who fight for worldly gains” and them regarding it as a banner of idolatry. And this is nothing but a mistake as the Prophet ﷺ spoke about fighting for worldly gains and he did not consider it Kufr, but rather it is from the category of righteous actions in which Riya (showing off) has entered into. Besides, they themselves do what is similar to it as they fight “with partisanship for the group” and fighting with partisanship is included within the objectives that are stated to not be a legitimate objective for Jihad. Like what has been narrated in the two Saheehs on the authority of Abu Musa, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet ﷺ was asked about a man who fought for the sake of the war booty and a man who fought to become known and a man who fights out of partisanship and the Prophet ﷺ said “He who fights for the Word of Allah to remain the supreme, he is considered as fighting in the cause of Allah”. So how do they make Takfeer on those who fight for worldly gains when they themselves fight out of partisanship towards their group?

This oh my truthful Mujahid brother, oh my truthful brother who supports…, these are some of the grave defects in the behavior of this group, and how man made laws have entered in it, and how they deal with the Shareeah and its principles in the manner of oppressive kings who if they entered a village they would make the most honorable of its people to be the most humiliated, and in the manner of those who spill the blood of the people so as to bring about fear and submissiveness in the minds of the people, not according to what Allah and His Messenger wanted. So they employ extremism for the sake of leadership goals. And indeed I had pondered during the previous period on their innovations and their man-made laws in many topics, for example: the topic of leadership, the topic of Shariah politics, the topic of Jihad and the issue of crimes and punishments, the issue of ordering the good and forbidding the evil, the issue of Fatwas, the issue of names and rulings, the issue of covenants. And it became clear to me that the reason for the deviant principles to have entered their group is because their fighting is a fighting for the sake of leadership and is not a Prophetic way of fighting. And there cannot be leadership except with the Shariah as Allah has said, “And We made them leaders guiding by Our command”, and He said, glorified is He “And We made from among them leaders guiding by Our command”. So guidance is by the command of Allah and not by the desires of Sultans or tyrant kings. And this does not mean that the tyrants in the Arab governments are the ones who are upholding the Shareeah in the place of the righteous Khalifas, but rather it is from amongst the greatest ways of deceiving the people to say that this group wants to judge by the Shariah while they innovate and adopt these man-made laws in the issue of crimes and punishments and leadership and Jihad etc.

And there remains other issues that I will leave for another time to expand on them if Allah wills.

As for how the people deal with them, already many people of knowledge and virtuous people have established the obligation of declaring this group’s deviation with knowledge and fairness. But I have seen two opposite phenomenon both of which were wrong. First phenomenon is, ‘easiness of those who order fighting against the extremists’, and the second phenomenon is ‘easiness of those forbidding fighting the extremists’. And Allah has commanded to fight the group which transgresses, and this is a Quranic judgement in the matter of blood. And the Prophet ﷺ has commanded to fight the Thaaifa al Maariqa (the renegade group), and this also is a judgment in the issue of blood. So applying this ruling upon the reality and applying the order of fighting against a specific group requires understanding of the text and knowledge of the reality. And none should embark upon it except the scholars who are deeply rooted in knowledge, with the presence of the Quranic Prophetic Shareeah justification for fighting. Many from the youth who are beginners showed ease while giving orders to fight a specific group without having fulfilled the requirements of Shareeah knowledge and to apply it to the reality. Rather most of it was due to the disputes between the supporters of every group. And most of the ones who have erred in this subject are those who were hasty and had less caution.

As for forbidding the fighting then this is a mistake of the one who has been overcome with caution, and so they ended up absolutely forbidding the fight between the rebel factions as they thought that this is what caution requires while issuing Fatawa. And this is a great mistake, but it is a mistake smaller than the first one, because forbidding fighting is a Fatwa in itself and not a caution against Fatwa, because it is based upon the argument that there exists no justification for fighting. And giving a verdict that there is no justification for fighting while it exists, is like withholding the ruling of Qisas (retaliation) when there exists what makes it obligatory, and like forbidding the cutting of the (hand of) the thief out of caution from causing harm to the people, despite it being made clear and the proof of the crime having been established. And what is meant is that fighting against the transgressing group that is established in the Quran and fighting against  Thaifah al Maariqah (the renegade group,) which is established in the Sunnah are both punishments legislated in the Shareeah. Applying it while the reason for it is absent is spilling the prohibited blood. And forbidding it when the reason for its necessity exists is withholding the punishment, and a man made law in violation of the Shariah law.

Moreover, forbidding fighting against a transgressing group or a Maariqa (renegade) group is not preservation of blood. And whoever looks at the picture partially thinks it to be preserving the blood and to be caution with regards to blood. But whoever looks at the complete picture and the final outcomes will know that it is a support for the transgressor and for the renegade against the oppressed moderate Muslims. And the one who gives a Fatwa absolutely forbidding fighting (them) is similar to the one who sees an oppressor who is deaf fighting against an oppressed man who hears, and he tells them both not to fight. And the deaf man will not hear and will continue to fight and the one who hears will listen and stop fighting, and that enables the deaf man to kill him. And this is the reality regarding many of the transgressing groups, and you will find amongst them a group that does not pay attention to anyone and does not care about any Fatwa which does not come from their military leadership, while amongst their adversaries there are people of understanding who listen to the people of knowledge. So forbidding fighting will not cause the oppressing group to care about it and it will cause the morale of the oppressed to become low.

