(WITH A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR)
Click here to download:
From the book entitled “The Stance of Tehreek Taliban Pakistan towards the announced Khilafa of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi”
Introduction To This Treatise
This is an article prepared by the leadership advisory council of the Pakistani Taliban Movement in the light of the pure texts and transmissions from the Quran and the Sunnah and the consensus of the Ummah which leads to the following conclusions:
All praise be to Allah, and prayers and peace be on the messenger of Allah and his family and companions and those who followed him. As for what follows,
So this is a concise treatise in which we shall mention the essentials factors of the Islamic Khilafa, and we shall show the invalidity of the so called Khilafa of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi by mentioning twenty three points.
And here we present to you these points as follows:
The first point
Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi is not a Khalifa, and that is because the companions of the messenger of Allah ﷺ, are the role models for this Ummah whose examples should be emulated, and their guidance should be followed, and their concept of the Khilafa is bound by three different views and the so called Khilafa of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi does not match any one of them. So here are the three different views as follows:
The first view:
It makes it a condition that all of the people altogether should gather and have agreement over one Imam for the Islamic Khilafa to be established as considered by some of the companions as stated by Ibn Khaldun in his Muqaddimah page 111 about the pledge to Ali bin Abi Thaalib:
“And from amongst them were those who abstained (from giving bayah) until all the people gathered and agreed upon a leader like Sa’d, Saeed, Ibn Umar, Usama, Mugheerah, Abdullah ibn Salaam, Qudamah bin Ma’zoon, Abu Saeed Al Khudri, Ka’b ibn Ujra, Ka’b bin Maalik, Nu’man ibn Basheer, Hasaan bin Thaabith, Maslamah ibn Mukhallad, Fadhaalah ibn Ubaid, and other similar senior companions, may Allah be pleased with them.
And as for the so called Khilafa of Baghdadi, not even one tenth of the Ummah has agreed upon it, let alone its vast majority.
Imaam Shihabuddin says in “Al Arb Fee Funoon Al Adab“, page 161,
“Maalik ibn Ka’b Al Hamadani travelled to Daumat ul Jandal and asked its people to give pledge to Ali and they refused saying, “We will not give Bay’ah until the all of the people give Bay’ah”. So he turned away from them and left them”.
So Malik bin Ka’b Al Hamadani did not consider them to be Bughat (rebels) and he did not consider their refusal of Bay’ah as a refusal of something absolutely obligatory, and he did not say to them that you have rejected such and such Hadith, and that your death is a death of Jaahiliyyah (ignorance).
And let it be noted that they were a generation whose righteousness has been testified to, and the one who asked them to give Bay’ah was a companion himself, and the residents of Daumat ul Jandal were also from amongst the companions or the Tabi’yeen, and in addition to that, the Bay’ah was for Ali ibn Abi Thaalib. And what do you know who Ali ibn Abi Thaalib was!
But the people of Daumat ul Jandal stuck to their view that Ali bin Abi Thaalib is not an Imaam until all of the people gather under him.
The author of “Al Kaamil Fi Thaareekh” says, “They brought Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas may Allah be pleased with him, and Ali may Allah be pleased with him said to him, “Give Bay’ah”, and he replied saying ,”No, until all of the people give their Bay’ah”. And they brought Ibn Umar may Allah be pleased with him, and he said, “No, until all of the people give their Bay’ah”.
So they all abstained from giving Bay’ah until all of the people would give their Bay’ah. And neither did they consider themselves to be Bughat (rebels) nor did Ali consider them to be Bughat who rejected the religious obligation, and that the Hadiths which were conveyed, considered them such and such, and he never said to them that their death in this situation is a death of Jaahiliyah.
Muhammad Ali Al Sallabi says in his book “The Khilafa of Abdullah bin Zubair”, page 55,
“When Ibn Zubayr asked (for Bay’ah from) Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah and Ibn Abbas may Allah be pleased with them both, they said, “Not until the country is united under you and the people have agreed over you”.
So they did not consider that the announcement of the Khilafa of Abdullah bin Zubayr has taken place and that he has controlled many lands, and so their staying back from giving him Bay’ah is staying back from a religious obligation and a rejection of many Hadiths, and so on and so forth…..
But they believed that the unity of the whole country and the agreement of all the people is a condition for the establishment of the Khilafa in religion.
As for the so called Khilafa of Baghdadi, not even one tenth of the Jihadi community has agreed upon it, let alone the Ummah as a whole. So how can his Khilafa be right? And how can the one who does not agree to it be considered a rebel?
The second view:
Agreement of all the people of Ahlul Hal Wal Aqd is a condition for the establishment of the Khilafa in religion, as mentioned by Ibn Khaldun in Vol.1, page 111:
“When Uthman got martyred, the people were scattered throughout the lands and did not witness the Bay’ah given to Ali. And among those who witnessed it, some of them gave their Bay’ah and the others withheld from it saying, “We will not give Bay’ah until the people have united under one Imam” as we have just mentioned. And the others considered that no Bay’ah has been made because the companions who were Ahlul Hal Wal Aqd were scattered in different lands and none except a few of them were present. And no Bay’ah can take place except with the agreement of Ahlul Hal Wal Aqd. And any dealing made by others or a few of them is not a binding contract.
And this view was adopted by Muawiya, Amru ibn Al Aas, Ummul Mu’mineen Ayisha, Zubayr and his son Abdullah, Talha and his son Muhammad, Sa’d, Sa’eed, Nu’man bin Basheer, Muawiya ibn Khudaij and those companions who followed their opinion and abstained from giving Bay’ah to Ali while in Medina.
