Local Time

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

A Syeikh and That Brother

One day, a syeikh was visited by a young man; a young man who was falling in love with a Non-Moslem girl, he was planning to marry her in the near future. But there was something within his heart which make him want to ask advice first from scholars before married that girl. He felt like he was going to do something wrong. He was confused; he had met many scholars in his city. They gave him different answers about the ruling marriage Non Moslem woman. He felt more confuse......

Finally a friend advice him to meet this syeikh outside the city�..he wanted to find the comfort and surety of his important decision of marriage the girl that he loves�. �.. He traveled for miles to reach this syeikh�..

Then finally he met that Syeikh�.

He sit and told the syeikh about his matter and told him about some fatwa that he had heard from some other scholars�

He appeared like the most suffering person on the earth�. anxiously between his love and his faith�.

After he told all his matter�.the syeikh ask simple questions

“Are you Moslem? “

“Yes I am alhamdulillah�

“Do you know what the meaning to be a Moslem ?�
“Allah say [1] a Moslem is someone who has great love to Allah over everything.
“Do you love Allah? “

“Yes syeikh “

“Dear son�. Ask your heart honestly � where is our Aqeedah as a Moslem �.would you think a good Moslem who said he loves Allah but in the same time he also love someone who is displeased by Allah? My dear son A Moslem doesnt tbink to love someone in this world�if that person does not deserve to be loved by Allah. A Moslem should only love something that Allah loves��


That is a real story that was told directly by that syeikh.

It gave profound effect to me for some reasons.

The Syeikh didn’t explain any difficult fiqih matter but he went to a basic matter which makes that brother think.
Many of us interested to search fatwa but it is not really to find the truth, rather than to find the comfort, the evidents to support our nafs [lust]. and sometimes only for the sake of argue...astaghfirullah...

A good Moslem is the one who leave something that doubly especially something that can danger his faith�.There are many options in life� he will not chose the option that can make him slip due of his over confidence in interpretation the rule of Allah�....Allah subhana wa ta'ala reminds him in some places if the black believer slaves even better than non believer woman [2]�.

In the history, Umar bin Khatab radiyallahuan ever sent letter to a companion to prevent him married a Non Moslem woman. It was not because Umar didn’t know if Allah allowed Moslem man to marry chaste Ahlul kitab woman, but Umar didn’t want the action of that prominent companions would be followed by other Moslem men. Umar prevent other Moslem that probably would take that action as the example then they will prefer to marry Non Moslem women compare to Moslem women. At that time the non Moslem woman from Persian and Rome are beautiful�.the time of full temptation where Islam was growing �.the glory of islam due the conquest of some lands�.[3]

Wallahu alam�..

Nowadays�.Some Moslem brothers think about marry white sexy, beauty non Moslem woman� “I love white and tall woman��. That said one of brother�.

Some of them argue by said�.what’s wrong?�. it allowed by Qur’an. this is personal choice [HUMAN FREEDOM]�. Some said�. I do this for dakwah�. [NO ARGUE] !!!

Is that so ?
Some of us are so confidence when have to play at the end of the "dangerous boundary".... he pleasure of "challenge" and "love" is a great temptation to follow... But when the "faith" [the most precious treasure ] is going to put into "the risk".... then we should take deep thought to consider our choice......Have to straighten the heart.. clear the intention... think what will be things going to lead ....Is that to the Jannah or to the frustation that lead to the hell...

The fact, things not always go like what they dreamt�.when heart has been filled by love�.eyes become blind� the nafs conquer the rationality� the brain doesnt work�. In many case their found their wife totally different [belief, culture, taste, etc etc etc]�..Let’s alone to lead her to embrace Islam ..

Many parents are crying to see how their son’s marriage life have end�.. they visited to their son’s home � they surprised by the upbringing� the custom�. They saw their son has been changed to be someone else�. They lost their son�he changed become someone else... his life style�his belief�

In reality� there are many unmarried devoted Moslem woman. They work hard to take care their purity, their dignity as a real Moslem woman.

May Allah subhana wata’ala lead all our heart to the best destination�to love the right one and being loved the right person that can support each other to gain the highest love.. the love of Allah�

Wallahu alam bishshowab,,,,,

[1] Qur’an Al Baqarah 2:165
[2] Qur’an Al Baqarah [2:221]
[3] There are many interpretation regarding Umar action to probit companion married Non Moslem woman.. This is one of the fomous interpretation of his action�wallahualam�

The Revival of Islam

All Praise and All Thanks are for Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala to whom we
shall all return to be judged on The Last Day.

"When someone is brought to the Truth, he will never be concerned about
the numbers of those who follow the Truth, nor by the greater number of
people who oppose those who follow the Truth - and this particularly in
The Last Days... Indeed, if most people were upon the Way of Truth,
then Islam would not be Gharib - and, most certainly, today Islam is -
by Allah - something strange." Ad-Durar As-Saniyyah (400-401)

"We only created the heavens and this Earth, and everything in and
around them, for a reason, and for a finite period. But the unbelievers
turn away [in their arrogance] from the warnings given to them." 46:3
Interpretation of Meaning

"From each and every direction He has the power to deliver misfortune
to you - to sow confusion and dissension among you. Thus do We reveal
our Signs, that you might understand them." 6:65 Interpretation of

The war against Islam by the kuffar is a war which involves two basic
strategies. The first strategy is the military and colonial war which
involves practical occupation of Muslim lands by the kuffar - the
destruction by force of any attempt to establish a genuine Islamic
community - and the creation or support of pro-kaffir, pro-Western
so-called governments in Muslim lands who bow down to the idols
(Taghut) and laws of the West and whose rulers and lackeys imprison,
kill or hand over to the kuffar those Muslims who are intent on
establishing a genuine Islamic community, and/or who speak and write
about authentic Islam: the authentic Islam of the revival. This first
strategy is evident in the invasion, by the kuffar, of Afghanistan and
Iraq, and in their support for the un-Islamic regimes in the Land of
the Two Holy Places, in Egypt, in Pakistan, and elsewhere.

The second strategy involves the kuffar - and their apostate allies
among the Muslims - in trying to get Muslims to accept the idols, the
Taghut, of the West, and to view Islam in the terms, and by means of
the concepts, the ideas, of the kuffar. Part of this second strategy is
the campaign by the kuffar to convince Muslims that a so-called "war on
terror" is being fought, and that the kuffar are not involved in a war
against Islam, and that therefore, according to the kuffar, so-called
"moderate Muslims" should inform on their fellow Muslims to the kaffir
authorities, allow the kuffar to put Muslims on trial for dis-obeying
the laws of the kuffar, and allow, and even applaud, the imprisonment
of Muslims by the kuffar in the name of "democracy", and "freedom" or
whatever term the kuffar want to use to justify their actions. In
effect, the kuffar desire to change Islam - to pacify, to tame,
Muslims, and to have Muslims imitate the ways, the ideas, the
life-style, of the West.

In order to understand and effectively fight the war the kuffar are
waging against us, we need to understand and accept three things. The
first is to understand and accept that this is a war on Islam, by the
kuffar. The second thing is to understand that the revival of Islam -
which the kuffar hate and want to destroy - is Islam, pure and simple.
The third thing we need to understand is that those who ally themselves
with the kuffar against the Muslims, for whatever reason and from
whatever motive - who aid the kuffar in their war on Islam - have
negated their Islam and must be considered to be apostates, and the
enemy of the Muslims.

"Anybody who supports the kuffar in their Kufr or against the
Muslims, they are Kaffir." Ibn Taimiyyah: Majmou' Al Fattawa

"Whomsoever helps the disbelievers or brings them to the country of Ahl
Al-Islam, then that person is clearly an apostate." Sheikh Abdul Latif
bin Abdur Rahman bin Hassan Aal-Sheikh: Ad-Durrar 8/326

"Aiding the Non-Muslims over Muslims - no matter which form of aid or
co-operation it be, even if it is merely in speech - this is clear Kufr
and sheer hypocrisy. The one who does this has perpetrated one of the
actions which negates Islam, as has been specifically stated by the
Imams of the Dawah and others, and such a person is not a believer in
the Aqeedah of Al-wala wal-bara." Sheikh Safar bin 'Abdir-Rahmaan

Fundamentally, the kuffar fear the revival of Islam which is, and has
been, taking place. They, in their arrogance and desire for power, do
not want and will not tolerate a genuine Islamic community where
Shariah is the only law, where there is bayah to an Ameer, and where
Muslims can live, as Muslims, behave, as Muslims, and think as Muslims.
The revival of Islam includes:

1) Practical Jihad to regain Muslim land and establish an Islamic
community or communities. To participate in this Jihad, or to support
such Jihad, is an obligation, a duty on all Muslims.

"Jihad is continuous with every group of the Muslims and a person can
wage Jihad by himself or with an Ameer.... Jihad is an act of worship
and an obligation that is legislated until the Day of Judgement.
Nothing invalidates it." Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi

"We are rid of you and what you bow down before - and between you and
us there will be hatred and fighting until you accept Allah and Allah
alone." 6:4 Interpretation of Meaning

2) The striving to present the authentic Islam of the revival by
Muslims thinking in Islamic terms - and so countering the distortion
that the "moderates", the apostates, have and are introducing in their
attempt to imitate the kuffar. Part of this means correcting the
mis-understandings, the mis-interpretations, the errors, about Islam,
about our Deen, which the so-called "moderates", with their imitation
of the kuffar - and the kuffar themselves - desire us to accept. In
many ways, the struggle to present authentic Islam and counter the
imitation of the kuffar is part of the battles, the Jihad, to free our
lands from the kuffar and the apostates, and the Jihad to create
Islamic communities.