And if it is like that, then what is caution? Caution is that the well versed Mufti knows what is actually established with regards to the rights of a specific group to fight with the clear sound Shariah proofs that do not have a stronger evidence opposed to it, and so he gives a Fatwa to fight them. Or to know and find out that the group does not possess the description that makes it right to fight against it and so he gives a Fatwa prohibiting fighting. Or the issue does not become clear to him and he receives contradicting reports. So it is compulsory on him in this situation to refrain from giving a Fatwa and refrain from either ordering or prohibiting, and so he does not order (to fight them) nor prohibit it.

And whoever ponders over the pitiful list compiled by some of those who have looked into the crimes of this group in Shaam and Libya and elsewhere, and the pure blood that they have spilled of the best of the Mujahideen and the scholars and jurists, and then ponders over their maneuvers and their trickery with the rules of Fiqh which they are using will know that the source of the innovation of fighting over the group is not due to extremism but due to lust for leadership and that extremism is a tool that is being put to use for the sake of authority as and when needed.


And the most dangerous of what I have seen amongst the supporters of this group is the astonishing excessiveness in “blind following in Takfeer” and blind following those other than the scholars while making Takfeer on individuals and judging them to have apostatized and imitating those other than the scholars in the complicated issues of Takfeer. And you see them listening to his companions or his military leadership making Takfeer on individuals and so he in at once goes and argues on behalf on their Takfeer.


And from amongst the innovated principles in Usool ul Fiqh and in the topic of issuing Fatwa that which they have invented is their statement that “A person who sits behind cannot issue Fatwa to a Mujahid”. And this is an innovated principle that has harmed the fighting groups by preventing them from people who are occupied with learning, and has made the military leadership to be the source of Fatwa. And it is important to note that while applying this principle they would use authority based maneuver and so if the Fatwa was against the benefit of the fighting group, they would use the rule “A person who sits behind cannot issue Fatwa to a Mujahid”. And if the Fatwa was in line with the benefit of the fighting group, then the one who issued it would be praised and he would be spoken of highly and he would be elevated beyond his level of knowledge by decorating him and they would not speak of him as one sitting behind, rather they would consider him to be in Jihad! And the reality is that sitting behind and being in Jihad has got no relation to knowledge and investigating it and writing on it. Rather what is to be considered is the knowledge of the Shareeah and awareness of the reality. And these two, they are the Fiqh of revelation and the Fiqh of the reality around. As for sitting behind and Jihad, then it is an irrelevant description. And how many Mujahideen do not know the realities and what they are composed of except with an outward surface knowledge and how many are those sitting behind who are following the most minute detail and are in communication with the sources of information.


And amongst that which shows the principle being an innovation and its manipulation by the leadership is that when there occurred disputes between those are in the battle themselves, they abandoned arguing by this principle and resorted to other defensive measures like tarnishing the image of the Mujahid who issues a Fatwa against them.

And under the category of this innovated principle comes either verbally or through necessitating, that “A person who sits behind cannot give advice to a Mujahid” and “A person who sits behind cannot order a Mujahid to do what is right nor can one who sits behind forbid a Mujahid from an evil if he has fallen into it” and that “There is no guardianship for a father who is sitting behind over a daughter who went to Jihad” etc.

Rather, this principle would turn around against the one who says it. So if one who is sitting came and forbade a group that is opposed to ISIS and advised them to give their Bay’ah to ISIS, it would be permissible for them to argue by using this very principle. And that the one who sits behind cannot issue Fatwa to a Mujahid.

It is also important to note that not everyone who does not take part in the battle is said to be one who sits behind. Rather the categories as per the verses of the Quran are three: The Mujahid, the one who sits behind, and the one who is excused due to a reason mentioned by the Shareeah and the reasons may be unknown. The scholars have mentioned the condition of the illness that prevents one from Jihad. (Al Mughni9:13)

And I would like to suggest to you, oh my brother, that you ponder over this issue and that is, that most of the internal deficiencies for the Mujahid and for the supporter, and especially the supporter, is because of “deviant friendship in battle” and that is friendship which influences and puts pressure on the person towards abstaining from pondering over the evidences by the one giving advice. Allah has said about it, “Oh, woe to me! I wish I had not taken that one as a friend. He led me away from the message after it had come to me”. So be careful that you flatter your friends who are partisans to a group and you feel their pressure on you to increase in partisanship. And know that they will not benefit you on a day that is near and approaching, when you will stand in front of Allah… “Oh, woe to me! I wish I had not taken that one as a friend. He led me away from the message after it had come to me”. So do not put yourself in this situation….