The third view:
Agreement of the majority of the Ahlul Hal Wal Aqd is a condition for establishment of the Khilafa according to a group of Sahaba. And the Khilafa of Ali was set up based on this third approach. And that is because the majority of the Ahlul Hal Wal Aqd had given him their Bay’ah while the Ahlul Hal Wal Aqd were dispersed throughout the lands after the murder of Uthman, and not all of them were present. However the majority of them were present and they gave their Bay’ah as stated by Ibn Khaldun in his Muqaddimah:
“As for the incident of Ali, the people at the time of Uthman’s killing were scattered across various lands, and they did not witness the Bay’ah given to Ali. And amongst those of them who witnessed it, there were those who gave him Bay’ah”.
And those of them who witnessed and gave Bay’ah to Ali were a large number of them as mentioned by the author of “Al Intisaar Fee Radd Alal Mu’tazila Al Qadriyya”, vol. 3 page 90, “The Bay’ah to Ali, and his leadership were supported by the majority of the companions before that, and they followed him and he gained power by their obedience to him”.
Sheikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah says in “Shubuhaat Hawl As Sahaabah”, page 11,
“The people of influence pledged their allegiance to Ali even though they did not unite under him the way they united under those who were before, but there is no doubt that he had authority and strength due to the support of the people of influence”.
So it can be known from this analysis and investigation that the stances of the Sahabah towards the Khilafa are divided based upon three different viewpoints which are:
1) The agreement of the entire Ummah
2) The agreement of the entire Ahlul Hal Wal Aqd
3) The agreement of the majority of the Ahlul Wal Aqd
So the so called Khilafa of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi has not been agreed upon by the Ummah as a whole, nor by the Ahlul Hal Wal Aqd as a whole, nor by the majority of the Ahlul Hal Wal Aqd, while the Ahlul Hal Wal Aqd, as we will explain later in complete detail, is a term for the people of influence in the Ummah from the scholars and the leaders.
And none from the people of influence in the Ummah who are referred to from amongst the scholars and leaders throughout the world have given Bay’ah to Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, other than the advisory group of ISIS who took him as a Khalifa. And the advisory group of his organization are not the people of influence of the Ummah who are depended upon and referred to.
Translated by Al Muwahideen Media
In the name of Allah, all praise belongs to Allah, and may prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah and upon his family and companions and those who follow him.
Dear Muslim brothers in every place, may peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you.
There is no doubt that uniting the Muslim Ummah against its enemies is a religious obligation. He, the one who is true, has said:
“Verily, Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in rows (straightened) as if they were a solid structure.” (60:4)
And for the sake of uniting this Ummah against its enemies who have united against it, the Mujahideen with the foremost being Shaykh Usamah bin Ladin, may Allah have mercy upon him, gathered their efforts and they realized that the unity of the Ummah is in being united to wage Jihad against the Hubal (an idol) of this age, America.
And as an essential step to unite the Ummah, Shaykh Usamah gave Bay’ah to the Islamic Emirate and he called the Muslims to likewise give Bay’ah to it.
This is the Emirate which was praised by the symbols of Da’wah and Jihad in this age, like Shaykh Hamoud al Uqla, may Allah have mercy upon him, and the two Shaykhs, Sulayman Al Ulwaan and Ali Al Khudayr, may Allah hasten their release, and Shaykh Abu Hafs al Qaaid and Shaykh Abu Mus’ab al Zarqawi and Shaykh Abu Hamza al Muhajir and the Shaykhs Abu Layth and Athiyatullah and Abu Yaya Al Libbi, and Shaykh Nasr al Wuhayshi and Shaykh Mukhtar Abu Zubayr and Shaykh Abu Muhammad al Turkistani, may Allah have mercy upon them all, and Shaykh Abu Qatada al Filistini and Shaykh Abu Muhammad al Maqdisi and Shaykh Hani As Sibai and Shaykh Tariq Abdul Haleem and other honourable leaders and scholars besides them .
These and others did not praise this Emirate and promote it out of desire or dread, rather it is to testify to the truth and to strive to unite the ranks of the Muslim Ummah against its enemies.
And it was this Emirate which commanded the good and forbade the evil and judged by the Shariah and gave refuge to the Muhajireen and to the weak, and smashed the idols and confronted the arrogant Crusade campaign.
So I call my Muslim and Mujahideen brothers in general and specifically in Afghanistan to rally around this firm patient Mujahid Emirate and to not respond to calls to split the ranks of the Mujahideen, the main beneficiaries of which are the enemies of Islam.
And from among these who are trying to split the ranks of the Mujahideen, is the group led by Ibrahim al Badri (ie. Abu Bakr Baghdadi) who have become worse than the Khawaarij. They did not become content by just making Takfeer on the Muslims and the Mujahideen for actions which do not invalidate their Islam, rather they have made Takfeer on them for actions which are actually righteous actions. They have made Takfeer on the brother, the martyr – as we see him – Abu Sa’d al Hadrami, may Allah have mercy upon him, because he took Bay’ah from the Free Syrian Army for Jihad..! And they have made Takfeer on the leaders of Al-Qaeda, because they sometimes use soft words in Da’wah..! They have become worse than the Khawarij by avoiding Shariah courts and by resorting to lies and slander and by breaking covenants.
They have announced that everyone who fights them – even if one is striving to apply the laws of the Shariah – he is still a Kafir and his wife is an adulteress, as if they are Prophets that whoever fights them would be disbelievers.
And even though we have repeatedly criticised them, they have not, until this day, presented a single faultless evidence for the Takfeer on Al-Qaeda. And here we are today asking them and asking Ibrahim Al Badri for an official statement in which they mention their clear established documented evidence for making Takfeer on us.