Some Errors of the Apostates:

"They [the kafiroon] want to extinguish Allah's Light with their
deceit, their lies, but Allah will never allow this - for His Light
will be seen even though they the Kafiroon hate (it). For it is He Who
has sent His Messenger to reveal the Way of truth, to make it triumph
over all other Ways even though they, the Mushrikun, hate (it)." 9:
32-33 Interpretation of Meaning

In order to return to the pure, simple, fundamental Islam of Quran and
Sunnah - in order to do our duty as Muslims and obey only Allah
Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and His Messenger (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam)
as we have been commanded to do - we need to counter the many
misconceptions, the errors, about Islam which are rife among the
apostates and which these apostates, and their kaffir allies, seek to
inflict upon our brothers and sisters.

1) The error that Islam means "peace".

Many of the apostates - and those who mistakenly follow them - say and
write that the very word Islam is derived from the word "peace". This
is incorrect, for the word Islam derives from the word "submission"
(al-silm). Islam means submission - to the Will of Allah Subhanahu wa
Ta'ala as made manifest to us in the Quran and Sunnah, and thence in

In addition, when Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala talks about peace, what is
meant is that peace which arises from submission - be this the eternal
Peace which is Jannah, or whatever "peace" we may find in this short
mortal life of ours, given to us by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala.

"Allah guides toward peace those who seek His pleasure." 5:16
Interpretation of Meaning

"And this (Islam and the Quran) is the straight path of your Rabb. For
those who take heed of Our clear revelations there shall be that
dwelling which is peace (Jannah). 6:126-7 Interpretation of meaning

"It is through remembrance of Allah that the heart discovers rest."
13:28 Interpretation of Meaning

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala also makes it quite clear that our brief
mortal life is a means, a test - a gateway to Jannah, InshaAllah - and
that this mortal life, our world, is a place of conflict, and fighting.

"He [Allah] created life and death that He might put you to the test
and find out which of you acquitted himself best." 67:
1-2.Interpretation of meaning

"And there shall be conflict between you while you dwell, resting for a
while, on Earth which shall provide for you." 2: 36 Interpretation of

"Fighting is prescribed for you, even though you may dislike it. But it
is possible that you dislike that which is good for you, and that you
love that which is bad for you. Yet although you may not know, Allah
knows." (2:216 Interpretation of Meaning)

Thus, unlike the kuffar and the apostates who imitate the kuffar, we
are taught - commanded - to view this life as a place of conflict, as a
place where we can find the truth and follow it, as a place where we
can and should submit to our Rabb, as a place where we can discover and
know the Signs of our Rabb, and as but a means to attain that perfect,
true, Peace which is Jannah, a Peace promised to us by our Rabb.

"The life of this world is nothing - only play and amusement. What is
best is the dwelling in the Life-to-Come - for those who possess
Taqwa." 6:32 Interpretation of Meaning

Hence our fundamental aim - our very perspective, our very view about
life - differs completely from that of the kuffar. The kuffar and their
apostate allies are concerned with some abstract, mythical, universal
and personal "peace" and "happiness" in this, mortal, life - that is
their aim; their desire. Our aim, our desire, as Muslims, is to please,
to submit to, Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. This is what being Muslim
means. It means we submit, willingly. It means we strive to obey Allah
Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. It means we see this life, our own lives, as
brief, as a test, and accept that our life, our world, may be full of
conflict. That is, we do not seek some sort of abstract universal or
even personal "happiness" and "peace". Our perspective is the
perspective of Jannah - of submission to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and
His Messenger (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam).

If our duty, as Muslims, is to undertake, or support Jihad - for
example to reclaim our lands from the kuffar - then we should strive,
InshaAllah, to do this, even though such Jihad can and will involve
killing, destruction, suffering, violence, hatred, unhappiness, and

"Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and
disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the hearts of a
believing people." 9:14 Interpretation of Meaning

Allah's Messenger (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, "If anyone
meets Allah with no mark of Jihad, he will meet Allah with a flaw in
him." [Al-Tirmidhi, 3835, Narrated Abu Hurayrah]

"Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them
find in you a harshness." 9:123 Interpretation of Meaning

Islam is the way of Al-wala wal-bara - of love for the sake of Allah
Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and of hatred for the sake of Allah Subhanahu wa
Ta'ala. We, as Muslims, are not - should not be - interested in "peace"
and "harmony" as the kuffar and their apostate allies understand and
use these terms. We fight for Islam, in the name of Islam, against the
enemies of Islam, to establish Islam, in order to do our duty to Allah
Subhanahu wa Ta'ala.

2) The error that Islam does not condone "terrorism" and attacks on
"innocent civilians".

Nowhere, in the Quran and Sunnah, is there any mention of, or use of,
the terms "innocent" and "civilian". Let us be quite clear that these
are kaffir terms, kaffir concepts, which the kuffar and their apostate
allies project onto Islam in order to distort Islam and have Muslims
imitate the kuffar.

Whoever uses such kaffir terms, in order to try and understand Islam or
in order to in their ignorance obtain some kaffir-pleasing principle
from Islam, is imitating the kuffar - for they are re-interpreting
Islam to please themselves, or the kuffar, or they are so in love with
the kaffir way of life, with kaffir ideas and concepts, that have lost
or are losing their own Islam. The kaffir concepts of "innocent" and
"civilian" have become Taghut - idols, principles, which the kaffir
have created and which they make laws about, which laws they seek to
impose on Muslims. These concepts are Taghut because they are created
without reference to the Quran or Sunnah - created, by fallible humans,
without reference to the Will of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. In many
ways, it is right to think as these things as objects which the kuffar
now worship, or which they put their trust in - which they make, as
standards, for people to follow and obey.

"The one who judges without referring to the Quran is a Taghut."
Sheikh ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah: Majmo' al-Fataawaa, Part 28, 201.

"Their way is to refer matters to a Taghut. " 4:60 Interpretation of

In respect of "terror" we are clearly commanded by Allah Subhanahu wa
Ta'ala to strike great fear into our enemies:

"To counter them, use whatever force [quwah] you can, including steeds
of combat, that you might strike great fear into the enemies of Allah
who are your enemies." 8:60 Interpretation of Meaning

Here, "to strike fear into" can be interpreted to mean "terrorize".
Therefore, does this mean that we are commanded to terrorize our

3) The error that Islam is a religion and that "democracy" is
compatible with Islam.

Islam is a Deen given to us by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. That is, it
is a complete, and perfect, Way of Life. Religion is a kaffir concept,
a kaffir term. Our Deen is all-embracing, and does not divide things
into "government", "politics", "State", "religion" and so on - for all
of these things are artificial ideas, concepts, which the kuffar, in
their arrogance, project onto the world and its peoples.

Our Deen is the Way of wholeness, of that Unity which arises when we
submit, humbly, to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. This means that our Deen
gives us everything we need - its gives us the laws we need; it informs
us what is lawful and forbidden; it informs us of how to behave, in
public and private; its sets out our aims, both as an Ummah and as
individuals. Our Deen exists to guide us to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala -
to guide us InshaAllah to Jannah - and to fulfil the purpose that Allah
Subhanahu wa Ta'ala has given it.

Thus, if we talk and write about such things as Islamic politics, as
Islamic government - of Islam as one religion among many - we are in
error because we are viewing Islam through the fallible terms, the
fallible ideas, the fallible concepts, of the kuffar. There is only
Islam, and the practical implementation of Islam in our personal lives,
and in the Ummah - in the community or communities of Muslims. Thus,
there is no distinction in Islam between what the kuffar call
"religion" and what they call "politics" - our aim is to manifest the
divine, the sacred, in our Way of Life, so that everything, everyone,
acknowledges their duty - and the thanks that are due - to Allah
Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. In a very practical way, the Shari'ah is our way
to draw closer to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, to implement His Will, in
this mortal world.

Our Islamic way - the practical way to establish Shari'ah and an
Islamic way of life for Muslims - is the way of Siyasah, and to render,
or mis-translate, Siyasah by the kaffir term "politics" is to
misunderstand Siyasah and to imitate the kuffar. It is to distort the
meaning, the truth, of Siyasah - and thus to distort the meaning, the
truth, of Islam itself. As I have written elsewhere:

"Siyasah is defined as the application of the Quran and Sunnah in the
world: the means whereby Muslims can live in a community according to
the command of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. That is, it is the practical
application of the knowledge of Islam. Siyasah basically means
commanding the good, and forbidding the bad, defined as these are by
Quran and Sunnah alone: that is, it means a community ruled by an
Ameer, or Khalifah, who rules according to Shari'ah, and who is thus
the representative of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala in this mortal world.

What is the aim of Siyasah? To uphold, maintain and expand the Way of
Al-Islam through such things as Shari'ah and Jihad. What are the
fundamental principles of Siyasah? Bay'ah and Shura... Khilafah does
not refer to a type of "government" of some "State". It refers only to
Khilafah - it is the application of Siyasah."

