Dying to Kill: Interviewing a British Jihadist ]

[Tesseract]

This is a year old but just fell under my attention. Its too bad that they dont offer the full piece for free but It's a long and good read anyway.

 

 

link

 

A British jihadist

 

Hassan Butt, a 25 year old from Manchester, helped recruit Muslims to fight in Afghanistan. Like most of the London bombers, he is a British Pakistani who journeyed from rootlessness to radical Islam

 

Aatish Taseer

 

t is not hard to imagine what the Leeds suburb of Beeston was like before it became known that three of London's tube bombers worked or lived there. For someone like me— a Punjabi with parents from each side of the India/Pakistan border—the streets of Beeston reveal a pre-partition mixture of Punjabi Muslims and Sikhs. Despite the commotion caused by half the world's media, men in shalwar kurta (traditional dress from the subcontinent) stand around on street corners chatting as if in a bazaar in Lahore. They oppose Britain's involvement in the Iraq war, they "hate" America, they might even think that the west has united in a fight against Muslims, but these are not the faces of extremism. Their involvement in 7/7 is a generational one: they have raised the people who are the genus of Islamic extremism in this country—the second-generation British Pakistanis.

 

One appears next to his father on the street corner. Unlike his father, there is nothing about his appearance that indicates he is a Punjabi Muslim. He is wearing long Arab robes and keeps a beard cut to Islamic specifications. I ask him why he is dressed the way he is. "It's my traditional dress," he says in English. "Isn't your father in traditional dress?" I ask. "Yes, but this is Islamic dress," he clarifies. His father looks embarrassed. A man standing next to me jokes of how he complained to his neighbour that his son never did any work, and the neighbour said, "You think that's bad, mine's grown a beard and become a bloody maulvi [priest]."

 

As a half-Indian, half-Pakistani with a strong connection to this country, I have observed the gulf between what it means to be British Pakistani and British Indian. To be Indian is to come from a safe, ancient country and, more recently, from an emerging power. In contrast, to be Pakistani is to begin with a depleted idea of nationhood. In the 55 years that Pakistan has been a country, it has been a dangerous, violent place, defined by hatred of the other—India.

 

For young British Muslims, if Pakistan was not the place to look for an identity, being second-generation British was still less inspiring. While their parents were pioneers, leaving Pakistan in search of economic opportunities, enduring the initial challenges of a strange land, the second generation's experience has been one of drudgery and confusion. Mohammad, who owns a convenience store on Stratford Street in Beeston and who knew all the local bombers, says, "They were born and raised here, we did the work… and these kids grew up and they haven't had a day's worry. They're bored, they don't do any work, they have no sense of honour or belonging."

 

Britishness is the most nominal aspect of identity to many young British Pakistanis. The thinking in Britain's political class has at last begun to move on this front, but when our tube bombers were growing up, any notion that an idea of Britishness should be imposed on minorities was seen as offensive. Britons themselves were having a hard time believing in Britishness. If you denigrate your own culture you face the risk of your newer arrivals looking for one elsewhere. So far afield in this case, that for many second-generation British Pakistanis, the desert culture of the Arabs held more appeal than either British or subcontinental culture. Three times removed from a durable sense of identity, the energised extra-national worldview of radical Islam became one available identity for second-generation Pakistanis. The few who took it did so with the convert's zeal: plus Arabe que les Arabes.

 

The older generation of Beeston is mystified as to where some of their children found this identity. By all accounts it was not in the mosque. I met Maulana Munir of the Stratford Street mosque, which, according to some newspapers, was attended by some of the London bombers. Munir, a small, soft-spoken man, said he had never known them. "This younger generation," he says, "are owners of their own will, they come when they like, they don't when they don't like. The mosque is not responsible for these people." Munir, like the others of the older generation, is a man cut off from the youth movements around him. He has not faced their loss of identity and meaning.

 

Hassan Butt, the young British Pakistani who was a spokesman for the extremist group al-Muhajiroun, and active in recruiting people to fight against the coalition forces in Afghanistan, embodies this journey from frustration and rootlessness to radical Islam. The world he describes before he was first approached, aged 17, by members of the Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), was a disordered one. When I interviewed him last year, he described HT as showing him an Islam that could bring order to his life. Accepting Islam meant the creation of a social equilibrium that had been absent before. Islam was playing the role it had in 7th-century Arabia of bringing law and structure to decaying communities.

 

Butt parted ways with al-Muhajiroun (itself a breakaway from HT) and its founder Omar Sheikh Bakri because they supported the Islamic idea of a "covenant of security," by which Muslims in Britain are forbidden from any type of military action in Britain. Butt believed that military action against Britain would be unwise for the practical reason that it would jeopardise the protection "Londonistan" was offering radical Muslims, but he could not tolerate the position that such action was un-Islamic.

 

I was reminded of Butt's cold hatred for Britain when a colleague of mine said that Beeston's younger generation were saying to her, a week after the London bombs, "Well what's the difference between al Qaeda and MI5 anyway?" and "It's sad people died, but what about the ones who died in Iraq?"

 

There it is again, the extra-national sentiment, in which no nation matters save the Islamic nation and its Arab culture. Butt spoke passionately about Arabia and wants to go there. "I believe the Arabic language will give me that key to have access to those things I don't have access to at the moment." Again, that yearning for Islam to fill the gaps in his own identity.

 

And yet, on the one occasion he came close to having a national identity, he seemed to love it. From the way he described his two years in Lahore, it sounded like the only place he ever felt a sense of belonging. "I've never had a better two years in my life. I see Pakistan as the only country having the potential to lead the Muslim world out of the disarray it is in."

 

Butt is an ardent supporter of "martyrdom actions." Whether he will achieve the martyrdom he desires remains to be seen. But during our interview, he did say something very interesting in the light of the London bombs. "If someone were to attack Britain, they would be a completely and utterly loose cannon. It would be someone who wasn't involved in the network." What worried me when I went to Beeston and met some of its youth, many as full of vitriol as Butt, was that maybe the London bombings had been such a "loose cannon" operation. The bombers certainly had outside support, but there seemed to be a frighteningly independent quality about the operation, a cottage-industry terrorism growing in Hamara youth centres.

 

Radical Islam draws recruits from many walks of life, but in Britain its agents are of a type—second-generation British Pakistanis. Somehow they have been worst hit by the populations shifts of the last 50 years and the alienation that came with them. A few have rallied under a banner which brings an intense sense of grievance. And when they are done chasing absurd dreams of caliphates, there is always martyrdom. "For me there's nothing bigger," said Butt. I met many in Beeston with his makings: small, rootless lives, seeking bigger things.

 

Butt briefly became a minor celebrity of British Muslim extremism when he returned from his recruitment activities in Lahore in December 2002. He was arrested, had his passport revoked, and remains under surveillance. This interview took place last year in his home town, Manchester. Butt is short but powerfully built and was wearing robes. He has an Islamic beard and a pleasant, friendly face. He collected me at the station and we went to Sanam, a restaurant in Manchester's curry mile which does not serve alcohol. Everyone there knew him and greeted him like a celebrity.