And even though we have repeatedly criticised them, they have not mentioned who are these few unknown people whose Bay’ah made Ibrahim al Badri a Khalifa, as per his claims. So here we are today asking them and asking Ibrahim al Badri to mention to us the names, history and the description of those who gave him the so called Bay’ah, and in specific those who were in Saddam’s army, and to be even more specific – those of them who were in the intelligence service of Saddam. And based on what right has he granted them authority over the necks of the Muslims?
My Muslim and Mujahideen brothers everywhere, and specifically in Afghanistan, the Islamic Emirate has withstood through its leaders and officials and soldiers, in the face of the haughty Crusade campaign against Afghanistan for more than 14 years. And then after all these huge sacrifices, these modern Khawarij has come along to make Takfeer on them and to describe them as puppets of the intelligence agencies…!! Do puppets of intelligence agencies get bombarded by American planes?!! Do the puppets of the intelligence agencies force the Crusaders to leave?! And do the puppets of the intelligence agencies fight the apostate government and liberate Afghanistan from their corruption?
So I warn everyone who has given Bay’ah to Ibrahim al Badri – after knowing his crimes – that he is a helper to him in this.
And he is helping him in fleeing from the Shariah court, and he is helping him in making Takfeer on the Muslims, and he is helping him in splitting the ranks of the Mujahideen while they are facing a fierce Crusader onslaught. And he is helping him in making false allegations against them and in accusing their women of adultery. And he is helping him in fighting against those who are striving to apply the laws of the Shariah, and in threatening to kill them if they do not submit to him. He is helping him in all of his crimes.
So let him prepare to answer for this on a day in which his opponents will be the Mujahideen and the Muhajireen and those who are guarding the frontiers.
And our final supplication is that all praise is due to Allah the lord of all that exists. And may peace and blessings of Allah be upon our master Muhammad and upon his family and his companions.
May peace, mercy and blessings of Allah upon you.
In the name of Allah, and all praise belongs to Allah. And may peace and blessings of Allah be upon the Messenger of Allah, and upon his family and companions and whoever follows him.
Dear Muslim brothers everywhere, may peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you.
I would like to begin this series with a brief overview to take a lesson from what has been called as the “Arab Spring”, which has failed in Egypt, and in Tunisia and in Yemen. And Allah knows best how its destiny will be in Libya. However, it has known the path of victory in Sham, by the will of Allah and His support.
Briefly and to make it simple, I will narrate to you the story of what happened in Egypt, because it represents the blatant example of the failure of the Muslims when they fall short or deviate, and also the reality of the enmity of the Crusaders when they oppress and transgress. And what can be learnt from Egypt applies to elsewhere.
The story of Egypt did not begin on the 25th of January 2011, and it did not end with the massacres at Rabiyah Al Adawiya and An-Nahda square and the Republican Guard headquarters.
The story is older than this. The story began with the Imam, the martyr, the reformer, Hasan al Banna, may Allah have mercy upon him. This genius preacher pulled the youth away from the amusement clubs, and pubs and from the deviant Sufi circles, and arranged them into organized brigades waging Jihad in the path of Allah.
However, despite these great achievements, he committed huge errors, that led towards corrupt understandings, which then resulted in destructive disasters.
Shaykh Hasan al Banna, may Allah have mercy upon him, began his movement by giving support to King Fuad, who was nothing more than a corrupt ruler who ruled as per the constitution of 1923 which was the first secular constitution in the history of Egypt, rather in the history of the Arab constitution. Moreover Fuad was also a submissive tool in the hands of the British who occupied Egypt. And after him – on his command – came along his son Farooq, whom Hasan al Banna, may Allah have mercy upon him, exaggerated in his support for him. And when he took over the rule, Shaykh Hasan al Banna, may Allah have mercy upon him, announced the Bay’ah of the Ikhwan-ul-Muslimoon (Muslim brotherhood) to him, for implementing the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
However Al Farooq did not accept this Bay’ah even though he was pleased with the support of the Ikhwan because he was a king who ruled according to a secular constitution, and at the same time he was subordinate to the control of the British. And Shaykh Hasan al Banna, may Allah have mercy upon him, not only propagated this illusion but he also went too far with it and he called him “Ameerul Mumineen” (the leader of the believers), and he organized demonstrations in every time and place for his support, and he nicknamed him as ‘the defender of the Quran’. And so, 400 million Muslims, based upon the saying of Shaykh Hasan al Banna, would give Bay’ah to Al Farooq to die in front of him defending the Quran, and that the Ikhwan are from his most loyal soldiers, and their magazine claimed that they will offer their lives for him. And Shaykh Hasan Al Banna urged Al Farooq to strive for the Khilafah of the Muslims, and to take leadership over the Islamic world. He convened the fourth general conference of the Muslim Brotherhood to give Bay’ah to him, and he asked him to issue a royal decree stating that there will be nothing in the Muslim Egypt except what agrees with Islam, and then at that time there will be a hundred thousand youth from the Muslim brotherhood as soldiers who will be fully prepared and equipped battalions, that which has been long awaited.
In the middle of the year 1948, when Al Farooq was implicated in taking commissions in the corrupt arms deals of the Egyptian army in Palestine, and when he had committed excesses in the scandal of promiscuity and immorality, at this time, Shaykh Hasan al Banna, may Allah have mercy upon, addressed him saying:
“Lead us, oh my master, as you like. The Ummah is behind you and Allah is around you, He who is the best protector and the strongest supporter.”
The martyred Imam was not content with just this deliberate deception, but he added to it another deception which is no less dangerous, when he spoke in vague unclear words stating that the principles of the constitutional rule completely match with the teachings of Islam and that the system of the constitutional rule is the closest to Islam from amongst the existing ruling systems in the whole world, and that the Ikhwan do not consider any other ruling system to be equal to it.