Hence, we Muslims should talk and write about giving bay'ah to an Ameer
- about giving a personal oath of loyalty, on our honour, to someone
who is known to be a good Muslim and who has the qualities to guide us.
We are loyal to this Ameer so long as he represents Islam - so long as
we see his Islam and see his striving for Islam. We Muslims do not talk
about - should not talk about - "voting" in some kaffir-style
"election" for some "politician" or some "representative of the
people". We admire, and are prepared to give our loyalty to, and to
follow, someone who is Muslim and who is an example of Islam, an
example of that complete, humble, simple submission to Allah Subhanahu
wa Ta'ala which is Islam. al-Khulafaa' al-Raashidoon, As-Salaf
as-Saalih and, of course, our beloved Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa
sallam) are such examples. This loyalty, this oath, does not depend on
some promises someone makes us during some election - or on some
"political programme" or on some "political manifesto", just as it is
not the so-called "will of the majority" that matters. It is loyalty to
Islam, the desire to implement Islam in practical way, through, for
example, Shari'ah, and Jihad, that matters. It is being Muslim that
matters - being obedient to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala.

"Because obedience is a form of worship, it is not allowed to obey
anyone unless it conforms with obedience to Allah and His Messenger
(salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam)." Sheikh Muhammad Abdul-Wahhaab:
Kitaab At-Tawheed

The very principles of so-called "democracy" are un-Islamic - because
in democracy it is, supposedly, the will, the desires, of the majority,
or of a majority, which are important and which should be obeyed, and
which, in theory at least, give political representatives their
authority and their power to make fallible laws.

"One of the foremost principles of [Al-Jahiliyah] was that they were
deceived by following the majority, using that majority as proof of the
correctness of their view." Sheikh Muhammad Abdul-Wahhaab:

Democracy is a Taghut - a system created by humans without reference to
the Will of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala as manifest in the Quran and
Sunnah. The kuffar and their apostate allies honour this Taghut, and
bow down before it, and obey it, and those "representatives" of it who
make fallible laws in its name, as they demand that we abandon the true
Islam of the revival, the Islam of Quran and Sunnah, and bow down
before them and their idol of democracy.

"Be loyal and do your duty to Allah; fear Him and always speak with
honour. He will direct you to do honourable deeds and will forgive your
mis-deeds. And whosoever obeys Allah and His Messenger will achieve the
greatest achievement of all." 33:70-71 Interpretation of Meaning

Furthermore, we Muslims are not interested in the fallible, artificial,
divisive kaffir concept of "nations" - of separate so-called States
divided upon ethnic, religious, or cultural (or whatever) lines. For
Islam, the only division is between Muslim and non-Muslim. Between the
realms of Islam, and the realm of Kufr where abide those who are in
ignorance of, or rebellion against, Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. Our aim
is to establish an Islamic Way of Life, a land or lands where Islam is
the Way of Life - our so-called "culture", our so-called "race", our
so-called "nationality" are all irrelevant. In fact, the Deen of Islam
gives us the only identity we need, and it is true to say and write
that Adhab Al-Islam creates a unique Islamic "culture".

The distinction we make is between those who live as Muslims, those who
obey Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and His Messenger (salla Allahu 'alayhi
wa sallam) and those who do not. Nationalism, just like democracy, is a

"Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who
disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut. So therefore fight against
those friends of Shaitaan." 4: 76 Interpretation of Meaning

4) The error that Islam is somehow "backward" and we should desire and
imitate the "progress" of the West and thus obtain "wealth" and

First, it must be stated that a lot - if not most - of what the West
has now obtained in terms of wealth, it has obtained by the colonialism
of centuries, by theft, by deceit, by blackmail, by usury, and by
direct force. The peoples of the West have plundered the world for
centuries; subjugating and oppressing millions upon millions of
peoples, just as in more recent times they have used the threat of
force, or political blackmail, to make advantageous trade deals for

Second, we must define what is meant by "progress" and ask who or what
defines "backwardness". The simple answer is that it is the kuffar -
the kuffar of the West - who have defined these things, based on their
own fallible ideas and concepts. Usually, they define these in terms of
their ideas of "happiness" and personal wealth, or in terms of some
material luxury or other.

But what is "progress", for a Muslim? What is true wealth, for a
Muslim? Progress, and wealth, are to find, and stay upon, the Right
Path - the Path of Islam. To achieve the perfect peace which is Jannah.
The criteria of the kuffar are irrelevant for us. Judged by our own
Islamic criteria - that of obedience to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala; that
of striving for Jannah; that of martyrdom in the path of Allah
Subhanahu wa Ta'ala - we can say that, Alhamdulillah, many Muslims
have, InshaAllah, achieved success and are achieving success.

Third, we must ask: has there been a true Islamic community, a genuine
Khilafah, these past few hundred years? There certainly is no such
community now, where Muslims can live, as Muslims, obedient to only the
law of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, and where the kuffar and their
apostate allies have no influence and no power. But more and more
Muslims - Alhamdulillah - are striving to create such a community as
they find, or return to, the authentic Islam of the revival.

"Do not think that those who are killed in the Way of Allah are dead.
Rather, they are alive, fulfilled, and with their Rabb. They rejoice
because of what Allah has bestowed upon them in His generosity. They
rejoice because of those who have not yet joined them, but have been
left behind - that no fear, no grieving should come to them. They
rejoice because of the favour that Allah has shown them in His mercy:
for no dishonour touched them and Allah always rewards the Believers.
Thus for those who heard and answered (the Call of) Allah and His
Messenger Muhammad after harm touched them - for those of them who did
honourable deeds and feared Allah - there will be the best reward of
all." 3: 169-172 Interpretation of Meaning

Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam)
said: Use your property, your life and your words in striving against
the Unbelievers. Abu Dawud 14, 2498

May Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) protect us from all forms of
Al-asabiyyah Al-Jahiliyyah, forgive us for our mistakes, and guide us
to and keep us on the Right Path.

Allahu Alam
Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt
18 Safar 1427

1) For further details regarding the Kufr of those who assist the
kuffar, refer to "at-Tibyan fi kufr man a'an al Amrikan" by Sheikh
Nasir al-Fahd

2) For further detail regarding Siyasah, refer to Sheikh ul-Islam Ibn
Taimiyyah: Siyasatush-Shar'iah

3) For further details regarding democracy as a Taghut, refer to "Hukm
Al-Islam Fi Ad-Dimuqratiyyah Wa At-Ta'dudiyyah Al-Hizbiyyah" by
Sheikh Abu Basir Mustafa Halimah

What Does Islam Offer Humanity that Differ

Simplicity, Rationality and Practicality

Islam is a religion without any mythology. Its teachings are simple and intelligible. It is free from superstitions and irrational beliefs. The oneness of God, the prophethood of Muhammad, and the concept of life after death are the basic articles of its faith. They are based on reason and sound logic. All of the teachings of Islam flow from those basic beliefs and are simple and straightforward. There is no hierarchy of priests, no farfetched abstractions, no complicated rites or rituals.

Everybody may approach the Qur'an directly and translate its dictates into practice. Islam awakens in man the faculty of reason and exhorts him to use his intellect. It enjoins him to see things in the light of reality. The Qur'an advises him to seek knowledge and invoke Allah to expand his awareness: (Say ‘O, my Lord! Advance me in knowledge. ) (Taha 20: 114) Allah also says: (Are those who know equal with those who know not? But only men of understanding will pay heed. ) (Az-Zumar 39: 9) It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said that: "He who leaves his home in search of knowledge (walks) in the path of God." (Reported by At-Tirmidhi) and that "Seeking knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim." (Reported by Ibn Majah and al-Bayhaqi) This is how Islam brings man out of the world of superstition and darkness and initiates him into the world of knowledge and light.

Again, Islam is a practical religion and does not allow indulgence in empty and futile theorizing. It says that faith is not a mere profession of beliefs, but rather that it is the very mainspring of life. Righteous conduct must follow belief in Allah. Religion is something to be practiced and not an object of mere lip service. The Qur'an says: (Those who believe and act righteously, joy is for them, and a blissful home to return to. ) (Ar-Ra`d 13: 29) The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is also reported to have said: "Allah does not accept belief if it is not expressed in deeds, and does not accept deeds if they do not conform to belief." (Reported by At-Tabarani)
Thus Islam’s simplicity, rationality and practicality are what characterize Islam as a unique and true religion.