 

 

 

Butt: I used to be part of al-Muhajiroun, but we parted because of differences… They have this idea—derived from the Koran, a valid Islamic opinion but not one I believe is applicable to British citizens—of a “covenant of security.” This means Muslims in Britain are forbidden from any military action in Britain. Now, I am not in favour of military action in Britain, but if somebody did do it who was British, I would not have any trouble with that either. Islamically, it would be my duty to support and praise their action. It wouldn’t necessarily be the wisest thing to do, but it wouldn't be un-Islamic, as al-Muhajiroun said.

 

This, I believe, is a compromise when it comes to representing certain key concepts of Islam. I've always had a policy that if you're going to come to the media, either speak the truth or don't speak at all. Don't come to the media if the heat is too hot for you.

 

Taseer: Where do you think the covenant of security idea comes from? I spoke to an imam who said that you cannot strike against your host country. If you want to support Iraqis, go there and support them.

 

Butt: Most imams, as you know, have come here not as British citizens. There is a difference between a citizen who is born in a country and someone who is here on a visa or a permit. Islamically, I agree that someone who runs from the middle east—where people like me are persecuted—and says, “Britain, I want you to protect me” has entered a covenant of security. They say, “Look, protect my life and as a result I won't do any harm to you.” That I agree with 100 per cent, but most of our people, especially the youth, are British citizens. They owe nothing to the government. They did not ask to be born here; neither did they ask to be protected by Britain.

 

Taseer: So they've entered no covenant?

 

Butt: They have no covenant. As far as I'm concerned, the Islamic hukum (order) that I follow, says that a person has no covenant whatsoever with the country in which they were born.

 

Taseer: Do they have an allegiance to the country?

 

Butt: No, none whatsoever. Even the person who has a covenant has no allegiance, he just agrees not to threaten the life, honour, wealth, property, mind, and so on, of the citizens around him.

 

Taseer: Your argument is based on these people being “British,” so don't they necessarily have some loyalty to Britain?

 

Butt: No, that's what I'm saying. They have no loyalty whatsoever; they have no allegiance to the government.

 

Taseer: Perhaps not the government, but to the country?

 

Butt: To the country, no.

 

Taseer: Do you feel some?

 

Butt: I feel absolutely nothing for this country. I have no problem with the British people… but if someone attacks them, I have no problem with that either.

 

Taseer: Who do you have allegiance to?

 

Butt: My allegiance is to Allah, his Shari’a, his way of life. Whatever he dictates as good is good, whatever as bad is bad.

 

Taseer: Has it always been this way for you?

 

Butt: Always? No. I grew up in a very open-minded family; there are only four of us. My parents never made us pray, never sent us to the mosque, which was very different from your average Pakistani family who would make sure that the child learned something. I learned absolutely nothing.

 

Taseer: So how did you discover Islam, or rediscover it?

 

Butt: Well, being Kashmiri, I'm hot-headed by nature, and so are my brothers. Even before I was a practising Muslim, I was very hot-headed. That hot-headedness was leading us down a path of destruction. A lot of the people I grew up among were on drugs, were involved in crime, prostitution, at very young ages. I remember when I came across the first Muslim who talked to me about Islam in a language I understood. He pointed out that I had a lot of anger and frustration that I should direct in a more productive manner. It was from there that I got discussing Islam seriously—even though we were hotheads, me and my brothers always had brains, we weren't thugs. We were still excelling in our studies and getting top grades in our exams.

 

Taseer: How old were you when you changed?

 

Butt: I was 17 when I really started practising.

 

Taseer: Was it through a mosque?

 

Butt: No. It was through individuals whom I met, who started speaking a language that I understood, who went beyond just the prayer. I understand the huge importance of that.

 

Taseer: How did they approach you?

 

Butt: My elder brother was in college, I was still at secondary school. The college being a bit more open to Islamic activities than high school, we met some members of Hizb ut-Tahrir inside a masjid (mosque) and got talking. At that time the masjid was full anyway, since it was Ramadan. They showed me that beyond the recitation of the Koran, the praying, the fasting, the hajj—that Islam is a complete system, a complete way of life, and how that applied to us and our place in society.

 

Taseer: What is the philosophy of Hizb ut-Tahrir?

 

Butt: The idea is that Muslims in Britain need to keep to their Islamic identity and work for the re-establishment of an Islamic caliphate, or khalifah as they would say, based upon the first four caliphates of Islam.

 

Taseer: Where?

 

Butt: In the Muslim countries. That is one of the differences I had with them.

 

Taseer: You would like to see the caliphate here too?

 

Butt: Absolutely. How could we restrict something that initially started in Medina but then spread through the entire Muslim world?

 

Taseer: Would everyone have to be a Muslim, or would it work within our existing society?

 

Butt: No, it’s a structure of law and order…

 

Taseer: A central authority?

 

Butt: A central Islamic authority. Whether the people are Muslim or not is irrelevant. But even orientalist authors like Gilles Keppel agree that Islam was so powerful that it was the only way of life that both the conquered and the conqueror embraced. When the Mongols attacked Islam, they became Muslims; the same happened with the Turks. Even the people Islam conquered, they themselves embraced the way of life. People say it was forced by the sword, but if so, when the sword was removed, why did these people not revert back? Simply because it was never actually forced upon them. The inherent beauty of Islam made people want to embrace it.

 

Taseer: There are places it didn't happen, like India.

 

Butt: For me, the subcontinent was a tragedy; it never had the Islam that was introduced in Spain, for example, or north Africa. Very early on, the Mughals took power and India distanced itself from central Islam. The Arab Muslims never concentrated on these people enough, which is why the majority of Muslims there never embraced it.

 

Taseer: You said that you were once hot-headed; are you calmer today?

 

Butt: I find myself just as emotional as I was then, but more able to express that emotion in an Islamic manner. I would hate to be an emotionless person. You hear this a lot in the Muslim world today, from certain intellectuals: “Don't be emotional about it, think rationally, think logically.” I guess it's an imperial complex from being under British rule for so long. British people are seen as being very cool-headed, calm and collected, but if your sister has been raped, your mother tortured and your father is being brutalised, how could you stay without emotion? Having no emotion is like being a brick. Now I can channel my emotion in an Islamic way rather than an un-Islamic way.

 

Taseer: Tell me a bit about your daily life. Do you read books and see movies?

 

Butt: No, no, no. (He laughs)

 

Taseer: How do you pass the day?

 

Butt: Daily routine would be getting up to pray the fajr without failure, staying awake for as long as I can, for at least an hour, an hour and a half, reciting the Koran, purely in Arabic…

 

Taseer: Is your Arabic good?

 

Butt: My Arabic, unfortunately, is not the best and I guess I have my parents to blame for that. But I do plan, once they give me back my passport, to go to an Arab country. I think it's the key to everything.