And from what I have seen most, being spread amidst them due to the influence of friends, is “to make it an act of worship to be rude to the Muslim who criticizes”. And this is common amongst the supporters of the banner of partisanship. So against all those who criticize his group, the followers of the group would compete in using filthy expressions and obscene words against him, thinking that by this he is drawing closer to Allah by defending the Mujahideen! But in reality it remains inside the sphere of “partisanship” which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ has explained that it is not the Jihad to raise the word of Allah.

And from amongst the strange statements, which I still keep hearing, even if they have reduced a little, is the statement of some of them that “You are speaking about the Mujahideen”. And in reality this is the strangest of arguments that I have heard. So let us suppose that this one who criticizes, is speaking about the Mujahideen without fairness or justice, let us assume it for the sake of argument. I ask you by Allah who created you, does this equal the one who spilled the blood of the Mujahideen and has cut their throats? If we gathered the statements of all those who speak unjustly regarding the Mujahideen, it would not reach even one tenth of the sin of ISIS in the destruction of lives of the best people of knowledge and Jihad, for the sake of the fight for influence and leadership.

What is intended my brother Mujahid, and my brother who supports, is that this banner named ISIS, is a group over kingship and leadership that works as per the rules of kingship and employs extremism for its partisanship benefits. And your life is precious, so do not waste it for a project of domination. So protect yourself “before the Day comes when no bargaining (will avail), nor friendship nor intercession”.

Yes, great events have passed by and I did not have anything with me to add. And I used to watch the events and the incidents that ISIS would every time interpret and explain away randomly. But when I saw the statement of Adnani this evening declaring with full clarity and openness that “Fighting against ISIS is from the nullifiers of Islam”, I realized that the deviation has reached its peak and that it has passed over its three stages: From partial behavior, towards deviation in the methodology (in Manhaj), and towards making it a fundamental principle in theory. And here, the truthful believer does not have in front of him anything other than the statement of Allah “and that he who was to perish should perish through a clear proof, and who was to survive might survive through a clear proof.

I ask Allah to reward every student of knowledge who strived to clarify the truth regarding this group that contradicts ruling by the Shareeah and the Aqeedah of the Salaf.

And I will keep remembering for a period of time, this fabricated statement that contradicts the Shareeah “So beware, for by fighting the Islamic State you fall into Kufr whether you realize it or not”…. And how a lot of pure blood will be hanging on to it on the Day of Judgment… and on to the necks of those who adopted it or defended it or took part in it…

And may the prayers and peace be on our Prophet Muhammad, and his family and companions…

Abu Umar (Sheikh Ibrahim Assakraan)

Fifth of Ramadan, 1436 Hijri.


Did shaykh Abu Qatada permit the killing of women and children in Algeria?

Regarding the issue of Algeria and Sheikh Abu Qatadah in the 1990’s


It seems that a lot of people till this day are continuously bringing up this argument against Sheikh Abu Qatadah that he allowed the killing of innocent women and children in Algera. This argument is picked up by many people, from laymen to even people who call themselves shuyukh. 
The people who claim this are either of two categories – either they are ignorant about the issue, hence they should not be speaking on something they clearly don’t have knowledge about, or they are deliberately manipulating the reality for their own cause. Its quite sickening when you see someone who is considered an Imam (not mentioning names but there are plenty of examples of people with the title ‘Shaykh’ who have claimed this) not being fair or speaking on something he is ignorant about.

Did the Shaykh really allow the killing of women & men?
Lets go back to the fatwa that the sheikh had issued – the Regime was killing women and children, they were slaughtering everyone and hence the question came forward to Sheikh Abu Qatadah:
Is it allowed to threaten the regime officers with targeting of their residential places where their families are present? until they stop from this act (to kill Women and children from the population)’.

Now lets note two things, firstly – there is not mention of actually carrying out these acts…secondly, this is in direct response to the military tactics used by the regime. So what we are referring to here is simply a military tactic that one will threaten them with what they threaten you with, in this case in fact its what they are carrying out already – this is not a fatwa actually legitimising these acts being carried out. And we quote further from Sheikh Abu Qatadah’s fatwa, where he said: “If it is impossible to prevent or stop the regime from doing these acts (killing women & children) in no other way than threatening that ‘If you don’t stop this, we will do so and so’ than it is allowed”
Lets also note what the Sheikh said here – again, clearly, the Shaykh did not legitimise the actual targeting of the families of these officers but simply the threatening and most importantly the Sheikh made a clear condition which was in case of neccesity that only if there is no other possible way to stop this, only then you can use this method as a military tactic, not carrying out these acts, but threating that ‘we will do so and so’ if you don’t stop killing our women and men.

And we conclude with the words of Shaykh Abu Qatadah, words of importance that really highlights the biasness of the people who accuse the shaykh of this, firstly they are misquoting the shaykh, a big misquotation – secondly as the shaykh says:
If you go with this question to the Ulema, like Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen (rahimahuAllah) you will find that he said words that are much more serious than what I said, so why only Abu Qatadah? Why not Sh. Ibn Uthaymeen (rahimahuAllah)”

And Allah knows best