Unity of Matter and Spirit

A unique feature of Islam is that it does not divide life into watertight compartments of matter and spirit. It stands not for denial of life but for the fulfillment of life. Islam does not believe in asceticism. It does not ask man to avoid material things. It holds that spiritual elevation is to be achieved by living piously in the rough and tumble of life, not by renouncing the world. The Qur'an advises us to pray as follows: (Our Lord! Give us something fine in this world as well as something fine in the Hereafter. ) (Al-Baqarah 2: 201)
But in making use of life luxuries, Islam advises man to be moderate and keep away from extravagance, Allah says (…and eat and drink and be not extravagant; surely He does not love the extravagant. ) (Al-A`raf: 31) On this aspect of moderation, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Observe fasting and break it (at the proper time) and stand in prayer and devotion (in the night) and have sleep, for your body has its right over you, and your eyes have rights over you, and your wife has a claim upon you, and the person who pays a visit to you has a claim upon you."
Thus, Islam does not admit any separation between "material" and "moral," "mundane" and "spiritual" life, and enjoins man to devote all of his energies to the reconstruction of life on healthy moral foundations. It teaches him that moral and material powers must be welded together and that spiritual salvation can be achieved by using material resources for the good of man in the service of just ends and not by living a life of asceticism or by running away from the challenges of life.
The world has suffered at the hands of the one-sidedness of many other religions and ideologies. Some have laid emphasis on the spiritual side of life but have ignored its material and mundane aspects. They have looked upon the world as an illusion, a deception, and a trap. On the other hand, materialistic ideologies have totally ignored the spiritual and moral side of life and have dismissed it as fictitious and imaginary. Both of these attitudes have resulted in disaster, for they have robbed mankind of peace, contentment, and tranquility.
Even today, the imbalance is manifested in one or the other direction. The French scientist Dr. De Brogbi rightly says: “The danger inherent in too intense a material civilization is to that civilization itself; it is the disequilibria which would result if a parallel development of the spiritual life were to fail to provide the needed balance.”
Christianity erred on one extreme, whereas modern western civilization, in both of its variants of secular capitalistic democracy and Marxist socialism has erred on the other. According to Lord Snell: "We have built a nobly-proportioned outer structure, but we have neglected the essential requirement of an inner order; we have carefully designed, decorated and made clean the outside of the cup; but the inside was full of extortion and excess; we used our increased knowledge and power to administer to the comforts of the body, but we left the spirit impoverished."
Islam seeks to establish equilibrium between these two aspects of life - the material and the spiritual. It says that everything in the world is for man, but man was created to serve a higher purpose: the establishment of a moral and just order that will fulfill the will of Allah. Its teachings cater for the spiritual as well as the temporal needs of man. Islam enjoins man to purify his soul and to reform his daily life - both individual and collective - and to establish the supremacy of right over might and of virtue over vice. Thus Islam stands for the middle path and the goal of producing a moral man in the service of a just society.
to be continue....

Anecdotes on the Condemnation of gossip/backbiting

1 - It is reported from al-Hasan al-Basri (may Allah have mercy on him) that a man said to him: "You have gossiped about me." He (al-Hasan) said: "You have not reached such a position that you can control my Hasanat!" [Note: The Islamic teaching is that the Hasanat (rewards) of the one who gossips will be awarded to the victim.]

2 - Someone was told: "So-and-so has gossiped about you" - so he sent him a dish of dates, with the message: "I heard that you had given me your Hasanat as a gift, and I want to return the favour; please excuse me for not being able to pay back in full."

3 - It was reported from Ibn Mubarak (may Allah have mercy on him) that he said: "If I were to gossip about anyone, I would gossip about my parents, for they have more right to my Hasanat."

4 - Ghibah (gossip/backbiting) is the hospitality of the wrongdoer.

5 - From Amr ibn al-As (radhiallahu `anhu - may Allah be pleased with him); He passed by a dead mule, and said to some of his companions: "It would be better for a man to eat his fill from the meat of this than from the flesh of his fellow-Muslims." [Sahih al-Targhib at-Tarhib]

6 - A man mentioned something bad about another to his friend. His friend said to him: "Do you go out and fight against the Romans?" He said, "No." His friend asked: "Do you go out and fight against the Turks?" He said, "No." The friend said: "The Romans are safe from you, and the Turks are safe from you, but your Muslim brothers are not safe from you!"

7 - If you are unable to do three things, then you must do three (other) things: if you cannot do good, then stop doing evil; if you cannot benefit people, then do not harm them; if you cannot fast, then do not eat the flesh of the people.

8 - The poet said:

"If a man is wise and fears Allah,
This will keep him too busy to concern himself with the faults of others,
Just as the weak and sick person is concerned with his own pain
To think of the pain of others."

Shaykh Husayn al-Awaaishah

Monday, March 27, 2006

And Now for something completely different.........

Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001

Were they part of a massive spy ring which shadowed the 9/11 hijackers and knew that al-Qaeda planned a devastating terrorist attack on the USA? Neil Mackay investigates

THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.

Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.

Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact. To those who have investigated just what the Israelis were up to that day, the case raises one dreadful possibility: that Israeli intelligence had been shadowing the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause.

After the attacks on New York and Washington, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for US-Israeli relations. He said: “It’s very good.” Then he corrected himself, adding: “Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans].”

If Israel’s closest ally felt the collective pain of mass civilian deaths at the hands of terrorists, then Israel would have an unbreakable bond with the world’s only hyperpower and an effective free hand in dealing with the Palestinian terrorists who had been murdering its innocent civilians as the second intifada dragged on throughout 2001.

It’s not surprising that the New Jersey housewife who first spotted the five Israelis and their white van wants to preserve her anonymity. She’s insisted that she only be identified as Maria. A neighbour in her apartment building had called her just after the first strike on the Twin Towers. Maria grabbed a pair of binoculars and, like millions across the world, she watched the horror of the day unfold.

As she gazed at the burning towers, she noticed a group of men kneeling on the roof of a white van in her parking lot. Here’s her recollection: “They seemed to be taking a movie. They were like happy, you know ... they didn’t look shocked to me. I thought it was strange.”

Maria jotted down the van’s registration and called the police. The FBI was alerted and soon there was a statewide all points bulletin put out for the apprehension of the van and its occupants. The cops traced the number, establishing that it belonged to a company called Urban Moving.

Police Chief John Schmidig said: “We got an alert to be on the lookout for a white Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration and writing on the side. Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down.”

By 4pm on the afternoon of September 11, the van was spotted near New Jersey’s Giants stadium. A squad car pulled it over and inside were five men in their 20s. They were hustled out of the car with guns levelled at their heads and handcuffed.

In the car was $4700 in cash, a couple of foreign passports and a pair of box cutters – the concealed Stanley Knife-type blades used by the 19 hijackers who’d flown jetliners into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon just hours before. There were also fresh pictures of the men standing with the smouldering wreckage of the Twin Towers in the background. One image showed a hand flicking a lighter in front of the devastated buildings, like a fan at a pop concert. The driver of the van then told the arresting officers: “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”

His name was Sivan Kurzberg. The other four passengers were Kurzberg’s brother Paul, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari. The men were dragged off to prison and transferred out of the custody of the FBI’s Criminal Division and into the hands of their Foreign Counterintelligence Section – the bureau’s anti-espionage squad.

A warrant was issued for a search of the Urban Moving premises in Weehawken in New Jersey. Boxes of papers and computers were removed. The FBI questioned the firm’s Israeli owner, Dominik Otto Suter, but when agents returned to re-interview him a few days later, he was gone. An employee of Urban Moving said his co-workers had laughed about the Manhattan attacks the day they happened. “I was in tears,” the man said. “These guys were joking and that bothered me. These guys were like, ‘Now America knows what we go through.’”

Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counter-terrorism with the CIA, says the red flag went up among investigators when it was discovered that some of the Israelis’ names were found in a search of the national intelligence database. Cannistraro says many in the US intelligence community believed that some of the Israelis were working for Mossad and there was speculation over whether Urban Moving had been “set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists”.

This makes it clear that there was no suggestion whatsoever from within American intelligence that the Israelis were colluding with the 9/11 hijackers – simply that the possibility remains that they knew the attacks were going to happen, but effectively did nothing to help stop them.

After the owner vanished, the offices of Urban Moving looked as if they’d been closed down in a big hurry. Mobile phones were littered about, the office phones were still connected and the property of at least a dozen clients were stacked up in the warehouse. The owner had cleared out his family home in New Jersey and returned to Israel.

Two weeks after their arrest, the Israelis were still in detention, held on immigration charges. Then a judge ruled that they should be deported. But the CIA scuppered the deal and the five remained in custody for another two months. Some went into solitary confinement, all underwent two polygraph tests and at least one underwent up to seven lie detector sessions before they were eventually deported at the end of November 2001. Paul Kurzberg refused to take a lie detector test for 10 weeks, but then failed it. His lawyer said he was reluctant to take the test as he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country.

Nevertheless, their lawyer, Ram Horvitz, dismissed the allegations as “stupid and ridiculous”. Yet US government sources still maintained that the Israelis were collecting information on the fundraising activities of groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Mark Regev, of the Israeli embassy in Washington, would have none of that and he said the allegations were “simply false”. The men themselves claimed they’d read about the World Trade Centre attacks on the internet, couldn’t see it from their office and went to the parking lot for a better view. Their lawyers and the embassy say their ghoulish and sinister celebrations as the Twin Towers blazed and thousands died were due to youthful foolishness.

The respected New York Jewish newspaper, The Forward, reported in March 2002, however, that it had received a briefing on the case of the five Israelis from a US official who was regularly updated by law enforcement agencies. This is what he told The Forward: “The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems was a front for the Mossad and operatives employed by it.” He added that “the conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs”, but the men were released because they “did not know anything about 9/11”.

Back in Israel, several of the men discussed what happened on an Israeli talk show. One of them made this remarkable comment: “The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event.” But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen?

We are now deep in conspiracy theory territory. But there is more than a little circumstantial evidence to show that Mossad – whose motto is “By way of deception, thou shalt do war” – was spying on Arab extremists in the USA and may have known that September 11 was in the offing, yet decided to withhold vital information from their American counterparts which could have prevented the terror attacks.