 

Taseer: Do you work?

 

Butt: I don't want to go into specifics. I do have business partners, but they don't like me coming out publicly and saying that they're affiliated with me. I do various different trading things. I don't have a normal nine-to-five type of job. Whenever I have applied for a job in the past, they have found out who I am and the views I hold, and as a result they don’t want me. But wherever I go, I will always be involved in Islamic work.

 

Taseer: At work?

 

Butt: Even at work. I’m always trying to help my colleagues, as Muslims, to have a more Islamic way of life.

 

Taseer: How would you describe yourself as a Muslim, given that there are so many labels bring thrown about—“moderate,” “extremist” and so on?

 

Butt: I would agree to being called a radical and one day I may even be called a terrorist, if Allah permits me. That is something it would be an honour to be called.

 

Taseer: Surely, even in an Islamic context, that can't be a positive label?

 

Butt: There is a speech by the Prophet in which he says: Allah gave me five things. One of them was the power to strike fear, to strike terror into the heart of the enemy from a mile's distance, and this was a reference to a battle he had commenced. The way the warriors had prepared themselves was so terrifying that the enemy didn’t even turn up to the battle. Besides that, in the Koran the word irhab is the root word for terror in Islam, and irhabiyun is the word for terrorist. Allah mentions the word in the Koran many times—the one who strikes terror into their hearts is an irhabiyun. If I could have that title Islamically then I would be more than happy to take it and be proud of it. But unfortunately, I haven't reached that level yet.

 

Taseer: Why not?

 

Butt: Because I am stuck in this country. It would be unwise to carry out military operations here.

 

Taseer: Why?

 

Butt: It would harm a lot of people. Britain is a very liberal country in comparison to America where Muslims don't have many rights. This is the type of country where you do have a lot more rights. Now with Afghanistan gone, the Muslims don't really have a place where they can come back to and regroup, have time to think and relax, without the authorities breathing down your neck.

 

Taseer: Was it difficult growing up here as a Muslim? Did you sense an anti-Islamic feeling?

 

Butt: The British establishment has always hated Islam. Look at the crusades. I watched that programme on the BBC, The Secret Policeman (an undercover report on trainee policemen) and one of the police officers had the honesty to admit what he felt: he said he would kill a Muslim if he could get away with it. What he said briefly is that he represents the majority, the only difference being that he has the courage to articulate it. And I do believe in my heart of hearts that the majority of British people—the majority being outside of London—would do that if they had the opportunity. Historically speaking, there has always been an enmity. I experienced it as I was growing up, going into majority white schools and having a problem trying to be a Muslim.

 

Taseer: Would you try to leave?

 

Butt: If they give me my passport, I will fly straight out of here. I won’t be here a day longer than I have to.

 

Taseer: And never come back?

 

Butt: And never come back unless absolutely necessary.

 

Taseer: Until they give you your passport back, you can’t leave?

 

Butt: There's no point in my leaving. I could leave if I wanted to, but it would be illegal and it wouldn't be very hard for them to start taking criminal proceedings against me.

 

Taseer: In the past you have demonstrated the failures of British security. Has it improved?

 

Butt: It's funny you asked me that. I have been reading a book—Jihad by Gilles Keppel—not for the sake of learning anything, but to see whether these people have understood us. In the past, and I'm talking 100, 200 years ago, the reason the British were successful in destroying Islamic government or the Ottoman caliph is that they actually lived among them and they made an effort to understand what they wanted to destroy. Now they're trying to understand something that is a theory. It's in my mind, it's in peoples' minds, but it's not a practical manifestation of the system that we aspire towards, so it's very hard for them to contain it. As a result of that, the security services have lost their ability to analyse how Muslims think—I mean real Muslims, the ones who are not ashamed to talk about their opinions and to express them in public. That is why they will lose this war on terror, because guys like Keppel don’t understand us.

 

Taseer: Do many Muslims in Britain feel like you do?

 

Butt: I would say the majority of Muslims in this country care about neither moderate nor radical Islam; they care about living their day-to-day life. They're happy with that. But of those people who are practising, the majority of them hold my views. The difference is that some people come out publicly and others keep quiet.

 

Taseer: What would you say the size of this latter group is?

 

Butt: Official figures say there are 3m Muslims here. [There are in fact 1.6m.] Out of that, I would say there are 750,000 who have an interest in Islam and about 80 per cent of those were over the moon about 9/11.

 

Taseer: Why?

 

Butt: The motivation is the pleasure of Allah, first and foremost. Allah says in the Koran “We have sent you,”—the Muslims—“the best nation in the world, to mankind.” But there are conditions attached to that because you must enjoy goodness and forbid evil. As long as Muslims do this, they will see themselves as the best nation. And the reason why the majority of Muslims feel this inspiration is because we understand that Islam is by its nature beautiful; it is not a backward, medieval-type way of life as a lot of westerners believe. That's why, historically, even after Islam had left these areas as a political force, people still held on to its way of life. Even in the crusades you had Muslims and Jews fighting alongside one another in order avoid Roman rule because they said Islam was just towards them; Islam gave them rights. In the 15th century, during the Spanish inquisition, where did the Jews run to? To the Ottoman caliphate, Islam was an inspiration. All human rights are based on Islam, to ensure peace and security in the world.

 

Taseer: So given the situation in the world today, what is the duty of the Muslim?

 

Butt: Every Muslim must work for the Shari’a to be implemented as a political way of life. They can do that physically, by involving themselves in revolutionary coups, or through political means. As long as they don't attack or compromise other Muslims who are doing something different from them, I have no problem with any of these ways of establishing the Shari’a.

 

Taseer: Is it going to be possible for Muslims to live alongside non-Muslims?

 

Butt: We did it in the past, why can't we do it now?

 

Taseer: Would it have to be a Muslim polity?

 

Butt: Yes.

 

Taseer: Or could it be like England?

 

Butt: No, it couldn't be like England. The so-called liberal countries in the world, France for example, boast about liberty and their so-called revolution, but they are banning headscarves. Where have the rights of the Muslims gone there? Where are the rights of Muslims in Britain to be able to support their brothers who are being attacked in Kashmir? So many of the organisations proscribed by the British government are Kashmiri freedom fighters, or terrorists as you would call them.

 

Taseer: Why is it that an attack on Muslims in another part of the world affects British Muslims?

 

Butt: Because Allah is the way of love. Racism has infiltrated Christianity and Judaism. It is inbred in the people. Christians never see themselves as one brotherhood, but rather many dominions, whereas Muslims, no matter what colour they are, no matter what race they are, no matter what nationality they are, see themselves as one brotherhood. Ultimately this is what Islam teaches; that black, white, brown, red, green—if there were aliens in Mars—these people are brothers. Poor or rich, it has no effect on how we should treat one another. It doesn't mean that we should divide. And that is why when Muslims are being attacked, the majority of Muslims kick up a fuss, because these are their brothers and sisters. Unfortunately, there are Muslims today whose only reason to pick up a cause is for political support or their personal ambitions. Ultimately, if your brothers and sisters were being killed in any part of the world, you would make your utmost effort to try to help them.