And he was not content with that, rather he committed excesses in this mistake and he praised the secular constitution of the year 1923, and he claimed that the basic principles on which the Egyptian constitution had been founded did not contradict with the principles of Islam, and that it was neither far from the Islamic system nor foreign to it, and that those who had laid down the Egyptian constitution had kept in their mind that not a single text in it would conflict with the principles of Islam.
And this is an outrageous mistake which is very well known to anyone with a general knowledge on the principles of the Islamic government. Rather the martyr, the Imam, may Allah have mercy on him, had later himself admitted that this was falsehood.
And Imaam Hasan al Banna was not content with just this delusion in theory, rather he insisted to put it in practice. Thus the sixth conference of the Muslim Brotherhood decided to participate in the elections for the house of representatives because, according to them, it was a platform for the Ummah from which every good idea is heard and from where proper guidelines get issued, as though it was – according to them – another version of Al Okaz Market or Hyde Park or a talk show, in which everyone gets to shout about what he wants and then leave.
And by going too far in these delusions which neglected the rules of Islam and the reality on the ground, Hasan Al Banna twice decided to run for the elections. During the first, he was put under pressure by the then Prime minister Al Nahhas and he thus gave up being a candidate. And during the second, he insisted on not giving up, and so they defeated him using fraud means. So has the Ikhwan learnt the reality of Britain, the mother of democracy? And have they understood the game or are they insisting not to understand?
Then the days passed and the Imam, the martyr, may Allah have mercy upon him, discovered that all of this was absolutely futile and that it contradicted the rules of Islam. He wrote a famous article entitled ‘The battle of the Quran’, eight months before his martyrdom. And he confirmed in it that everything which was in the Egyptian constitution and the laws does not make Egypt an Islamic State and that it does not have anything to do with the judgment of Allah. Rather it is a rebellion against Him. And it is necessary for the Ummah to lead the battle of the Quran against its rulers to make them follow the rules of the Quran.
Then the Imam, the Shaheed, may Allah have mercy upon him, met his end at the hands of the one who he named as the “defender of the Quran”, and King Farooq killed him in February 1949.
So did the followers of Hasan al Banna disassociate themselves from the one who killed him? Or did Al Ustaz al Hudaybee, may Allah have mercy upon him, name him as ‘the generous king’?
Rather they continued in their double dealing with Faroq. And then they allied with Abdul Naser against him, and after that Abdul Naser turned against them. From amongst his judges was Anwar Sadat who sentenced to death the jurist of the group, the consultant Abdul Qadir Oudah and his companions, may Allah have mercy upon them.
Then they allied with Sadat after the death of Abdul Naser, and he gave them freedom of movement.
And when he got killed, they allied with Hosni al Mubarak, the killer of Kamal Al Sanaaniry, and they marched in a hypocritical demonstration from the People’s Assembly to the Republican Palace to give him Bay’ah for a second term, and they enjoyed a great deal of freedom with him, through a bad deal, to let the youth vent their anger and to attack the Mujahideen. Then they turned against him, and aligned behind El Baradei, the US envoy. And when the revolution took place they were the first ones to bargain, and they immediately allied with the military Junta.
So did they wage the battle of the Quran against their killers like how their Shaykh had ordered them? Unfortunately, they have ignored his order and they continued in the same fallacy in matters of the rulings of Islam and of the reality on the ground.
So if their Shaykh, the martyr, may Allah have mercy upon him, had misrepresented the reality and described Farooq as the defender of the Quran and the Egyptian constitution as matching with Islam, then his students were not content merely with this. Rather in fact they have gone even more further. They have adopted a clear secular language that recognizes the national state. And they have announced, like any secular irreligious individual, that they will not judge by the Shariah except if the majority of the voters choose to do so, and that they are committed to uphold all the agreements with the US and Israel. And it was upon this basis that they ran in the elections after the revolution which led to the victory of Muhammad Morsi as the president of the republic.
So they deluded themselves once again and they thought that they had achieved that which they had wished for throughout their lifetime. However, according to the Shareeah description, Muhammad Morsi is nothing more than just a secular ruler of a secular state. There is no difference between him and Hosni Mubarak in that. He accepts just like him the legitimacy of the international law and the agreements of surrender with with Israel and partnership with the United States.
And the difference between him and Hosni Mubarak is that he (Morsi) has followed democracy more than him, and he granted freedom to all, including the leaders of the Jihadi movements, and perhaps this is one of his crimes for which America and its lackeys did not forgive him.
The Muslim Brotherhood after the fall of Hosni Mubarak until the arrest of Muhammad Morsi, did not take any serious action to remove the state of corruption and to empower the new government, let alone the Islamic government. And thus the very same criminals remained in the judiciary, army, police and the security services. These criminals have been raised up as foxes and wolves, while the Muslim Brotherhood raised themselves up like in the notion of the chicken farm where the chicken races happily towards what is thrown to it while being ignorant of the thieves and beasts that are around it.
And if this was the story of the Muslim Brotherhood, then what do you think will be the story of the Salafis that belong to the intelligence agencies and money, those creeping for positions and those bootlickers!! Rather, what do you think will be story of those following the group Al Nahda that surrender and who are perishing due to their inferiority complex, the students of the scholar of the Marines.
So it is necessary for us to review the path and to correct the mistakes and not repeat them. And it is necessary for every ardent Muslim in Egypt and in the lands of the Arab Spring and in the Islamic world and in the entire world to be a lion in his Aqeedah and in his behavior. This is because whoever does not become a lion will be eaten by the wolves. And it is necessary for us to raise our young ones as lion cubs, and not as lambs. And to fight our battle with a book that guides and a sword that gives victory.
Have I conveyed the message? Oh Allah, be a witness.