Following September 11, 2001, more than 60 Israelis were taken into custody under the Patriot Act and immigration laws. One highly placed investigator told Carl Cameron of Fox News that there were “tie-ins” between the Israelis and September 11; the hint was clearly that they’d gathered intelligence on the planned attacks but kept it to themselves.

The Fox News source refused to give details, saying: “Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” Fox News is not noted for its condemnation of Israel; it’s a ruggedly patriotic news channel owned by Rupert Murdoch and was President Bush’s main cheerleader in the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.

Another group of around 140 Israelis were detained prior to September 11, 2001, in the USA as part of a widespread investigation into a suspected espionage ring run by Israel inside the USA. Government documents refer to the spy ring as an “organised intelligence-gathering operation” designed to “penetrate government facilities”. Most of those arrested had served in the Israeli armed forces – but military service is compulsory in Israel. Nevertheless, a number had an intelligence background.

The first glimmerings of an Israeli spying exercise in the USA came to light in spring 2001, when the FBI sent a warning to other federal agencies alerting them to be wary of visitors calling themselves “Israeli art students” and attempting to bypass security at federal buildings in order to sell paintings. A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) report suggested the Israeli calls “may well be an organised intelligence-gathering activity”. Law enforcement documents say that the Israelis “targeted and penetrated military bases” as well as the DEA, FBI and dozens of government facilities, including secret offices and the unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel.

A number of Israelis questioned by the authorities said they were students from Bezalel Academy of Art and Design, but Pnina Calpen, a spokeswoman for the Israeli school, did not recognise the names of any Israelis mentioned as studying there in the past 10 years. A federal report into the so-called art students said many had served in intelligence and electronic signal intercept units during their military service.

According to a 61-page report, drafted after an investigation by the DEA and the US immigration service, the Israelis were organised into cells of four to six people. The significance of what the Israelis were doing didn’t emerge until after September 11, 2001, when a report by a French intelligence agency noted “according to the FBI, Arab terrorists and suspected terror cells lived in Phoenix, Arizona, as well as in Miami and Hollywood, Florida, from December 2000 to April 2001 in direct proximity to the Israeli spy cells”.

The report contended that Mossad agents were spying on Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehi, two of leaders of the 9/11 hijack teams. The pair had settled in Hollywood, Florida, along with three other hijackers, after leaving Hamburg – where another Mossad team was operating close by.

Hollywood in Florida is a town of just 25,000 souls. The French intelligence report says the leader of the Mossad cell in Florida rented apartments “right near the apartment of Atta and al-Shehi”. More than a third of the Israeli “art students” claimed residence in Florida. Two other Israelis connected to the art ring showed up in Fort Lauderdale. At one time, eight of the hijackers lived just north of the town.

Put together, the facts do appear to indicate that Israel knew that 9/11, or at least a large-scale terror attack, was about to take place on American soil, but did nothing to warn the USA. But that’s not quite true. In August 2001, the Israelis handed over a list of terrorist suspects – on it were the names of four of the September 11 hijackers. Significantly, however, the warning said the terrorists were planning an attack “outside the United States”.

The Israeli embassy in Washington has dismissed claims about the spying ring as “simply untrue”. The same denials have been issued repeatedly by the five Israelis seen high-fiving each other as the World Trade Centre burned in front of them.

Their lawyer, Ram Horwitz, insisted his clients were not intelligence officers. Irit Stoffer, the Israeli foreign minister, said the allegations were “completely untrue”. She said the men were arrested because of “visa violations”, adding: “The FBI investigated those cases because of 9/11.”

Jim Margolin, an FBI spokesman in New York, implied that the public would never know the truth, saying: “If we found evidence of unauthorised intelligence operations that would be classified material.” Yet, Israel has long been known, according to US administration sources, for “conducting the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any US ally”. Seventeen years ago, Jonathan Pollard, a civilian working for the American Navy, was jailed for life for passing secrets to Israel. At first, Israel claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but the government later took responsibility for his work.

It has always been a long-accepted agreement among allies – such as Britain and America or America and Israel – that neither country will jail a “friendly spy” nor shame the allied country for espionage. Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at Boston’s Political Research Associates and an expert in intelligence, says: “It’s a backdoor agreement between allies that says that if one of your spies gets caught and didn’t do too much harm, he goes home. It goes on all the time. The official reason is always visa violation.”

What we are left with, then, is fact sullied by innuendo. Certainly, it seems, Israel was spying within the borders of the United States and it is equally certain that the targets were Islamic extremists probably linked to September 11. But did Israel know in advance that the Twin Towers would be hit and the world plunged into a war without end; a war which would give Israel the power to strike its enemies almost without limit? That’s a conspiracy theory too far, perhaps. But the unpleasant feeling that, in this age of spin and secrets, we do not know the full and unadulterated truth won’t go away. Maybe we can guess, but it’s for the history books to discover and decide.


Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story

Calls for truly independent investigation, joins growing ranks of prominent credible whistleblowers

Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | March 20 2006

Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures in questioning the official story of 9/11 and calling for a new independent investigation of the attack and the circumstances surrounding it.

Over the past two years, scores of highly regarded individuals have gone public to express their serious doubts about 9/11. These include former presidential advisor and CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, BYU physics Professor Steven Jones, former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow, former MI5 officer David Shayler, former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds and many more.

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network, the star of current hit comedy show Two and a Half Men and dozens of movies including Platoon and Young Guns, Sheen elaborated on why he had problems believing the government's version of events.

Sheen agreed that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government itself and prefaced his argument by quoting Theodore Roosevelt in stating, "That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

"We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen.

"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."

Sheen described the climate of acceptance for serious discussion about 9/11 as being far more fertile than it was a couple of years ago.

"It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning."

Suspicious collapse of buildings

Sheen described his immediate skepticism regarding the official reason for the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 on the day of 9/11.

"I was up early and we were gonna do a pre-shoot on Spin City, the show I used to do, I was watching the news and the north tower was burning. I saw the south tower hit live, that famous wide shot where it disappears behind the building and then we see the tremendous fireball."

"There was a feeling, it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother 'call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?"

Sheen said that most people's gut instinct, that the buildings had been deliberately imploded, was washed away by the incessant flood of the official version of events from day one.

Sheen questioned the plausibility of a fireballs traveling 1100 feet down an elevator shaft and causing damage to the lobbies of the towers as seen in video footage, especially when contrasted with eyewitness accounts of bombs and explosions in the basement levels of the buildings.

Regarding building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, Sheen highlighted the use of the term "pull," a demolition industry term for pulling the outer walls of the building towards the center in an implosion, as was used by Larry Silverstein in a September 2002 PBS documentary when he said that the decision to "pull" building 7 was made before its collapse. This technique ensures the building collapses in its own footprint and can clearly be seen during the collapse of building 7 with the classic 'crimp' being visible.

The highly suspicious collapse of building 7 and the twin towers has previously been put under the spotlight by physics Professor Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers.

"The term 'pull' is as common to the demolition world as 'action and 'cut' are to the movie world," said Sheen.

Sheen referenced firefighters in the buildings who were eyewitnesses to demolition style implosions and bombs.

"This is not you or I watching the videos and speculating on what we saw, these are gentlemen inside the buildings at the very point of collapse."

"If there's a problem with building 7 then there's a problem with the whole thing," said Sheen.

Bush's behavior on 9/11

Sheen then questioned President Bush's actions on 9/11 and his location at the Booker Elementary School in Florida. Once Andy Card had whispered to Bush that America was under attack why didn't the secret service immediately whisk Bush away to a secret location?

By remaining at a location where it was publicly known the President would be before 9/11, he was not only putting his own life in danger, but the lives of hundreds of schoolchildren. That is unless the government knew for sure what the targets were beforehand and that President Bush wasn't one of them.

"It seems to me that upon the revelation of that news that the secret service would grab the President as if he was on fire and remove him from that room," said Sheen.

The question of how Bush saw the first plane hit the north tower, when no live footage of that incident was carried, an assertion that Bush repeated twice, was also put under the spotlight.

"I guess one of the perks of being President is that you get access to TV channels that don't exist in the known universe," said Sheen.

"It might lead you to believe that he'd seen similar images in some type of rehearsal as it were, I don't know."

The Pentagon incident

Sheen outlined his disbelief that the official story of what happened at the Pentagon matched the physical evidence.

"Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270 degree turn at 500 miles and hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters."

We have not been able to confirm that a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon because the government has seized and refused to release any footage that would show the impact.

"I understand in the interest of national security that maybe not release the Pentagon cameras but what about the Sheraton, what about the gas station, what about the Department of Transportation freeway cam? What about all these shots that had this thing perfectly documented? Instead they put out five frames that they claim not to have authorized, it's really suspicious," said Sheen.

Sheen also questioned how the plane basically disappeared into the Pentagon with next to no wreckage and no indication of what happened to the wing sections.

Concerning how the Bush administration had finalized Afghanistan war plans two days before 9/11 with the massing of 44,000 US troops and 18,000 British troops in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and in addition the call for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor," as outlined in the PNAC documents, Sheen stated, "you don't really put those strategies together overnight do you for a major invasion? Those are really well calculated and really well planned."

"Coincidence? We think not," said Sheen and he called the PNAC quotes "emblematic of the arrogance of this administration."

A real investigation

Sheen joined others in calling for a revised and truly independent investigation of 9/11.