 

Taseer: Where do you see Muslims under attack?

 

Butt: Everywhere. It's not limited to just one place. Wherever Muslims are they are under attack and until they start viewing themselves like that, they will always remain an inferior nation.

 

Taseer: And why are they under attack?

 

Butt: If they're not being attacked physically, they are being attacked mentally. They are being told that their way of life is backward, they’re being told that for women to cover themselves is against human rights, they're being told that to cut the hand of the thief, which Allah ordains in the Koran, is outdated. They're being told that their way of life is inferior and bad and should not be followed. And they're often stripped of their identity, as they were in Bosnia: Muslim by name only, no culture whatsoever. That is still a war as a far as I'm concerned.

 

Taseer: Why is there a "Muslim problem” today? Ten or 15 years ago there wasn't the sort of movement you see today. What changed?

 

Butt: I don't agree with you. Ten to 15 years ago the Muslims had just experienced their first victory of the 20th century, against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The belief that this was due to American support is ridiculous. Muslims, especially from the middle east, financed the jihad just as much, if not more. This is well documented. With that victory under their belt, the Muslims began to realise that they could control their own political destiny, whether by revolution or other violent means. To be honest with you, I don't think the Americans, British or French are the best lecturers on how to change a society, simply because they have themselves experienced revolution to attain the way of life they believe in. So why, when we do it, are we so different from them? Muslims woke up. You then had Iraq being attacked, you had Chechnya, Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia, Algeria, you had all these Muslim areas being attacked and you had Muslims waking up and saying, “Hang on, this isn't a coincidence.”

 

Taseer: Why do you think that is?

 

Butt: Because after the fall of communism, America began to realise that Islam was a threat.

 

Taseer: The larger fall of communism wasn't the result of Islam even if you think that that may be the case in Afghanistan...

 

Butt: That's what I'm saying; it was a catalyst for collapse in Afghanistan.

 

Taseer: Why?

 

Butt: Because Islam is a way of life, a way of life superior to communism and capitalism. Christianity is a mere religion and can’t cater for people’s way of life, but Islam can. With the fall of the Soviet Union, people started turning to Islam as a way of life, whereas America wanted to spread capitalism across the world. That's why Islam became the enemy.

 

Taseer: Yes, but why are Muslims the only enemy? Are they the only ones fighting American colonialism?

 

Butt: No, you have your South American states that are involved in the struggle. But with the exception of them and a few African nations, the majority of the people fighting against American colonialism are not Muslim nations, but Muslim people. Muslim governments are more than happy to embrace the other way of life in order to stay powerful.

 

Taseer: Do you consider yourself a religious teacher of sorts? Do you speak to people in the community?

 

Butt: I speak to a lot of people in the community. I have a gym in my house where I invite people to come back and exercise and we have regular study circles at my house.

 

Taseer: What sort of people are these?

 

Butt: A lot of them are youth because I believe that when Islam is being practised by youth, Islam will be alive. If it's practised by the older generation, it will always remain old, slow.

 

Taseer: Are they receptive to your views or do they resist and say, “No, we want to go out with girls and drink” and so on?

 

Butt: A lot of people will say that to me, but when it comes to their absolute happiness, a lot of people realise that Islam is their way of life.

 

Taseer: What do you say to them?

 

Butt: One of the first questions I ask them is: why do you celebrate Eid? If you like their way of life, celebrate Christmas. That provokes thought in their head that the reason they celebrate Eid is because they are different. It's not just Eid or Christmas, it's their whole way of life being different. How they speak to their people, how they speak to their fellow brothers and sisters, how they speak to their teachers, how they progress in their education: they have different ways. Ultimately, if someone believes in Allah and his messenger, he will always have at the back of his mind the notion that he’ll go back to Allah when he dies. And I'll ask people, “Don't lie for the sake of me, you don't have to say something to please me, but do you believe in Allah? Ask yourself that question, do you really, really believe in Allah? Do you really believe that there is hellfire, do you really believe that there is heaven and hell, or not?” And if someone believes that, there is no reason why they won't realise that, “Yes, our life does belong to us.” And from there, we'll go further. To those brothers who say, “I pray all the time,” I reply, “That's not enough: give your life for Allah, that's what he wants, he wants you to live and die for him, that is the ultimate sacrifice, he gave you that life, give it back to him.”

 

Taseer: Given that the Koran is incontestable to the letter, and that it is unique because there is no another religion in which there is a text so pure, handed down from God to man, can there be a moderate Muslim?

 

Butt: No. You've hit the nail on the head. If someone believes that it's the incontestable word of Allah, how can he take a moderate view? We must fight if it is the will of Allah. I don’t want to say that Muslims don’t believe in Allah, but what I will say is that their faith in Allah is weak. They fear man the same way that the Jews feared the pharaoh, who they feared more than Allah and that's why they were afraid to do anything against him, until Moses came and liberated them. The lack of leadership in the Muslim community is simply because they are too afraid to stand up against this so-called undefeatable giant of the United States.

 

Taseer: Coming back to the youth, are they angry?

 

Butt: Many are from quite wealthy families, as I am.

 

Taseer: So you don't see this rise of extremism among British Muslims as rooted in economic disadvantage?

 

Butt: I think that's a myth, pushed forward by so-called moderate Muslims. If you look at the 19 hijackers on 9/11, which one of them didn't have a degree? Muhammad Atta was an engineer [he was actually an architect and town planner] at the highest level. His Hamburg lecturer said, “I didn't have a student like him.” These people are not deprived or uneducated; they are the peak of society. They've seen everything there is to see and they are rejecting it outright because there is nothing for them. Most of the people I sit with are in fact university students, they come from wealthy families. Islam caters for everybody: the economically deprived and the most educated person. It doesn't make any difference: the message will still be the same. But this myth—that the only reason these people go for Islam is because they have nothing else to do—is a lie and a fabrication. People who say that should be very careful. Even Osama himself, Sheikh Osama, came from wealth that I could never dream of and he gave it all up because it had no value to him. Who can say he came from an economically deprived condition? It's rubbish.

 

end of part one.

[--->]

Niggas last name is Butt!!!:haha:

[Dawood]

I read that whole article and I'm not surprised, especially when he mentioned the Hizb at Tahrir. They are known for their extremism and exaggeration with Jihad.

 

I agree with some of what he says (about american colonialism), there is a lot of truth to some of his statements but he mixes poison with the honey. Especially the 911 statement where he says 80 percent of british muslims were "over the moon about it". thats crazy.

The sentiments aren't the same from american muslims about 9/11 in America although ,it could be becuase American muslims are in America where it took place, I don't know.