And our final prayers are that that all praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of all that exists.
And may peace and blessings of Allah be upon our master Muhammad and upon his family and his companions.
And may peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you.
I have seen the recent article entitled “The Jews of Jihad” by Abu Maysarah Al-Shami, who has been promoted by ISIS media to the forefront.
In it he says “Al-Qaeda wants to infiltrate the Khilafa and deviate their methodology (Manhaj) from the inside until it becomes compatible with them. And if the infiltrators fail in deviating the group they would defect from us to say that the khilafa is deviant.”
And then to explain how this is happening he used as an example the group in Yemen who refused to obey the command of the Islamic State in Yemen.
And Abu Maysarah al-Shami built all of these notion based on a letter sent by Abu ‘Eyad Al-Tunisi (the leader of Ansar Al-Sharia in Tunisia) to Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, in which he advised him to pledge allegiance to the Islamic state and to correct their methodology from within.
The aim of the article of Abu Maysarah al-Shami was to make a pre-emptive attack against anyone who may defect or oppose their corruption in their methodology or in their administration at a later time, those who would witness their situations, by saying that these people are implementing the plan laid down by Al-Qaeda to distort the image of the Khilafa and to cause disorder (Fitan) and nothing else…!
In reality they are imitating the tyrant regimes that respond to everyone opposing them by requesting his rights or condemning some of their policies, by saying that he is an agent of the external parties. So if this person is discredited then the people would automatically ignore his demands, just like in the saying “If the speaker is discredited the speech is discredited”.
The dictatorial states would often try to turn away the people’s attention away from the demands laid down by some of the leaders of reform by saying that they are agents of foreign governments, in order to discredit them by character assassination, because when that happens they lose credibility in the eyes of the people, and the people will not support them in their demands, and the people will always look at them suspiciously thinking that when they speak the truth they are actually seeking evil. And this is the aim of the article.
The funny thing is that they themselves have implemented this notion.
For example, the commander Abu Dharr Al’Iraqi claimed that he repented for being in ISIS and left them and joined Jabhat Nusra! And he appeared in the series “Haqaa’iq Min Ad-Daakhil” (Truth from the inside) which was released unofficially by the media committee of Jabhat Nusra in the Sharqiyya (eastern) region. And then after a period of time, this person returned to ‘the mother organisation’ ISIS and appeared in a video which was released by “Ubuwa Laasiqa” which is one of the media wings of ISIS and he attacked Jabhat Nusra, and said that he actually didn’t repent for being in ISIS and that he still supports them..!!! 
So if the Jews of Jihad are manifested by “infiltrating groups to deviate them and upon failing to do so then defecting from it and returning to the initial organisation and then slander the group he tried to infiltrate”, then this matter is manifest in ISIS itself! And the proof is what we have just presented.
But the most important point is: Did Al-Qaeda really agree to apply this notion?
Abu Maysarah Al-Shami used as proof a letter of Abu Eyaad which was merely a suggestion. And then he dealt with the letter as though it got implemented and applied in reality. But is that the case? In the letter Abu Eyaad suggested to Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri to give allegiance to the Khilafa! So did Al Qaeda and its affiliates give the pledge of allegiance to ISIS?
The answer is no. So Al-Qaeda did not implement this advice of Abu Eyaad At-Tunisi!
The second point is, if Abu Maysarah Al-Shami is aware of the archive of correspondence of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (Morocco) and he knows about his letters, then why did he ignore Abu Eyaad’s second letter which he sent after this one, in which he took back his suggestion and asked to ignore it?!
Abu Eyaad had actually sent another letter a month after this letter saying in it: “I write to you today by correcting the errors in my advice after seeing the events develop by asking you to consider my advice and proposal as if they never were made. ِAnd I think that what is most appropriate and correct for the people of truth is to renounce these and to disassociate from them and expose their extremism and to turn towards that which will benefit the Ummah and reform it.”
So the one who suggested had retracted it, and the one who was advised did not implement the advice!
Despite that Abu Maysarah Al-Shami is insisting that they are implementing this notion, only to silence the voice of anyone who would defect and expose them later on and condemn their mistakes and their extremism, by them saying that this person was planted by Al Qaeda and his goal is to distort the image of the Khilafa.
And the most interesting point is that his opponents who broke away from ISIS in Yemen embarrassed him and refuted his article and destroyed all of his arguments which he wrote in the article which was an attempt to make them look like they are implementing Al-Qaida’s notion of infiltrating the ranks of ISIS..!!! And they called him for a Mubahalah (invoking Allah’s curse on the liar) and Suhaib Al-Awlaqi, one of the leaders in this group openly called for a Mubahala in his personal telegram channel. Nine months have passed since then, and Abu Maysarah Al-Shami still hasn’t responded to this Mubahalah to back up his arguments in which he said that they have infiltrated the ranks of ISIS for the sake of Al-Qaeda.
In the end we will be discovering that this notion was in fact applied by ISIS themselves, and it was neither accepted nor applied by Al-Qaeda, which means that they (ISIS) deserve the most to be described as the “Jews of Jihad”. And so all of these statements taken by Abu Maysarah Al-Shami as evidence are applicable on him as well as his group.
And our final supplications are by praising Allah the Lord of all that exists.
 And after that the Abu Dhar Al Iraqi and Abu Saeed Al Iraqi appeared in a video footage of Ubuwa Laasiqa claiming that Jabha forced him to record the video and give a false testimony in order to tarnish the image of ISIS. We have asked the brothers from Jabhatun Nusrah who conducted the interview with him on that day, and they said “We make Mubahala (invocations for the curse of God to be sent on whoever of us is lying) that this ‘compulsion’ never happened, and that what that man said was from his own choice and his request which came in the series “ISIS – Realities from the inside”. Rather he used to insist that they are criminals and that he has repented for his actions with them. And he mentioned in the interview details those which we ourselves did not ask him in the recording, and he spoke in details and mentioned truthful testimonies in the statement on the crimes of ISIS. So we say “May God curse the one who is lying amongst us if we had forced him or dictated to him what he should say. And Allah is a witness to what we are saying”. – The comment by the media foundation which published the article in Arabic “Kataaib Rad’e Al Khawaarij”.