Sheen said that "September 11 wasn't the Zapruder film, it was the Zapruder film festival," and that the inquiry had to be, "headed, if this is possible, by some neutral investigative committee. What if we used retired political foreign nationals? What if we used experts that don't have any ties whatsoever to this administration?"

"It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims. We owe it to everybody's life who was drastically altered, horrifically that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened."

Charlie Sheen joins the rest of his great family and notably his father Martin Sheen, who has lambasted for opposing the Iraq war before it had begun yet has now been proven right in triplicate, in using his prominent public platform to stand for truth and justice and we applaud and salute his brave efforts, remembering Mark Twain's quote.

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

Listen to the entire Charlie Sheen interview right now for free by clicking here.

CNN Vote: 82% Say U.S. Covered Up 9/11 Attacks

by Enver Masud

In what may be a first for major news media, alternative views of the September 11, 2001 attack on America were voiced by actor Charlie Sheen and radio talk show host Alex Jones.

Nineteen men with box-cutters hijacking four commercial airliners -- that's the conspiracy theory they say.

Sheen and Jones were on the opening segment of Showbiz Tonight on CNN Headline News at 7:00PM EST this evening. We understand the show will repeat at 11:00PM EST.

CNN is polling its viewers: "Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?"

By the following morning 12,103 votes had been cast -- 82% voted Yes; 12% voted No.

The CNN QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate.


Like most Americans, I was gripped by senses of profound shock, horror, revulsion, sadness, and rage as I watched the horror of September 11, 2001 unfolding live on my television screen. Watching the mass murder of thousands of innocent people live on television was the most upsetting experience of my life. How could any person of sound moral character not be enraged at witnessing this horrific act of barbarism? To read about some faraway, long-ago genocide in a newspaper or a book is distressing enough. But to actually witness the mass murders of what was, at first, believed to have been tens of thousands of innocent people is truly heart stopping and traumatic. I barely slept for two nights afterwards and suffered nightmares. I tried to imagine what it would have been like to have to telephone my family for the last time before jumping out of a quarter mile high burning building; my remains to be smashed upon the New York pavement like a scrambled egg. What horror! Polling data would later reveal that 65% of Americans actually shed tears on 9-11. (1)

But not all of the eye-witnesses to the 9-11 slaughter were so saddened and sobered. On September 11, five Israeli army veterans were arrested by the FBI after several witnesses saw them Dancing, High-fiving and Celebrating as they took pictures of the World Trade Center disaster from across the river in New Jersey. Steven Gordon was the lawyer who volunteered to represent the five Israelis. He was asked by a Hebrew newspaper why the five men were being detained by the FBI. Here's what Gordon told Yediot America:

"On the day of the disaster, three of the five boys went up on the roof of the building where the company office is located," said Gordon. "I'm not sure if they saw the twin towers collapse, but, in any event, they photographed the ruins right afterwards. One of the neighbors who saw them called the police and claimed they were posing, dancing and laughing, against the background of the burning towers."

"Anyhow, the three left the roof, took an Urban truck, and drove to a parking lot, located about a five-minute drive from the offices. They parked, stood on the roof of the truck to get a better view of the destroyed towers and took photographs. A woman who was in the building above the lot testified that she saw them smiling and exchanging high-fives. She and another neighbor called the police and reported on Middle-Eastern looking people dancing on the truck. They copied and reported the license plates. (2)

The Ha'aretz new service of Israel reported:

The Foreign Ministry said it had been informed by the consulate in New York that the FBI had arrested the five for "puzzling behavior." They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery."(3)(emphasis added)

Ha'aretz described how FBI field agents then subjected the five Israelis to many days of brutal interrogation, torture, and solitary confinement. When their photos were developed, it was revealed that the dancing Israelis were smiling in the foreground of the New York massacre. (4) According to ABC's 20/20 attempted whitewash of the incident, in addition to their outrageous and highly suspicious behavior, the 5 also had in their possession the following items; box-cutters, European passports, and $4700 cash hidden in a sock. (5)

Why were these Israelis so happy about the horrible massacre that was unfolding right before their very eyes? What evil spirit could possess people who are supposed to be America's "allies", and who receive billions of dollars in financial and military aid from US taxpayers each year, to publicly rejoice as innocent people (including many American jews) were burning to death and jumping out of 110 story buildings? Could it be that these happy Israeli army vets were in some way linked to this monstrous attack? That’s what officials close to the investigation initially told The Bergen Record newspaper of New Jersey.

The Record reported on September 12, 2001 that the Israelis were initially spotted at New Jersey's Liberty State Park at the time of the initial crash. For those not familiar with the NY-NJ area, it should be noted that Liberty Park, located directly across the river, offers the clearest and most unobstructed view possible of the World Trade Center. It would be the best place to position yourself if you had advance knowledge of an attack and wanted to witness it. In an article entitled: Five Men Detained as Suspected Conspirators, The Bergen Record reported:

"Sources said the FBI alert, known as a BOLO or "Be On Lookout," was sent out at 3:31 p.m. It read:

"Vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack. White, 2000 Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center."

"Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals."(6) (emphasis added)

As incredible, as ridiculous, and as "paranoid" as the idea of Israeli involvement in 9-11 may appear to you at this point, the fact is that certain elements within the Israeli government, and International Zionist movement in general, have a long history of attacking the USA and framing Arabs in order to gain support from the US. Before we begin to piece together what really transpired on 9-11, it is absolutely critical that we first review some historical precedents regarding Israel's and International Zionism's treacherous history of manipulating America (and other nations) for their own selfish purposes. Without a basic understanding of this history, it would be impossible to understand the truth as it is today. So put aside your preconceived notions, your psychological defense mechanisms, and your prejudices, and step into my time machine for a journey down the memory hole.


1. Athens Banner-Herald December 22, 2001. Google users enter these words: university chicago poll americans cried

2. Yediot America (Israeli Newspaper), November 2, 2001. Google users enter: yediot america urban moving

3. Ha'aretz. September 17, 2001.5 Israelis detained for `puzzling behavior' after WTC tragedy

4. Jewish Week. November 2, 2001. Stewart Ain. Google users enter: urban moving Israelis smiling took pictures on 9-11

5. ABC News20/20. ABCNews.com, June 21,2001.Google users enter : white van Israeli spies

6. Bergen Record (New Jersey). September 12, 2001. Paolo Lima. Google users enter: Bergen Lima five israelis

9/11 Unedited Video Shows More of What Happened at WTC

Learn the truth about what happened at the World Trade Center on 9.11.2001 from eyewitness testimony and scientific analysis.

High quality, three-chip digital video reveals the previously unseen reverse angle to televised coverage of the Twin Towers and Seven World Trade collapsing and a lot more. This is the only known unedited footage that contains a clear, real-time audio track of the many disturbing events that took place during the WTC destruction.

Local news radio coverage was overheard playing in the background live at the Hoboken waterfront. Scientific analysis is presented in an easy to understand manner.

The pictures tell the story and this is one story that all New Yorkers, and anyone who was traumatized by the shocking attack on the WTC, must see. In memory of all those who perished, 911 Eyewitness is a voice of the victims that must never be forgotten.


Time for the true story about 9/11

March 11, 2006
Time for the true story about 9/11

By Matthew Hine, M.D., M.P.H

The radical Bush Doctrine in foreign policy is founded on the official story of 9/11. The administration used our fear
of terrorism to sway public opinion and justify its actions. We are slowly awakening to how the Bush administration
manipulated our support for its preemptive invasion of Iraq, but most are still asleep.

According to a survey done by Stars and Stripes, 85% of our troops believe they are in Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's
involvement in the attacks of 9/11/01. Much of the public believes the report of the 9/11 Commission provided a correct
account of the events of that day. These beliefs are based on a misunderstanding of the facts.

Saddam Hussein was not connected to the 9/11 attacks, and the 9/11 Commission's report is full of omissions and
distortions. One of the largest is that it did not mention Building 7. This building was not hit by an aircraft, but it
crumbled just the same. Evidence shows that Building 7 was demolished by pre-positioned explosives.

The Presidential 9/11 Commission report was more political exculpation than documentation of truth. It was subtitled
"Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States." They dismissed anything not
fitting into that preconceived paradigm. There was no mention of Building 7 or the anthrax attacks.

The reason Building 7 is not mentioned by the Commission is that it's hard to explain how a terrorist attack could have
included pre-positioned explosives that brought down a 47 story concrete and steel building.

Dr. Steven Jones, a physics professor from Brigham Young University questions the official explanation of what happened
at the World Trade Center, thinking that the buildings were brought down by explosives. He is a member of a group of
academics called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, calling for a fuller investigation of the collapses.

The official government story is a conspiracy theory, namely that 19 hijackers conspired, under the guidance of a man in
a cave, to defeat the most sophisticated air defense system in the world.

The very day after 9/11, the media told us that the plot had been hatched by Osama bin Laden, and soon the FBI showed us
photos of the 19 hijackers. Several weeks later, many were puzzled by the BBC report of the apparently fireproof
passport of one of the hijackers, found on a sidewalk several blocks from the Twin Towers. Some wondered whether the
document had been planted after the BBC reported at least four of the nineteen hijackers had turned up alive and well in
Saudi Arabia.