 

 

 

anyway,I know it's a very long read and some of it may not be relevant to this issue, but a well known islamic lecturer/speaker from briton responed to these knuckleheads (like Butt) and exposed their destructive realities

 

IN RESPONSE TO THE DEVIL'S DECEPTION OF HIZB-AT-TAHREER & AL-MUHAJIROUN

 

By Aboo Khadeejah Abdul-Waahid

Source: University of Essex Islamic Society

 

All praise is for Allaah, lord of the worlds. Peace and blessings be upon Muhammad, his family, his companions, and all those who follow in their footsteps until the last day. "Actions are but by their intentions and there is for every person only that which he intended." {Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 1 / p1 / no. 1. also refer to Sahih Muslim, vol. 3 / p 1056 / no. 4692.}. The following is a letter in response to a member of one the two groups mentioned in the title.

 

I am continuing this discussion for one reason and one reason only; that is that I am assuming that you seek only the truth, and when it comes to you, there will be no resistance in your submission to it. If you believe that you are upon the haq and nothing will change you then there is no need for you to read on as the truth only permeates those hearts as are free from Hizbiyah and Ta'asub (rigidity bigoted upon a track or way). If you feel free from these then please read on as then Allaah will open your heart if you are sincere. My intention within the bounds of this discourse is not to attack you personally, but it is solely to make you understand that the track which you are upon, leads to nothing except destruction ! - may Allaah protect us from this. I have deliberately tried to keep the subject matter free from any opinions that I may hold as an individual. Rather, it is more suitable that we gauge our views in the light of the Qur'ân and authentic Sunnah of the messenger of Allaah (SAW), as understood and practised by the best of generations, and those who followed them in belief and methodology. Indeed this the best course of action to take for as Allaah almighty says: "Ask the people of knowledge if you do not know" {Soorah An-Nahl: 43}.

 

We know that Allaah, the most high sent 124,000 messengers and prophets {Sunan Abu Dawood} to mankind and as He, the most high, says: "I sent a Messenger to every nation calling them to My worship" {Qur'ân). We also know that the one thing that was common amongst all of the prophets and messengers was their belief !. They may have come with different rulings, but their belief was one. For example Adam's (AS) children were allowed to marry each other; some prophets were allowed to be kings - e.g. Daawood (AS); and so on, culminating in that which our Prophet (saas).

 

However, inspite of this difference in rulings (Ahkam) etc., the belief of the prophets was the same and never differed. This is self evident, if one was to study the belief of each prophet, from Adam (AS) right down the chain to Muhammad (saas), to the return of Eesa ibn Maryam (AS), we would find that no difference in belief is to be found. Therefore, it is only reasonable that our discussion begins here - for the sake of argument, I will agree to accept that you have a case; even though your methodology (Manhaj) is away from the truth. One aspect we cannot differ upon is belief ('Aqeedah). If we differ in this, then there is no point in us continuing this discussion. To give you some examples of the importance of this fundamental issue in Islaam refer to 'Al-Ibaanah Magazine' in the English language which shows just a handful of these works from our Salaf.

 

The issue of Khilafah is one of major importance to the Muslims !. Further, this is not an empty statement on my part, rather pay heed to the statement of our Shaikh Saleem al-Hilalee (hafidhullah): We say: the one who denies the need to work for Khilafah is sinful; but the one who strives to bring Khilafah about through education (tarbiyah) upon and spreading the correct knowledge that he is the one striving to establish the Sharee'ah in Allaah's way, So, yes Khilafah is necessary. Also: "The position of the Salafees is clear - that we strive to re-establish the Islaamic life and to establish Allaah's laws upon the land by way of correction and education. We Strive and hope for good always; due to the hadeeth of the Messenger (saas): 'Prophethood will be amongst you for as long as Allaah wills, then Allaah will raise it up when He wills, then there will be Khilafah upon the way of Prophethood, then Allaah will raise it up when He wills, then there will be kingship, then oppressive kingship, then Khilafah upon the way of Prophethood'; so we wait for the Khilafah in the way of the Prophethood and we work to bring it about again. With regard to his (saas) saying 'Khilafah upon the way of the Prophethood', it is clear that the criterion for the successful establishment of the Khilafah is that it must adhere to the way of the Prophethood. This point is of prime importance, especially if we want Allaah to grant us this supreme victory. Further, upon analysis, a number of points are evident:

1.Those who will restore the rightly guided Khilafah are the Salafees, since they are the ones who carry upon the Prophetic Way.

2.The Khilafah which will come about will not be in the way of the Abbasids, the Umayads, nor the Uthmaanis; rather it is certain that it will be upon the way of the Rightly Guided Khulafa.

 

Thus, the men who will bring about the return of this Khilafah will be upon the way of the Rightly Guided Khaleefahs and the way of the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (saas). It is clear to me that the methodology you are upon and using is itself upon the way of the 'Hizb ut-Tahrir' and 'al-Muhajirun' parties. I do not say you are a member, but this much is clear, you are upon the same track that these groups are upon. Then I ask you the question, do you just take from their Politics (siyaasah) or do you take from them everything in your deen (belief etc..). If you take from them everything - then your 'Aqeedah is definitely deviated from the way of the Salaf us-Saaliheen (the first three generations within this Ummah) - and this puts both you and them amongst the Ahl ul-Bid'ah (people of innovation and division from the Salaf us-Saaliheen). If you take from them only politics - then from where do you get your belief (Aqeedah)?, if you get your belief from elsewhere, then do you not trust the same people with your politics !!. If, however, you claim to go back to the sources (Qur'ân, Sunnah, Ijma, Salaf etc.) then what ability do you have ? i.e. in Arabic language skills, knowledge of tafseer, ahadeeth, isnaad, nasikh wa mansukh, takhees wa taqyeed, usool ul-fiqh, al-aam wa khaas, al-mutlaq wal muqayyid etc. Then, whichever of the three above options you choose, you will be in ignorance and confusion - and Allaah knows best.

 

Before we continue, allow me to give an example of the belief that just one of the Salaf had, which he summarised into a small treatise. It is the 'Aqeedah of Imaam Muhmammad bin Isma'eel al-Bukhari (the author of many works including Sahih al-Bukhari), as reported by Imaam al-Laalikaa'ee in his "Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahl us-Sunnah' (2 / 172) . In this classical work, Imaam al-Bukhari says: "I met more than a thousand scholars amongst the people of knowledge from the people of al-Hijaz, al-Makkah, al-Madina, al-Kufah, al-Busra, Wasit, Baghdad, Sham, and Misr (Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and Egypt). I met them many time, generation after generation, and again generation after generation. I met them while they were ample and widespread for over 46 years; (then he continues enumerating and naming them...For their biographies refer to Siyar A'laam An-Nubala of Imaam Adh-Dhahabi.), and not a single one amongst them differed with respect to the following matters:

 

1.That the religion consists of both speech and action. [Then the Imaam continues to give his proofs - in refutation of a sect called the Murji'ah].