Justpaste Link: https://justpaste.it/JewsofJihad1
The following discussion took place between me and a brother who watched the Khilafa debate between Ustadh Abdul Rahman and Abu Baraa. The brother then contacted me and had a discussion with me in which he expressed his doubts after watching that debate.
The brother: Watch “The Khilafah Debate | Ustadh Abdur Rahman Hassan …” on YouTube… Have you watched it?
The brother: Fine….. And Ustadh Abdurrahman doesn’t make any sense for me.
Me: The Ustadh made mistakes with regards to Haakimiyyah. But that guy Abu Baraa was speaking non sense in the debate about the Khilafa. He mentioned some of the most absurd claims.
The brother: Like..?
Me: Like for example he was saying that since the Prophet (sallallhu alayhi wasallam) only spoke to a few leaders of Medina while taking Ba’yah from them, then that proves that you don’t need the support of the majority to be the ruler. This shows Abu Baraa’s ignorance because those leaders of the tribes in Medina with whom the Prophet spoke and took Ba’yah from were all accepted by their people and all the people knew them and they would accept their decisions but in the case of Abu Bakr al baghdadi, nobody accepts their decision or their leadership, and in fact nobody even knows who they really are and the majority of the Ummah are opposed to them and hate them and stand against them. So this shows that what happened during the time of the Prophet was completely different and opposed to that of abu bakr al baghdadi. And the followers of Baghdadi are not the Ummah exclusively rather they are those who have turned against the Ummah and are fighting the Ummah.
And moreover, Abu Baraa’s statement is one of the most foolish statements I ever heard on this subject… Because the authority of the Prophet comes from Allah. So Allah is the one who appointed him as the Prophet and the authority over the entire mankind. And the Prophet speaking to the leaders of Medina was only to defend and protect him. It does not affect his authority. (In fact the one who says that the authority of the Prophet comes from the people is actually following democracy, because by that he is saying that the authority for the Prophet and for Allah for ruling comes from the people and not the other way round…! So it is in fact a greater Kufr than even just democracy…! But this ignorant Abu Baraa did not realize this fact and that he was actually speaking words which would make one fall into the Kufr of democracy…What an ignorance from Abu Baraa…!)
Secondly, this incident is a proof AGAINST Abu Baraa… Because according to Abu baraa HIMSELF in that video, he mentioned that the Prophet at first spoke to several different tribes asking for protection. Many were willing to accept him but did not have the ability to protect him. So the Prophet then went to others who could protect him. So this shows that when a leader takes pledge from the people, protection should be given. So is that the case with Abu bakr baghdadi…? Can he protect the Ummah…? So how can he claim to be their leader and ask for Ba’yah?
The brother: Fine… But I felt his whole point was, how did we make a ‘condition’ that the majority is required. He was continuously asking for daleel and abdurrahman wasn’t having it.
Me: No…It is not like what you said…
The brother: Yes he can protect those within his boundaries. Where did we get that he need to have the ability to protect the whole Ummah in wherever they are?
Me: One of the proofs for the majority is the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah in which he said that if Umar and those with him gave pledge to Abu Bakr but the rest of the majority of the companions did not give him Ba’yah then Abu Bakr would not have become a Khalifa unless the majority of the companions gave him the Ba’yah.
The brother: But that’s what he responded as ‘majority of’ ahl halli wal aqd and not the majority of ummah. And he defined that.
Me: First of all he cannot protect those under him. When America came and made air strikes they could not protect anybody and they themselves went in hiding. So if the NATO force arrived they could easily destroy entire towns of theirs like they did in Afghanistan… So he can’t even protect his own people. But even if we agree for the sake of argument…then every Mujahid group in the world protect their own people. Tell me who protects the people in Afghanistan. Mullah Umar or baghdadi…? So who is their rightful leader…? And his statement regarding ahlul hal wal aqd is another weird argument.
The brother: That argument is valid.
Me: Which one?
The brother: Regarding the other groups holding the same potential… which you said… But not what you said about them being unable to defend themselves in the war… Coz it is a war and it has ups and downs.
Me: No… If it has ups and downs, then that proves that they are not in a state of Tamkeen but rather in a state of war. Because if the Kuffars are able to strike them anywhere in their territories and kill their people, then that means their land is Darul Harb (land of warfare) and not a land with Tamkeen, because you have Tamkeen only when you have security in your land. So them having ups and downs while they are in this defensive war shows that they are not in a stable condition which is one of the requirements for Tamkeen.
Moreover, according to baghdadi, all other groups in the world are invalid and cancelled by them… Did you know that?
The brother: Yes I know that.
Me: That is important. It is not about ups and downs in a war… There are two things to be noted…One is the definition of the Khalifa and does baghdadi fit that…? The second is the Ba’yah. Is it valid or not?
The brother: Go ahead.
Me: Do you know that the Ba’yah is a contract between the leader and the Ummah…? And every contract has it pillars without which it will be invalid… So do you know what this contract of Ba’yah is all about?
The brother: Okay, go ahead with the pillars of Ba’yah.
Me: One is that the Ba’yah is a contract between two parties. So no contract is valid until both the parties agree to it…
The brother: Okay
Me: So to be a leader for the Ummah means it is a contract between the leader and the Ummah.. So if the Ummah does not approve of it, this contract is invalid. Secondly…
The brother: Wait…. Before going to second…. Can u explain what Ummah means in our real world? Every Muslim, or notable Muslims or…?