WTC 7's destruction was broadcast by CBS. Dan Rather, uncensored live on 9/11, said it had the appearance of "A building
deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite". Real time videos and reports of eyewitness testimony from reporters and
fire fighters have surfaced, demonstrating that a controlled demolition took place. These videos and testimony are
available at http://www.911truestory.com

Physical evidence including searing sub-basement temperatures and sulfur from cutting charges, shows explosives were
used to cut through the core support columns below ground level.

The government's own investigators admit they have no reasonable explanation for what happened to WTC 7. Alas, they did
not consider controlled demolition.
Regarding WTC7, the FEMA report states "Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced
collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings."

If you dropped a steel beam from the top of the 47 story Building 7, it would take about 6 seconds to hit the ground.
WTC7 actually hit the ground in about 7 seconds, at nearly free fall speed. If each collapsing floor hit the floor below
and paused for only 1/2 second, the time to crumble into a pile only 2 stories high would have been over 20 seconds.
WTC7 had multiple steel core and perimeter support columns. In order for it to be brought down into its own tight
footprint, all the core and perimeter columns would have to be broken at essentially the same time. The only way this
can happen is through controlled demolition, using pre-positioned explosives. If WTC7 was brought down by explosives,
what happened to the Twin Towers?

In a gross misrepresentation, the 9/11 Commission explained their version of the "pancake theory" collapse: The cores of
the Twin Towers were hollow, comprised only of stairwells and elevator shafts. In truth, each of the Twin Towers
contained dozens of solid central steel support columns.

There is a widespread cultural taboo against noticing the inadequacy of our government's explanations. This is because
the implications are too disturbing for
most to consider.

In March 2003, Dick Cheney summarized the myth used to justify the Bush Doctrine: "We saw on 9/11 nineteen men hijack
aircraft with airline tickets and box cutters kill more than 3,000 Americans in a couple of hours."

Once the facts are widely known, future generations may point to Cheney's statement as the Big Lie of our time. It
fooled our citizens into supporting actions they otherwise would have opposed.

Now is the time for a truly independent look at the evidence. It's time for a special prosecutor.

Authors Website: http://www.911truestory.com

The Myth of "The Myth of Moderate Islam"

By Vincenzo Oliveti

In a recent article in The Spectator magazine in the UK, the evangelical leader Patrick Sookhdeo takes a swipe at
Muslims and their religion. Does his case stand up to scrutiny?

Patrick Sookhdeo's Article (July 30, 2005) in London's The Spectator , "The Myth of a Moderate Islam" reflects a
dangerous trend in the war on terror. Under the guise of informing Westerners about Islam, he is in fact spreading the
very same disinformation that anti- Islamic polemics have been based upon for over 1,000 years. This plays directly into
the hands of Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and others, for it encourages the "clash of civilizations" they so
appallingly desire. It is indeed of the utmost importance that we learn more about Islam and fight the scourge of
extremism with all the tools possible. But Sookhdeo and those like him corrupt this process, seeking to advance their
own agenda by turning the war on terror into an ideological war against Islam.


Sookhdeo's bias is evident from the outset. He argues that terrorists truly represent Islam, writing: "If they say
they do it in the name of Islam, we must believe them. Is it not the height of illiberalism and arrogance to deny them
the right to define themselves?" The remainder of the essay, however, is an extensive effort to deny other Muslims the
right to define themselves by rejecting extremist interpretations of Islam. In fact, less than 5 % of Muslims could be
classified as fundamentalist in outlook, and of that 5 %, less than 0.01 % have shown any tendency toward enacting
terrorism or "religious violence." It is thus "the height of illiberalism" to define as terrorists over 1.3 billion
Muslims who have nothing to do with "religious violence" because of the misdeeds of a fringe minority of 0.005 %. At
most, one in every 200,000 Muslims can be accused of terrorism. That is to say there are a maximum of about 65,000
terrorists worldwide-roughly the same figure as the number of murderers on the loose in the U.S. alone, with over 20,000
homicides a year and a population of only 300 million.

Sookhdeo claims that Muslims "must with honesty recognize the violence that has existed in their history."
However, given that the majority of books that record the transgressions of Muslims have been written by Muslims, it is
difficult to argue that Muslims have chosen en masse to ignore the atrocities of their past. Of course, there are
Muslims who deny many parts of this past, just as there are British people who still deny the atrocities of colonialism;
Americans who deny the massacre of the Native Americans; and Germans who deny the Holocaust of 6 million Jews. But the
fact remains that Christian civilization has given rise to many more atrocities than has Islamic civilization, even
relative to its greater population and longer age.


Nowhere in Islamic history can one find a doctrine similar to Saint Augustine's cognite intrare ("lead them
in"-i.e. "force them to convert"). In fact the Qur'an says the exact opposite: There is no compulsion in religion (
2:256 ). Augustine's frightening idea that all must be compelled to "conform" to the "true Christian faith" has
unleashed centuries of unparalleled bloodshed. Indeed, Christians have suffered more under the rule of Christian
civilization than under pre- Christian Roman rule or any other rule in history. Millions were tortured and slaughtered
in the name of Christianity during the periods of the Arian, Donatist and Albigensian heresies, to say nothing of the
various Inquisitions, or the Crusades, when the European armies were saying, as they slaughtered both Christian and
Muslim Arabs: "Kill them all, God will know his own." Needless to say, these transgressions- and indeed all the
transgressions of Christians throughout the ages-have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ and or even the New
Testament as such. Indeed, no Muslim by definition would ever or will ever blame this on Jesus Christ (the Word made
Flesh, for Christians and Muslims). So how is it that Sookhdeo blames Muslim transgressions (even though far less than
"Christian" ones) on the Qur'an (the Word made Book, for Muslims)?

By no means was such indiscriminate violence limited to Europe's "Dark Ages" or to one period of Christian
history. The Reformation and Counter Reformation took inter- Christian slaughter to new extremes; two thirds of the
Christian population of Europe being slaughtered during this time. Then there were (among many others wars, pogroms,
revolutions and genocides) the Napoleonic Wars ( 1792-1815 ); the African slave trade that claimed the lives of 10
million; and the Colonial Conquests. Estimates for the number of Native Americans slaughtered by the Europeans in North,
Central and South America run as high as 20 million within three generations.

Despite the ravages of Europe's violent past, in the 20 th century, Western Civilization took warfare to new
extremes. A conservative estimate puts the total number of brutal deaths in the 20 th century at more than 250 million.
Of these, Muslims are responsible for less than 10 million deaths. Christians, or those coming from Christian
backgrounds account for more than 200 million of these! The greatest death totals come from World War I (about 20
million, at least 90 % of which were inflicted by "Christians") and World War II ( 90 million, at least 50% of which
were inflicted by "Christians," the majority of the rest occurring in the Far East). Given this grim history, it appears
that we Europeans must all come to grips with the fact that Islamic civilization has actually been incomparably less
brutal than Christian civilization. Did the Holocaust of over 6 million Jews occur out of the background of a Muslim

In the 20th century alone, Western and/or Christian powers have been responsible for at least twenty times more
deaths than have Muslim powers. In this most brutal of centuries, we created incomparably more civilian casualties than
have Muslims in the whole of Islamic history. This continues even in our day-witness the slaughter of 900,000 Rwandans
in 1994 in a population that was over 90 % Christian; or the genocide of over 300,000 Muslims and systematic rape of
over 100,000 Muslim women by Christian Serbs in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995. The horrible truth is that, numerically
and statistically speaking, Christian Civilization is the bloodiest and most violent of all civilizations in all of
history, and is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.

The production and use of nuclear weapons alone should be enough to make the West stand in shame before the rest
of the world. America created nuclear weapons. America is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons, and
Western countries strive to maintain a monopoly over them. As the record stands, we have no moral grounds for objecting
to the acquisition of such weapons until we prove willing to forfeit them entirely.

It should also be mentioned that although Islam has the concept of legitimate war in self-defense (as does
Christianity, and even Buddhism), nowhere in Islamic culture (or in other cultures that survive today) is there latent
the idealization, and perhaps idolization, of violence that exists in Western Culture. Westerners think of themselves as
peaceful, but in fact the gentleness and sublimity of the New Testament, and the peace-loving nature of the principles
of democracy, are scarcely reflected in Western popular culture. Rather, the entire inclination of popular culture-
Hollywood movies, Western television, video games, popular music and sports entertainment-is to glorify and inculcate
violence. Accordingly, the relative rates of murder (especially random and serial murder) are higher in the Western
World (particularly in the U.S., but even in Europe, taken as a whole) than they are in the Islamic world in counties
that are not suffering civil wars, and this true despite the much greater wealth of the West. So has Sookhdeo ever read
the following words?:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye
judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote in thy
brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of
thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite,
first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see
clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5 )


Like most anti-Islamic polemics, the rest of Sookhdeo's article is a mix of fact and fiction. For example, he
argues that many of the Qur'anic verses that advocate peace were abrogated by later verses. It is true that many Muslim
scholars claim later verses abrogate earlier verses, but the extent of abrogation is greatly debated. Some scholars say
that only five verses have ever been abrogated. Some say that over 150 have been abrogated. Sookhdeo's claim that
"wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one" is thus a gross simplification. To
claim that all of the peaceful verses are earlier revelations that have been abrogated by later militant verses is
simply false. For example, verses revealed in the last two years of Muhammad's mission enjoin Muslims to not seek
vengeance against those who had driven them from their homes:

Let not the hatred of the people-because they hindered you from
the Sacred Mosque-incite you to transgress. Help one another in
goodness and reverence, and do not help one another in sin and
aggression . (Qur'an 5:2 )

O ye who believe, be upright for God witnesses injustice; and let
not hatred of a people cause you to be unjust. Be just - that is
closer to piety. (Qur'an 5:8 )

One can hardly imagine a more emphatic message of justice, forgiveness and reconciliation.