2.The Qur'ân is the speech of Allaah, not being created. [The Imaam continues to give his proofs in refutation of the Jahmiyyah, the Mu'tazilah, and of latter times the Ash'aiyrah].

3. And that good and evil is by the preordainment (Qadr) of Allaah. [Proofs are given in refutation of the Qadariyyah and other misguided sect whom hold similar heretical beliefs].

4. And, none of them used to declare any one from among the people of the Qiblah a disbeliever on account of committing a sin, [in refutation of the Khawaarij and other sects - the Imaam cites his proofs].

5. And I never saw amongst them any one who would take something from the honour from the companions of Muhammad (saas), [further proofs are given in refutation of the Shia, Khawaarij etc.].

6. And they used to forbid and prevent people from the innovations (Bid'ah) that the Prophet (saas) and his Companions (raa) were not upon [in refutation of all the sects and Imaam al-Bukhari gives proofs to substantiate this statement].

7. And they used to urge people to follow what the Messenger (saas) and his Companions were upon [proofs are provided against the Murji'ah and others, whom are soft, weak, or reject the Sunnah].

8. And that we do not contend with or attempt to take away the command from the Rulers. [Again Imaam al-Bukhari gives proofs to refute groups such as the Khawaarij, Mu'tazilah and all those who follow this Deviant path]. And then the Imaam continues with the sayings of those whom preceded him, to show that his position is concensus (Ijma') amongst the Ulema]." And in this manner I could bring you volume after volume of the beliefs of the Salaf - but this is not the point here. The point here is that you have chosen a way other than the way of the believers, i.e. the first Generation of Muslims.

 

Now a little on Hizb-ut-Tahrir / Mahajiroon and how they have strayed upon belief. And when one deviates upon belief - then how can they be guided upon rules, regulations or politics: From the early sects which denied Eemaan (firm faith) in The Punishment of the Grave were the Khawaarij and other groups from the Mu'tazilah sect. This is because they innovated a rule that only the Mutawatir ahaadeeth amount to knowledge, whereas the Authentic Aahaad Ahaadeeth do not !!. And this saying of theirs, that the aahaad Ahaadeeth do not amount to knowledge means that such Ahaadeeth - in their false opinion - are not free from the possibility of falsehood or error. The Punishment of the Grave (which is established by aahaad Ahaadeeth) is part of the Muslim Creed and therefore aahaad Ahaadeeth do make our 'Aqeedah (Belief):

 

From the Sunnah: Hadeeth related by 'Ai'sha (raa) regarding The Punishment of the Grave in Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 1372. Hadeeth related by Ibn Abbaas regarding The Punishment of the Grave Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 1378. Hadeeth related by Ibn Masood (raa) regarding The Punishment of the Grave in At-Tabaraanee, 3/78/21. Hadeeth of Hanee of Uthman regarding The Punishment of the Grave in At-Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah. Hadeeth by Abu Hurayra (raa) regarding The Punishment of the Grave in Saheeh Muslim, 2/93, and Abu Daawood, no. 983. Hadeeth related by Umm Khaalid bint Khaalid regarding The Punishment of the Grave by At-Tabaraanee in Al-Kabeer.

 

The Salaf: Sufyan ibn Uyainah (d.197H), said: "The Sunnah is ten. Whosoever accepts them has completed the Sunnah, and whoever abandons anything from them has abandoned the Sunnah: Affirming al-Qadr. Giving precedence Abu Bakr and Umar. The Pond in Paradise. Shaf'aa (Intercession). The Scales. The Bridge over Hellfire. Eemaan is Statement and Action. The Qu'ran is the Speech of Allaah. The Punishment of the Grave. The Resurrection on the Day of Judgement, and not testifying that any Muslim will definitely be in Paradise and Hell. {Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahl us-Sunnah, Imaam al-Laalikaa'ee, no. 312.}.

 

Imaam Shafi'ee (d.204H), said: "Indeed the Punishment of the Grave is a true fact, the Resurrection is a true fact ..." {Manhaj ash-Shafi'ee, of al-Bayhaqi, 1/415.}

 

Imaam Ahmad (d. 241H): "Eemaan in the Punishment of the Grave. {Refer to Usool us-Sunnah, no. 8 and Risalat us-Sunnah, p72. by Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.}.

 

Abu Daawood (d.275H): Chapter: Questioning in the Grave and The Punishment in the Grave {Kitab us-Sunnah, Abu Dawood, p900.}.

 

Ibn Qutaybah (d.278H): "Upon Eemaan in the Punishment of the Grave" {Taweel Mukhtalif ul-Hadeeth, Ibn Qutaybah, p8.}

 

Imaam at-Tahaawee (d.278H): "We have Eemaan ... in The Punishment of the Grave" {Aqeedah Tahaaweeyah, Imaam at-Tahawi, no. 79-80.}. And we can continue with Abul- Hasan al-Ashari (d.324H); Imaam Aajuree (d.360H); Ibn Abee Hastim (d.327H); Imaam Barbaharee (d.329H); al-Isma'eelee (d. 371H); Al-Qayrawani (d.386H); Ibn Abee Zamneen (d. 399H); Imaam al-Laalikaa'ee (d.418H); Imaam al-Bayhaqi (d.458H). In addition, there are countless others that we can bring in evidence of the issue at hand. We can quote from book after book, even to the extent of including actual chains of narrations; as we have them also!! So this shows without a shadow of a doubt that Aahaad Ahaadeeth were taken as part of our 'Aqeedah by the Salaf for without them we have no 'Aqeedah - except that of those who are under Allaah's punishment. Sufficient for us are our Salaf for explaining our religion !!

 

However, we now have the saying of the later corrupted generations, those of little knowledge coming after the Salaf, those in this century who ignore the teachings of the Salaf. Among these group of people is of Taqee-ud-deen an-Nabahani - the founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir. He said in his book Ad-Dawsiyyah, p.6 "Indeed from them are those which require action, so they are acted upon (i.e. the Aahaad Ahaadeeth). So from Abu Hurayrah who said: When any of you finishes the last tashahud, he should seek refuge with Allaah from the four things: from The Punishment of the Hellfire, from Punishment of the Grave, from the trials of life and death, and from the evil trials of the Dajjal". From A'isha: from the Prophet (saas): that he used to make supplication in prayer: "O Allaah, I seek refuge in You from The Punishment of the Grave, I seek refuge in You from the trials of the Maseehud-Dajjaal, I seek refuge in You from the trials of life and death. O Allaah, I seek refuge in You from debt and sin". So these two ahaadeeth are aahaad narrations and they contain requirement of an action, i.e. to carry out this supplication after tashahud, and it is permissible to attest (tasdeeq) to what is contained in them. However, what is haraam (forbidden) is to hold it with certainty - meaning: to have it as part as one's 'Aqeedah- as long as it has been reported in the aahaad hadeeth, a dhannee (non-mutawatir) proof. However, if it occurs in mutawatir form, then it is obligatory to make it part of one's 'Aqeedah;. This statement clearly represents the innovated ways of the Qadariyyah and the Mu'tazilah. Differentiating between tasdeeq and 'Aqeedah is innovated speech and away from the Salaf. And then we have a speech by Omar Bakri Muhammad - available on audio tape: "Punishment of the Grave", Regents Park Mosque, 22nd May 1992 CE. Within his speech he states:

 

"We trust it, and I encourage all of you to have tasdeeq (attest to) in The Punishment of the Grave. I encourage all of you to have tasdeeq in the coming of the Mahdee. I encourage you for that. But whoever believes in that, he is sinful".