Me: The entire Ummah or most importantly, its majority.
The brother: This is exactly which I’m trying to understand… From where we took that as a ‘sharth’ (condition), and its daleel for that? The statement of Ibn taymiyya does not prove that. Any more significant daleel?
Me: Akhi, I told you that the Ba’yah is a contract between two parties. The leader and the ummah. So how can this contract exist in reality if the ummah is not there…? If you say minority is sufficient, then where did you find in Fiqh that someone can make a contract on behalf of others without their permission…? Remember, if a few people gave Ba’yah to baghdadi, then it is a contract between him and those few… So he is a leader only for them alone just like every other group. But how does he become a leader for the Ummah because there is no contract made by them or their representatives..?
The brother: Yes. This is a point that I need to think upon.
(The discussion continued after that and more explanation was given to the brother which I hope to summarize at some point soon inshallah)
Justpaste Link: https://justpaste.it/khilafadebate1
(From Dr. Eyad Qunaibi’s page/ Ahmed Sameer)
– Translated by Aamir Wali
From what is obviously self evident is that there is no governorship (Imarah) without a Jamaah (community) and also, from what is self evident is that is that the supreme leadership i.e the Khilafa is at the end ultimately a governorship in a Jamaah (community). That is why the Imam or the Khalifa is described as Ameerul Mumineen (The leader of the believers).
But the supreme leadership (Khilafa) even though is ultimately a governorship, it is unlike any other governorship and it has what it distinguishes itself with and has specific rules and laws.
So while talking about the supreme leadership (Imamat ul Uzma), then what is intended would also be that of the bigger community (Jamaath ul Uzma) which is “THE Muslim Community” and NOT “a community FROM amongst the Muslims”. And “THE Muslim community” refers to the majority of the ummah and its greater populace. So the Imam is only the one whose authority and power extends over to the majority of the ummah.
And that is because the existence of the Grand Imam cannot at all be assumed of without the gathering of the Muslim community and its majority in a union in which it would be appropriate for them to have one single leader. And the evidences associated with this are:
The advice of the Prophet (saw) given to Hudhayfa (ra) when he said to him, “Stick to THE Muslim community and their leader”. So the Prophet (saw) combined these two together putting them in one category and did not differentiate between the two.
And the Prophet (saw) said, “Whoever sees a disliked thing from his leader, let him be patient over it since the one who separates himself from THE COMMUNITY for a handspan and died as such, it is then a death of jaahiliya”.
And he said, “Whoever left obedience and separated from THE COMMUNITY and died, then he has died the death of jaahilia”.
And he said, “Whoever comes to you while you are united under a single leader, while desiring to break your unity and divide YOUR COMMUNITY, then kill him”.
All these hadeeths make the supreme leadership/Grand Imamat and the Muslim community as one single thing and categorizes the one who goes out of the Imam as one who has gone out of the community. This is because the former cannot be assumed without the latter as we mentioned.
And there is no difference amongst those with intellect that the authority of any ameer whose existence is known, its extent is specified and has limits in accordance with his power and ability that he actually has in the circumstance. So if we suppose that a man from amongst the people in the east stood up and declared that he considered himself as the leader of the people in the west whom he does not know nor do they know him and also he does not have any command over them nor any ability or power, he would with that have opposed logic before he opposed the Shareeah, since of what value is a declaration like this that has no reality or truth?!
Hence, governorship is not a declaration but a description that reflects the ongoing reality. It is not gained by intentions or hopes or claims. Similarly is the case with the Grand Imamat. It is absolutely impossible for a man to be considered a Khalifa or an Imam with the supreme leadership unless he has fulfilled the prerequisites of this leadership as to his power and authority over the Muslim community ie. its masses and its great majority. So this is the prerequisite of the Grand Imamat which is different from the rest of the Emirates. And every leader who does not have this authority and such a power, then his authority is not that of the supreme leader or a Khilafa even if he claimed it a thousand times. So names and terminologies are decided by the scenario and not the opposite. Infact any authority can turn into the supreme leadership and Khilafat if it fulfills its conditions and its scenario even if those in authority do not call it an Imamat or Khilafat…!!
Similarly, the opposite may happen. Any of those having any authority can call their leadership as Khilafat and describe their leader with the Grand Imamate but that does not become so. And history is filled with it.
So names do not change the reality of the objects, but the actual authority and its capacity is what decides.
So declaration for an Imam or a Khalifa does not mean that he has become an Imam or a Khalifa, rather this announcement can in the best case be considered to be no more than a request for this man’s authority and an invitation for his appointment. As for him actually being an Imam or a Khalifa or not, then this is completely beyond the announcement and is decided by looking into the actual scenario. Similarly, Umar (ra) gave bayah to Abu Bakr (ra) and declared him to be a leader, but the Imamat or the actual leadership of Abu Bakr was not established until after the majority of the people of shawka (strength) approved of him. Ibn Taymiyyah says,
“As for the governorship and authority, then it is a term for the ability that is held. It could be gained by means that is pleasing to Allah and His messenger like the authority of the Khulafa u Rashideen, and it could also be gained in ways that are in disobedience (to Allah) like the authority of the oppressors. And if it is assumed that Umar and those with him pledged allegiance (bayah) to him (Abu Bakr) but the rest of the companions refused the bayah, then he would not have become an Imam by that. Indeed he became an Imam only by the pledging of allegiance by the majority of the companions who are the people of authority and strength. That is why the abstinence of Sad bin Ubadah did not harm (the leadership), and that is because it would not break the purpose of the governorship whose intent is to get power and authority by which the benefits of the Imamat can be attained. And that occurred by the agreement of the majority over it”.