Moreover, many highly qualified Muslim scholars have cited the earlier verses advocating peace to dissuade young
Muslims from answering the call of the extremists. Would Sookhdeo prefer that these young Muslims listen to those who
explain these verses away by applying his truncated version of abrogation?

Significantly enough, like extremist interpreters of Islam, Sookhdeo misrepresents Qur'anic verses by citing them
out of context. He claims that Qu'ranic verses 8:59-60 condone terrorism. Verse 8:60 does indeed condone fighting one's
enemies, but it is followed by verse 8:61 : And if they incline unto peace then incline unto it -another later
revelation. In this context, verse 8:60 is advocating that one not take the course of passivism when threatened by an
enemy, but 8:61 then limits the application. This hardly constitutes terrorism. Perhaps if Sookhdeo knew Arabic
properly, he would have the capacity to read the Qur'an more clearly. But he does not. This makes it difficult to accept
him as an authority on Islamic teachings, whatever may be his post or title.

Sookhdeo goes on to claim that one can pick between Qur'anic verses that support violence and those that support
peace. This is true, but one would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the Qur'an condones violence more than the Old
Testament (say, for example, the Book of Leviticus or the Book of Joshua). And if we say that the Qur'an condones
violence, what are we to think of the passages of the Bible that directly command slaughter and genocide? In Numbers
31:17 Moses says (of the Midianite captives, whose menfolk the Israelites have already slaughtered): Now therefore kill
every male among the little ones, and every woman who has known a man intimately . I Samuel 15:1-9 tells the story of
the Prophet Samuel commanding King Saul to eradicate the Amalekites as follows: Slay both men and women, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. Such extremes were forbidden by the Prophet Muhammad who ordered his community
( Tafsir Ibn Kathir , on vv.2:190-193): Fight in the way of God against those who disbelieve in God! Do not act
brutally! Do not exceed the proper bounds! Do not mutilate! Do not kill children and hermits! And likewise (Al-Waqidi,
Kitab al- Maghazi , vol. ? , pp. 1117-1118 ): Attack in the Name of God, but do not revert to treachery; do not kill a
child; neither kill a woman; do not wish to confront the enemy .

To claim that the warfare advocated in some Qur'anic verses is a justification for wanton acts of violence fails
to acknowledge that classical interpretations have always limited the scope of such verses. For example, a verse that is
often misinterpreted in the modern era is 2:191-92 : Slay the polytheists wherever you find them, and capture them and
blockade them, and watch for them at every lookout. But if they repent and establish the prayer and give alms, then let
them go their way. On the one hand, extremists employ this verse to sanction shedding innocent blood. On the other hand,
it is employed by non-Muslim polemicists to portray the Qur'an as a bellicose declaration of perpetual warfare. But
according to the classical Islamic tradition, this verse cannot be taken as a carte blanche to fight non-Muslims. It can
only be applied to the specific polytheists who opposed the early Muslim community and threatened the very survival of
Islam. As one authoritative jurisprudent (Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn Al-'Arabi, 11 th-12th century AD) writes:

This verse is general regarding the polytheists, but is restricted
by the Prophet's prohibition of the killing of women,
children, religious adherents, and non-combatants. But
understood also are those who do not fight you nor are preparing
to fight you or harm you. The verse actually means, "Slay
the polytheists who are attempting to slay you."

Such interpretations could be cited ad infinitum . They clearly demonstrate that Sookhdeo's equation of "radical
Muslims" with "medieval jurists" who claim that "Islam is war" is not only unfounded, but an utter distortion. Either
Sookhdeo is not qualified to analyze the classical Islamic tradition and compare it to modern deviations, or he is
intentionally distorting Islamic teachings. Either way, he proves himself to be completely unreliable.


Sookhdeo's dubious scholarship is on display throughout this article, particularly when he uses the hackneyed
distinction between Dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (the abode of war) to argue that Muslims accept
nothing but war or triumph. These are important classical terms, but Muslim scholars also wrote of many other abodes
between them. Some classifications include three abodes, some five, and some seven. In the modern era, Europe and
America have been regarded by the vast majority of Muslim scholars as the Dar al-Sulh , or "the abode of treaty." This
means that a Muslim can engage with this world on many levels and should abide by the laws of the land if he or she
chooses to live there or to visit. Using this distinction, Muslim scholars have even declared that Muslims can serve in
the U.S. Army, even when combating other Muslim countries. Only those who seek conflict continue to misinform the public
by limiting the world to Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb .


Sookhdeo's miscomprehension is also revealed when he discusses the recent conference of Islamic scholars in
Jordan, which issued a final declaration that opposed the practice of calling other Muslims non-believers and clarified
the qualifications for issuing fatwas . He argues that this has "negated a very helpful fatwa which had been issued in
March by the Spanish Islamic scholars declaring Osama bin Laden an apostate." However, a war of words wherein Muslims
begin calling other Muslims unbelievers is precisely what Al-Qaida and other extremists desire. This way they can brand
as apostate and kill everyone who disagrees with them. Let us not forget how two days before 9/11 , Al-Qaida
assassinated Ahmed Shah Massoud. This was no mere coincidence; it was a strategic imperative. By removing the most
charismatic representative of traditional Islam in Afghanistan, Al-Qaida removed the greatest obstacle to their
distortions of Islam, a credible leader who would expose the spurious nature of their claim to represent Islam.

In order to avoid people being killed over even petty faults or sins, classical Islamic law does not allow one to
"excommunicate" another Muslim for sinning nor to declare him or her to be a non-believer. By reaffirming this and
removing the possibility of takfir (calling someone an apostate) in our age, King Abdullah's conference has made the
world a safer place. This is true not just for traditional, "moderate" Muslims-the only ones in fact who can effectively
isolate the extremists and thus protect non-Muslims-but also for others, such as Jews and Christians whom the Qur'an
(and the greatest classical scholars of Islam, such as the famous al-Ghazali) regards as "fellow believers." Sookhdeo
desires to keep this "door" open so that Muslims he does not like can be "excommunicated." He wants to keep this
"sword"-in effect-unsheathed, completely forgetting that all they that take the sword shall

perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52 ).

Sookhdeo further displays a complete lack of understanding of Islamic law when he asks: "Could not the King
reconvene his conference and ask them to issue a fatwa banning violence against non-Muslims also?" In fact this is
exactly what did happen by the scholars declaring that the fatwas issued in support of wanton violence are illegitimate.
For everyone who commits an act of terrorism in the name of Islam attempts to first justify that act through the
issuance- and misuse-of a fatwa , and no one commits terrorist acts without being convinced that terrorism is justified.
The conference reaffirmed that all fatwa s must necessarily be bound by a triple system of internal "checks and
balances": all those issuing fatwa s must have certain, stringent personal and educational credentials; they must all
follow the methodology of the eight Madhahib or tradional schools of Islamic jurisprudence; and no fatwa may go outside
the bounds of what the traditional Madhahib allow-precisely what the extremist fatwa s attempt to do. The conference
assembled over 180 major scholars from 45 countries, and garnered 17 major fatwa s from the greatest Islamic Authorities
in the world (including the Sheikh Al-Azhar, Ayatollah Sistani, and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi) to declare this. The
conference thus not only de-legitimized the extremists de jure , but, to quote Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek (July
18,2005 ), constituted "a frontal attack on Al-Qaida's theological methods." This is surely a vital tool in the war
against extremism, and so the King and his conference are very much to be commended.


Isolating and eradicating extremists does not, however, appear to be Sookhdeo's agenda. Rather he wishes to
misrepresent the Qur'an, history, and contemporary Muslims in order to substantiate his own claim that terrorism and
extremism are inherent to Islam. Following this approach is exactly how we will lose the war on terrorism. The true war
is the war of ideas. The lynch-pin in the arguments of Bin Laden, Zarqawi and others is that they think they represent
Islam. Traditional Muslim scholars from around the world have confirmed that such deviant ideologies and actions violate
the very principles of Islam. By working with such scholars we can help them to consolidate the traditional middle
ground of Islam and further expose the extremists for being just that. This is the most efficient, most peaceful and
most effective weapon in the war against extremist interpretations of Islam. If we do not use it, we will have
surrendered the higher ground in the war of ideas. By responding with extremism of another kind, Sookhdeo and those like
him allow the extremists to determine the general inter-religious ambiance and thus the course of events. Rather than
providing a realistic presentation of the challenges we face and their possible peaceful solutions, they take advantage
of the situation to advance their own hidden polemical agenda and prejudices. In doing so they work not only against
Muslims and Islam, but against the whole of humanity, Christians included (or perhaps especially). Onward Christian
soldiers, Reverend Sookhdeo?

Vincenzo Olivetti is the author of Terror's Source: The Ideology of Wahabi-Salafism and its Consequences.


English to Arabic to English Dictionary
Find word:
Exact Word / Starting Word Sub Word

Please Feel Free to Donate