One of the most saddening things that is happening these days is the emergence and spread of what is known as ‘Abu Shibr’ which is a title which is given to one who only has a ‘Shibr’ (a small amount) of knowledge. This is used to refer to a person who initially seeks knowledge but when he gains only a very little amount of knowledge, he begins to think that he has learned everything and would attack even the teacher from whom he learns, by going against him and speaking about issues which he is not qualified to speak about. We have seen this issue happening during the days when ISIS was at its peak and when many thought that they have reached at a stage where no other Islamic group has reached before, which then led to the emergence of a lot of “cheerleaders” for that group, who would speak on grave and critical issues despite having no knowledge or at the least very little knowledge. But today after ISIS has been collapsing, we are now seeing this problem of “Abu Shibr” popping up once again but this time from a different angle, and that is from the supporters (or to be precise “cheerleaders”) of HTS, may Allah protect it from being deviated.
To make matters clear, there have been disputes between the Arab brothers in the social media regarding two trends within HTS, one trend which believes in the continuity of Jihad until Allah’s word is made supreme, and between another trend which has been described as the trend of the “Mumayyi’ah” or those who dilute and water down the religion and seek to compromise with the Tawagheet and please them. And since there are two conflicting trends within HTS then one would definitely try to overcome and prevail over the other. Unfortunately it is presently not clear as to who is in dominance, but one thing that is clear is that the “Mumayyi’ah” group (who dilute the religion) certainly has a “lobby” who are trying to gain control of HTS. This is a dangerous situation because previously this is how ISIS became deviated after the Islamic State of Iraq came under the authority of a “lobby” of former Iraqi Ba’athists who gained control of the group after the death of its former leaders such as Sheikh Abu Mus’ab Zarqawi and those who were with him, and then this “lobby” took it in a direction where we saw a lot of crimes which were formerly committed by the Ba’athists now being committed under the name of Islam. Similarly this is how Ahrar Shaam also became deviated into a dangerous path after their former leaders got killed altogether which then led to this group coming under the authority of those who took it down a path which its former leaders would caution against. And hence because of this reason and the change in the leadership of HTS and their organization, several scholars asked HTS to clarify some of their stances in order to know where HTS is heading towards, and in order for the ambiguity to be removed, so that as scholars they may fulfill their trust given to them by Allah who has commanded that it is their duty to clarify matters to the people. But despite repeated requests, many incidents took place within the group HTS which made matters more worrying to them such as the recent statement of one of the leading deputies in HTS named Husam Atrush who said that they should give up fighting as it is no use to fight anymore, and that we must agree to surrender the cities to a transitional government, which would mean that they would have to hand over the cities to be under the control of the Tawagheet.
These and other similar statements made matters more worrying especially to those who have seen how the Jihad in the past in various countries after many years of fighting finally fell into the trap of the Tawagheet who destroyed the fruits of Jihad. And because of these problems within HTS, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi was asked by some brothers within HTS about leaving the group due to the problems within, and he replied saying that the supporters of Sharia should increase their number and not leave HTS when they see that their abandonment of the most effective group in Shaam will lead to the “Mumayyi’ah” or the corrupt ones who dilute the religion to gain control over the group. So instead of leaving, Sheikh Maqdisi directed them to remain within HTS and to fight against deviation and not let the deviants take control of it. And as a warning to those in authority within HTS he also announced that until they clarify their stances, he will not obligate the youth to join them. Despite this announcement from him, he still directed the youth to strengthen the call for Shareeah from within the group, and not abandon the group leaving it to be hijacked by the Mumayyi’ah.
However, many “Abu Shibr”s, those with very little knowledge about whom we just spoke above, came popping up alongwith many cheerleaders who began to attack Sheikh al Maqdisi for asking for clarification, or for objecting to some of their actions. These were the same people who previously used to exploit the name of Sheikh al Maqdisi and would seek to come close to him to gain recognition, or recommendation from him or for other aims, but when the Sheikh turned against them they began to show the same perverted behavior and actions that were seen from ISIS back in those days, when Sheikh al-Maqdisi turned against ISIS and criticized them. These people began lying, slandering, and backbiting him and began questioning his credibility as a scholar just like how ISIS would do so by discrediting every scholar who would oppose them and describe him to be “deviated” from his path.