He also says, “So indeed there is no condition for the khilafat except the agreement of the people of shawkah (strength) and the majority through whom the matter may be set up for gaining the objectives of the leadership. This is why the Prophet (sa) said, “Stick to the jamaah (community) for indeed the hand of Allah is with the community” and “Indeed the devil is with the lone one and is further away from two”.
And none can be found from amongst mankind who separated the Grand Imamah from its conditions for its fulfillment except the Raafidhah! So they caused the people to laugh at their intellects where they named some of the noble ones from Ahlul Bayt as Khulafa and as Imams merely due to them being more entitled for it. Whereas the truth is that even if they were more entitled to it, they did not become Khulafa or Imams as per this meaning. In fact, it would be correct to call them as Imams in the religion but not the Imams of the dunya. And this is not degrading them, may Allah be pleased with them, but a statement regarding the actual reality.
So if a questioner asks, that if the Khilafat and its existence are decided by the scenario and it has conditions to be fulfilled and we are not to claim it or announce it to begin with, then how would you carry the statements of the scholars who stated the obligation to set up a Khalifa/Imam through whom the worldly and religious benefits would be fulfilled? Does this not mean that an announcement for a khalifa should be made today so as to take away the sin from us?
Our reply is that the sayings of the scholars regarding the obligation of setting up an Imam are when the prerequisites of it have been achieved, then it would be an obligation on the ummah to set up an Imam. And when the prerequisites have not been achieved/fulfilled then the talk about the Grand Imamat would be incomprehensible to begin with. And setting up the Imam is an obligation over the jama’ah (community). And when the Muslims do not have the jamaah, then the Muslims are addressed to bring their jama’ah into existence first, and not to bring the khaleefa whose leadership will have no meaning without such a jamaah.
And in our times, if we talk about the obligation of setting up the jamaah (community), then it is a talk about the obligation of repelling every obstacle which prevents such a jamaah from existing i.e. Jihad against the transgressing enemy and its agents who plundered away from the Muslims their authority and who are dividing the Muslim community by laying down borders which they drew by pens so that the allegiance would be for them and not for Islam, those who prevent the law of Allah from ruling and from the return of the unity of their word. So repelling the authority of this kufr is the obligation of our times absolutely by all means and with all certainty. When those obstacles have been removed and such hurdles have been set aside and the authority of Muslims have been returned back to them from those who snatched it from them and their community, from those who divided them, and the authority of the kufr from its chiefs has been removed from them, then it would be easiest for them at that time to chose a man from amongst them who would then be their Imam and Khalifa in reality and not just by claims or announcements!
And here, there is an issue: If the unity of community and authority has been achieved within a jamaah or group from amongst the Muslims and they exist in one of the regions or a unity of community and authority has been achieved in a number of different regions which are away from each other, then I do not know of any difference of opinion regarding their permissibility to have a number of leaders so that each region will have a leader over it. And the meaning of “dispute” and “breaking of ranks” would be non existing because the ummah has not yet united as one community while each of those regions would be in need of a leader who governs it. And it would not be permissible then for any of those leaders to claim an authority that he does not have and to claim himself a position that does not exist and say that he has become the Khalifa and the Imam over the entire Muslim community who may not have even heard about him at all, and then after that claim to have invalidated and cancelled all those Emirates even those over whom his authority has not reached nor is it even anywhere near them. This then would be an act that not just trespasses against the Shareeah but goes against the intellect. We have mentioned previously that those with intellect from every nation have agreed that the rule of every leader is in accordance with his authority and he does not have any command over those he does not have authority. So what meaning will a leadership have without such authority!
And this is not the prohibited plurality of leaders, for indeed what has been prohibited is for there to exist two Imams who are disputing over the same status and authority but not the plurality of leaders in the manner that we have explained and the existing conditions.
As for the Imam having no command outside his authority both in terms of logic and Shareeah, then there can be no clearer evidence than the incident of Abu Basir and his group. When they were not under the authority of the Prophet (sa), it was permitted for them to not abide by the treaty that the Prophet (sa) made with the polytheists (ie Hudaybiya). And infact Abu Basir would receive those who came to him from Mecca and shelter them and they would attack the caravans of the Quraysh and the Quraysh did not accuse the Prophet (sa) of having violated the treaty as they knew well that the command of any leader does not go outside his authority. And Abu Basir was not under this authority and this was permissible for him inspite of there existing the Imam and the leadership with an absolute reality and by fulfilling its conditions in a manner that will never occur in history again. So what then would be the case of the one who does not possess even one tenth of that and compels the people to accept an authority when it has not even reached them?
And with that you will understand that there is no meaning for something known as “announcement for the establishment of the khilafa” just as there no meaning for something known as “announcement for the fall of the khilafa”… since the Khilafa had in actual sense fallen even before 1924 and the announcement of the fallen Ataturk for that did not change any of the rules of reality or legitimacy. So Imamah is not obtained by announcement as we have mentioned and similarly does not fall by announcement. In fact it is only a matter that either occurs in reality or does not occur!
And I am here speaking only about the prerequisites and the current scenario which specifies as to whether a leadership is to be described as the Grand Imamat (Imamat ul Uzma) or no, far from it. Whether the means by which capability and power has been achieved is approved or not is not the subject of my talk since the leader can gain this authority either by consultation (shura) and approval or he may gain it by force, and the sword and overpowering. But whereas if were to speak about the Khilafa that is praised by the sharia and that which has been promised about and which is a specific picture of the supreme leadership, then it is altogether a different talk.
And Allah knows best.
Justpaste Link: https://justpaste.it/gqnj