 

Now, I hope you can see why our discussion should begin with belief - for if your belief 'Aqeedah is different from the Salaf - then your politics will be further away from them regardless of what you may think. For verily the Prophets had one belief !!. YES - of course we need Khilafah - I never denied this fact - and the Salafees and their Scholars have never denied this fact. But the Khilafah must be established using the Manhaj of the Prophethood - not the Shi'a, Khawaarij, Bralewiya, Sufiya etc., for this would not be blessed by Allaah for all these are opponents of the way of the Salaf and the way of the Companions!! 'So examine - may Allaah have mercy upon you - the speech of everyone you hear from, particularly in your time. Do not act in haste, nor enter into anything from it until you ask and see: Did any of the Companions of the Messenger (saas) speak about it, or any of the scholars. So if you find a narration from them about it, then cling to it. Do not go beyond it and do not give precedence to anything over it and thus fall into the fire' {Kitaab Sharh us-Sunnah, no. 5}. Qaadee Shareek (d.177H) said 'Ibaad ibn al-Awaam said: 'Shareek ibn Abdullah came to us more than fifty years ago, so we said to him: 'O Abu Abdullah! there are a group of the Mu'tazilah who deny the ahaadeeth about Allaah descending to the Lowest Heaven and that the people of Paradise see their Lord. So Shareek quoted about ten ahaadeeth like that, and then said: "As for us, we have taken our deen from the sons of the Sahaabah, from the Tabi'een. From whom did they take theirs ?".{Ibn Mandah in At-Tawheed, Q. 1/97.} So we see from just a few of the statements of the Salaf (which can go into volumes - and can be provided upon request; for those who seek the truth) - that they affirmed their belief upon one way - and their belief was as the belief of the Prophets - and what do we expect, for indeed the Scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets - not us!! In addition, this is not the time or place to go into the details of the Mustalah ul-Hadeeth (Science of Hadeeth) - as there is not need to go into this science unless we know the people / scholars of the Salaf who gave us this Science and their belief; and their way. For verily they accepted the khabar ul-aahaad in Belief - and Allaah is sufficient as a witness. For further reading in English see Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee's 'ar-Risaala' on the Chapter X on "Evidence to the necessaty of accepting the Aahaad Khabar" and in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, English translation, volume 9, "Chapter: What is said regarding the acceptance of the information given by one truthful person...".

 

Now covering some of your points regarding the narrations of the Prophet (saas) and the claim that he was 'after establishing authority'. The scholar, Shaikh Rabee' ibn Haadi al-Madkhali, said in his book Manhaj al-Anbiyah min ad-Dawah ill-Allaah: "They (the Prophets) thus establish the obligation upon them of fighting Jihaad to raise the Word of Allaah, and of following and applying the Sharee'ah and the prescribed punishment and other matters prescribed for them by Allaah. This is what happened with our Prophet Muhammad (saas) and his noble Companions. Allaah crowned their Eemaan, their righteous actions, and their exemplary perseverance when facing the harm and the oppression of the Mushriks, by aiding them and making their Deen uppermost, and by establishing them upon the earth, as Allaah - the Most High says:

 

"Allaah has promised those who truly believe (have true Eemaan) amongst you and act in obedience to Allaah and His Messenger (saas), that He will grant them rulership (Khilaafah) upon the earth, just as He granted it to those before them authority to practise the religion He chose for them and ordered. And He will certainly change their situation to one of security , after their fear, providing they worship and obey Me; not associating anything else in worship with Me." {Soorah an-Noor, 24:55}.

 

Then sovereignty was offered to Allaah's Messenger (saas) in Makkah but he refused, except that he should continue calling to Tawheed and in waging war against Shirk and the idols. So when Quraysh became troubled by the call of Allaah's Messenger (saas) they sent Utbah ibn Rabee'ah and he came to Allaah's Messenger (saas) and said: "O son of my brother, you know the excellence you hold amongst us with regard to your position in the tribe and your lineage, but you have a matter which is very serious for your people. Because of it you have split their united body, caused their youth to behave foolishly and abused their idols with it, and their religion. You have declared their forefathers infidels because of it. So listen to me and I will offer you something which you may consider, and hopefully some of them will be acceptable to you". So Allaah's messenger (saas) said in reply "Speak, O Abul-Waleed, I will listen". He said "O, son of my brother, if what you desire by this matter which you have come with is wealth, then we will gather wealth for you from amongst our wealth until you are one of the richest of us. And if you wish by it high position, then we will give you such authority that we will not do anything without your approval, and if you wish by it sovereignty, then we will make you sovereign over us. But if it is the case that what comes to you is a demon which you see and can not get rid of, then we will seek after a medical cure for you and we will expend our money until we can get you cured of it. Since a demon may take hold of a person until he is cured and relieved of it". And Allaah's Messenger (saas) was listening to him, then he (saas) said "Have you finished O Abul Waleed ?", he said "Yes". He (saas) said "Then listen to me", he replied "I will do so". So he (SAW) said "In the name of Allaah, the Most Merciful, Bestower of Mercy. Haa Meem, this Qur'ân is the revelation sent down by the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy. A book whose ayahs are made clear a recital in pure Arabic for those who know, bringing them good tidings of paradise if they believe in it and act upon it, and as a warning to those who disbelieve in it and do not act in obedience to Allaah, that they will receive punishment and dwell in the Hell in the hereafter. But most of them turn away haughtily and refuse to listen to it" {Qur'aan 41:4} Then Allaah's Messenger (saas) continued reciting to him. So when Utbah heard it, he remained silent and sat with his hands behind his back, resting upon them and listening. So when Allaah's messenger (SAW) came to the ayah of prostration in it, he prostrated and then said: " You have heard what you have heard O Abul Waleed, so now it is upon you". So Utbah went back to Quraysh, and when he sat with them, they said : "What has happened to you, O Abul Waleed ?". He said "What happened is that I heard the like of which I have never heard by Allaah. By Allaah, it is not sorcery, nor poetry, nor divining. O Quraysh - obey me and let the decision be mine. Leave the man and let him continue in what he is upon. Keep away from him since, by Allaah, his saying which I have heard will come to have great importance. So if the other Arabs kill him, then you will be rid of him due to the action of others, and if he conquerors the Arabs, then his sovereignty is your sovereignty , his power is your power, and you will be the ones fortunate with regard to him". They said, "by Allaah, he has performed magic upon you with his tongue - O Abul Waleed". He said "This is my opinion with regard to him, you may do what ever you see fit" {Seerah Ibn Ishaq, as-Seerah ibn Hisham, 1 /293 -294.