To give such an example of one of those cheerleaders, recently an enthusiast who used to write articles and statements and give his analysis on some groups of Mujahideen and defend some of them, wrote an article entitled “The confused Mujahid youth”, in which he wrote about the “contradictions” of Sheikh Abu Muhammad al Maqdisi who offered his condolences at the death of one of his students whom he personally knew and who some years back joined ISIS, and with whom the Sheikh used to communicate and advise against the deviance of ISIS and whom the Sheikh used to warn against from following their reckless manner of Takfeer. On top of that Sheikh Maqdisi had even issued his famous Fatawa in which he prohibited to join ISIS and instead called the members of ISIS to leave their group and join Jabhatun Nusra who he said was closer to the truth at that time. However, due to a lot of mistrusts and disagreements, some still remained in ISIS including this particular student of his, namely Turki Bin’ali. And when the dispute between ISIS and others got bigger, some of the stances of Turki Bin’ali also got worse and more controversial. However, despite all what was said about him, Turki Bin’ali was known to fight against many of the extremists within ISIS despite himself falling into similar mistakes. But a few days back he got killed in a US air strike and Sheikh Al Maqdisi expressed his condolences and asked Allah to forgive him despite this particular student of his attacking him in some of his statements.
But the problem now is that when the enthusiast who wrote his article entitled “The confused Mujahid youth”, he said “The scholars who have been refuting ISIS are now beginning to praise them.” In this statement he is saying that these scholars are beginning to praise “them” ie. ISIS. This is an outright lie. Because praising an individual within a group or giving condolence over his death does not mean that he has praised the “group” he was in. One may praise a member of a group while strongly opposing that group and similarly one may condemn an individual within a group while praising and supporting that group. But him praising or condemning a particular individual in a group does not mean that this is his view towards the entire group. This is a basic matter that any fair person can see through. And the one who is not able to differentiate between expressing condolences over the death of an “individual” whom he knew personally and between praising the group he was in, such a person should not write articles or make statements when he is not able to make such a simple basic differentiation. Because this would prove that he either is incapable of reading things properly or else, he is just lying outright in line with his cheerleading group.
And secondly, Sheikh al-Maqdisi says while giving his condolences to this student of his that “This (statement of condolence) does not at all in any way mean that we support him for his insults against the scholars and leaders of Jihad, or that we support him in his mistakes or the mistakes of his group, as this is a matter that I have several times spoken about, and condemned and denounced”.
And Sheikh Maqdisi even spoke about how Turki Bin’ali got dismissed from his post at the end due to him refuting many extremists within the group ISIS. So here the Sheikh is pointing out the mistakes of ISIS and their extremism by them dismissing Turki Bin’ali for refuting a lot of their extremism, which means Sheikh Maqdisi is still condemning ISIS for their extremism..!
Despite this it is surprising to see a person twisting his words and saying that he is praising them after refuting them..! We wonder at how people read a clear statement and then twist it and lie by saying the opposite of it..!!!
He continued and said “The increasingly softening stance of these scholars towards ISIS while they become harsher against the Mujahideen each day does not predict anything good”. This is a statement that shows that the one who wrote this either does not have an idea of what these scholars are pointing out, or he is lying again. These scholars did not permit leaving HTS to join ISIS. So what more can be a bigger lie than saying that they are becoming “increasingly harsher against the Mujahideen”? Or does he think that only the lobby of “Mumayyi’ah” within HTS whom these scholars criticize due to their inconsistency, lies, and deception, are the only Mujahideen in his views? If so, then what will he say about several Mujahideen within HTS itself who refer to these scholars and take their opinion, and who are supported by them..?
He further says, that these scholars “forbidding to fight a defensive Jihaad in the ranks of Hay’at Tahrir Shaam in Syria while allowing to fight a defensive Jihaad in the ranks of ISIS in Iraq is very confusing for the Mujahid youth to say the least”. This is another clear and blatant lie by him, and this is a very shameful level of lying to which even many non-Muslim analysts would not stoop into. These scholars on top of them Sheikh al-Maqdisi who he is apparently referring to in these lines has repeatedly mentioned again and again that those sincere Mujahideen in HTS must not leave HTS to allow it to be hijacked by those who would not mind surrendering to the Tawagheet or deviate the group to make it work as the Tawagheet wishes. Despite this being made repeatedly clear it is surprising to see how a writer who claims to be defending the Mujahideen can lie about them openly. Nevertheless, enthusiasts and cheerleaders are not concerned about anything more than raising their voices as loud as they can. So it would not be a surprise if you find them unable to see through very simple matters.
He then writes another statement entitled “Equals in death and condolences” and says regarding Sheikh Maqdisi giving his condolences for the death of his student that “The one who pays his condolences for Turki Ben’ali because he was killed by US airstrikes despite him being key member of a deviant group, but refrains from paying his condolences for Zahran Aloush despite him being key member of a deviant group, clearly contradicts himself.”
Unfortunately, he does not know what it means to contradict oneself. To contradict oneself means to have two opposite stances for the SAME SITUATION. But was the case and situation of Turki Bin’ali and Zahran Alloush the same? Sheikh Maqdisi explains this and says “What I believe is that Sheikh Turki Bin’ali, may Allah have mercy on him, acted based on his conviction which in his view was in line with the evidences from the Shareeah, and he did not act for the sake of desires, as is the case of lot of religious instructors of the factions today especially those that are being funded by the Tawagheet”. And further, Sheikh Maqdisi says that he believes that Turki Bin’ali “did not write a single word in support of a funding Taghut or to please any of the disbelievers”. He further says that “No matter whatever one says about Sheikh Turki Bin’ali or about him defending his group or its mistakes WHICH I HAVE CONDEMNED AND STILL CONDEMN, nevertheless it is enough (as a virtue) for him that he did not argue on behalf of Kufr at all nor did he use his pen or tarnish it to beautify any Taghut that rules by other than the Shareeah of Allah. And because of that, he is in my view without any doubt better in status and knowledge than a lot of those who hold titles and is better than lot of religious instructors of factions that are funded by the Tawagheet and who justify the operation of the Cross (Euphrates) Shield and who argue on behalf of the Tawagheet”.
So Sheikh Maqdisi explains how Turki Bin’ali never wrote a single word in favour of Kufr or in defence of the Tawagheet. But was this the case of Zahran Alloush, who led the group known as Jayshul Islam which is known to be a proxy of one of the most hypocrite regimes in the world, namely Saudi Arabia? Moreover Zahran Alloush and his aides in their interview even said that they would rule according to what the people desire, which means they do not have problem with implementing democracy or what the funding Tawagheet would be pleased with.
So are these two situations namely that of Turki and Zahran the same? Rather both of them have opposite stances and hence Sheikh Maqdisi believed Turki to be much better than those who work alongside the Taghut such as Zahran Alloush.
So where then is the contradictory stance of the Sheikh…?
In fact it is the opposite. It is those who GAVE CONDOLENCES for the death of Zahran Alloush who are now seen to be contradictory.
This is because what is indeed contradictory is that those who call for “Jihad of the Ummah” and call for accommodating within their movement all those who are corrupt whether in their ideology or methodology and do not mind if those who speak favourably on behalf of the Taghut take leadership or influential positions, these people gave their condolences for key members of deviant groups such as Zahran Alloush and those who were killed in the Euphrates Shield operation against the Muslims. But despite these killed being from deviant groups, they did not give condolences for the likes of Adnani and Turki Bin’ali even though they call for “Jihad of the Ummah” claiming to accommodate people of different ideologies.
So it is those who gave condolence for Zahran Alloush but then refused to give condolence for Adnani or Turki Bin’ali, it is they who are contradictory in their claims of “Jihad of the Ummah”. How is it that they mentioned one deviant but ignored the other…?
To conclude, this response has not been written to target the writer of the article, may Allah guide him. Rather like we said at the beginning this is a response to those cheerleaders and enthusiasts whose main concern is to raise their voice in support of their favorite group and who would attack those giving them advice, or those who give them warning signals in order to wake them up so that they may not be taken for a ride by a “lobby” of corrupt diluters within this group. These cheerleaders and enthusiasts do not like anyone waking them up from their dreams to look at the reality and to correct the mistakes so that Allah would grant them His support and victory like He did during the early days of Jabhatun Nusrah when they were much more successful and were taking over many lands when they were under the guidance and watch of their leaders in Khurasan with whom they had their Bay’ah.
In other words, the problem today is not just with “the confused Mujahid youth” which was the title of the article that he wrote. But the real problem today is with the confused and “lying” youth..!!
JustPaste link : https://justpaste.it/17rkr