 

It also has a supporting witness in the hadeeth of Jabir which is reported by Ibn Humayd and Abu Ya'la.} And Ibn Ishaaq reports with his chain of narration to Ibn Abbaas (raa) that a group of Quraysh gathered and made an offer close to the offer made by Utbah. So he (saas) answered by saying: "I am not afflicted by what you say. I have not come with this seeking your wealth, nor seeking status above you, nor sovereignty over you, but rather Allaah has sent me as a Messenger to you, and has sent down a book to me, and has ordered me to be a bringer of good tidings and a warner to you. So I have conveyed to you the revealed messengers from my Lord, and I have sincerely advised you. So if you accept what I have brought to you then you will have your share in this world and the hereafter. But if you refuse to accept it from me then I will patiently wait Allaah's order, until Allaah judges between me and you".{As-Seerah of ibn Hisham, 1 / 295-296, and this one strengthens the previous narration, each of them supporting the other.}.

 

Likewise Allaah's Messenger (saas) rejected the request of one of the tribes that they should be in charge of the affairs after his death, if the report is authentic. Ibn Ishaq said: 'az-Zuhree narrated to me that Allaah's Messenger (saas) came to Banu 'Aamir ibn Sasa'ah and called them to Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic, and presented himself to them. So a man from them called Bayharah ibn Firas said: " By Allaah, if we were to take hold of this young man from Quraysh I would devour the Arabs with him". Then he said: "If we were to give you our pledge of allegiance upon your affair, then Allaah gives you victory over those who oppose you, then will we be in authority after you ?". He (saas) said: "The affair is for Allaah, he places authority where ever He wills". So he said to him: "Are we to risk our necks before the Arabs for you, then when Allaah grants you victory, authority will be for other than us. We have no need of your affair". So they rejected him. {Ibn Hisham, 1/424-425. Also refer to as-Seeratun-Nabayiyah of adh-Dhahabee, p189-190.}. So Prophets (sas), did not come to bring about the downfall of one state and to replace it with another. They did not seek after sovereignty, nor did they organise parties for that. Rather they came for the guidance of mankind and to save them from misguidance and shirk, and to take mankind out of the darkness and into the light, and to remind them of the days when Allaah had sent favours upon them. If rule and sovereignty had been offered to them, they would have rejected it and continued upon their Dawah. Indeed Quraysh offered sovereignty to Allaah's Messenger (saas) and he refused it. It was also offered to him (by Allaah) that he should be a Prophet-King or Slave-Messenger. {Imaam Ahmad, 2 / 231}. So he had not used to take a pledge of allegiance from the Ansar or others except for Paradise, despite the fact that the pledge of the Ansar was given in the most severe and difficult circumstances, yet it contained no promise or position or authority, nor sovereignty, nor leadership, nor wealth, nor any other temporal gain. From Ubadah bin as-Samit (ra) who said: "I am one of those chiefs who gave the Aqabah pledge to Allaah"s Messenger (saas)". And he said: "We gave the pledge that we would not worship anything besides Allaah, nor steal, nor fornicate, nor kill a person whose killing Allaah had made unlawful - except rightfully, nor rob each other, nor disobey, and Paradise would be ours".{Sahih al-Bukhari, 9 / 6 no. 12. Also refer to Sahih Muslim 3 / 925 no. 4238} And, By Allaah, we could continue with evidence after evidence, fully referenced with the quotes and understanding of the Salaf - the scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah wal Jamaah, from the earliest generations, and all of them with the certainty of them being authentic. So rather than prolonging this further, allow this to suffice for now. And my advise to you is to first correct your belief and come whole heartedly into the Dawah Salafiah, the Ahl us-Sunnah wal Jamaah, the Ahlul-Hadeeth, or whatever names the followers of the Prophet (saas) and the Companions used. Once you have done this then put your self upon a path of Tarbiyah (education and cultivation) and Tasfiyah (purifying ourselves from Bid'ah, innovations, that have been added to this religion) - and you will bear its fruits and Allaah will give us what we deserve, as He gave it to those before us. He will give us the opportunity to fight for His deen - if we are worthy of that. Find out about the Saved Sect - the Firqatun-Najiyah, and what the Salaf said about who they are, and how to distinguish them from the other 72 sects the Prophet (saas) said will be in the Fire. And know that the Saved Sect is recognised by its belief and methodology ('Aqeedah and Manhaj) - so it is not the belief of the Khawaarij, Shia, Sufiyah, Qadariyyah and their likes. Let us finish here. May Allaah guide us, Praise be to Allaah, and peace and blessings upon his Messenger. And by way of a note: There was no need for you in your response to write to me about the validity of the Khilafah or the importance of applying the Laws of Allaah - by Allaah, this is already established with us. What we are looking at is your belief and methodology with regard to this Deen. To correct this first and put it in line with that of the Salaf. I do not wish to debate with you further, however any questions you have - I am quite willing to research the answers for you with full references. Even if that means checking for you the references that you thought were from the scholars of the past and now you wish to re-check. Wassalam Alaykum. And Allaah is the Lord of the Worlds.

[tabloid-]

the only problem I have with this guy, other than his last name being " Butt", is that he calls one of the 9/11 highjackers ( assuming the 'officlal' report is correct ) the " peak of society ". I don't give a shit what god you pray to, killing in the name doesn't make you the " peak of society ". This dude can eat crushed glass.

[Dawood]

The reason why he thinks that is because in Islam, Mujahideen (holy warriors) are given huge status. He views the 9/11 attackers as being mujahideen waging war ageainst the evil western imperialists. Unfortunately, he is mistaken because there is a principle in Islam that when You see an evil and you have the ability to stop it, you should stop it, individually and collectively, also, when you see an opportunity to encourage good, you should do that (IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY) and by you stopping this evil you won't create more evil by your actions.

Obviously, these modern day Jihadis create nothing but turmoil and terror and a huge mess in the world by provoking and encouraging the US to continue it's campaign agaist Islam. It would be safe to say that if these Jihadis were to cease operations, the public opinion in America would change and the Us Govt. would lose what little support it has to continue it's imperialist encroachments.

I'm not talking about the ones who are fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan because I beleive they have a right to fight back, but the ones who bomb the west and it's establishments are plain wrong and are not playing it smart in any way.

It's a tough situation and I don't see it getting any better. Muslims, Christians and Jews lived side by side in harmony under an Islamic empire for years.

Eventually, that's what it's going to have to come to for peace because the fighting is not going to stop, it's too deep.

[tabloid-]

until it's no longer profitable to be at war, there will always be an " us and them ".