Egypt Arrests Al-Qa'ida Infiltrators Seeking To Revive Activities There



Download 1.14 Mb.
Page6/30
Date conversion15.02.2016
Size1.14 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   30

These things are forbidden in all God's laws. God sent all his messengers to forbid them. He never permitted one of these things, under any circumstances. For this reason, the verse was revealed in Mecca." (Al-Fatawa, 14, page 477)

Necessities render permissible those things that are otherwise forbidden, if they do not entail polytheism. Polytheism and infidelity are permitted only under duress such as under the threat of death or unbearable pain.

Those who try to cite the story of [Prophet] Joseph are turning the Shari'ah evidence on its head and ignoring the straight forward Koranic verses while employing the verses whose meanings cannot be properly understood without context.

The evidence in the Book of God as to the proscription of seeking governance by non-Shari'ah laws, and the infidelity of those who legislate alongside God are both innumerable and too clear to be hidden.

There is nothing in the story of Joseph to indicate that he committed any Shari'ah violation, and God approved of his rule and deeds as He says: "Thus did We plan for Joseph. He could not take his brother by the law of the king except that Allah willed it (so)," [partial Koranic verse, Yusuf, 12:76].

Any law created by us, if it is in violation of our Shari'ah, is abrogated by our Shari'ah.

Indeed, Imam al-Shafi'i, may God rest his soul, said in the most correct narration: "A law created by us and rooted in our Shari'ah is only permissible if our Shari'ah dictates that it is legal."

If, my good brother, you want to go further in responding to the dubious claims of those who are enamored with democracy, I advise you to read: The Incoherence of the Democrats, by Shaykh Abu-Abd-al-Rahman al-Shinqiti. You will find in it what I have said and more, and it is available on the Minbar [ al-Tawhid wal-Jihad website].

God is All-Knowing.

Praise be to God, the Lord of all creation.

Answered by Shari'ah Commission member:

Shaykh Abu-al-Mundhir al-Shinqiti.

[To view the vernacular, click here.]

[Description of Source: Minbar al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in Arabic -- Large repository of radical Salafi religious material; serves as official website for Jordanian Salafi cleric Abu-Muhammad al-Maqdisi, who was once the religious mentor to deceased Al-Qa'ida in Iraq leader Abu-Mus'ab al-Zarqawi; URL: www.tawhed.ws]

Al-Shinqiti Rejects 'Democratic Constitutions,' Advocates Rule Under Shari'ah

GMP20110318103002 Minbar al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in Arabic 18 Mar 11

[Corrected version -- repairing link to article vernacular; Article attributed to Abu-al-Mundhir al-Shinqiti: "What is the ruling on voting for amendments to some articles in the Egyptian constitution?" -- posted directly to the Minbar al-Tawhid wal-Jihad website.]

May the peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you. Honorable and righteous scholars in Minbar al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, greetings. What is your opinion on the legitimacy of the referendum on constitutional amendments planned to be held in Egypt next Saturday, 19 March 2011, corresponding to 14 Rabi al-Akhir 1432? This, with the knowledge that a group of scholars in Egypt not attached to the state, or to the framework of the [Muslim] Brotherhood, have issued fatwas permitting and supporting [participation in] the constitutional amendments. [Question by] Muhammad Abdallah

May the peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you. Our honorable shaykhs, may God bless you in your knowledge, and may God make us useful to you in this life and the hereafter. We have now in Egypt a case of fumbling and disorder, especially in the matter of electoral amendments, and the yes or no thereof. I will not be verbose. Most of the Salafist shaykhs in Egypt, from their different provinces, agree on going to the electoral stations this coming Saturday (19 March 2011) to choose or mark "Yes" to the constitutional amendments under the pretext of preventing any infringement upon the second article of the constitution, which is that Islamic law is the main source [of law] for the Arab Republic of Egypt, as they do not want any amendments, but rather want to change the entire constitution. Their intent behind this is that they want Egypt to be a secular state, with no Islamic character to it. This is their pretext, and this is from the point of view that necessity permits things that would otherwise be forbidden. Is this correct, and an obligation upon us, as one of them said, to go and say "yes" to the amendments? What should we do? [Question by] Abu-Mus'ab al-Halali

My honorable shaykhs in Minbar al-Tawhid wal-Jihad: May peace and mercy of God be upon you. I read an article by Shaykh Tariq Abd-al-Halim regarding participation in the referendum, and he said to participate and vote "yes." The link to the article: [link provided]. I was among those who called upon people to avoid participation in this referendum, and I am now confused, after the statement from Shaykh Tariq (may God protect him). My question is: Is participation in the referendum on the man-made constitution permitted? If the answer is yes, should we vote yes or no? [Question by] Rahim bil-Mu'minin

In the name of God, prayers and peace be upon the messenger of God and upon his family, companions and followers. To our shaykhs, the shaykhs of Minbar al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, the honorable and glorious ones who come openly with the truth, at a time when there are few who do so: May God the Exalted protect you and use you to support religion. May the peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you. I ask God the Exalted, the Omniscient, the Great, the Strong, and the Honorable, Supporter of the oppressed and Conqueror of the tyrants, to break the chains of the lordly scholar Shaykh Abu-Muhammad al-Maqdisi, make him steadfast upon the truth, and protect him. May He guide you to what He loves and is satisfied by (may He be glorified and exalted), and bless you in your blessed platform that teaches us the creed of Ibrahim and the call of the prophets and messengers. The situation in the land of Al-Kananah [Egypt] is not unknown to you, after the removal of the tyrant, the not-blessed one [pun on the name Mubarak, which means blessed], and his obsolete regime. Some of our Salafist callers to Islam and the [Muslim] Brotherhood have demanded and called for the fixing of the second article of the man-made and polytheist constitution that stipulates: "The second article of the constitution stipulates that the religion of the state is Islam and its language Arabic, and that the principles of Islamic law are the fundamental source of law." They spoke of the positives and negatives therein, and how it was what would protect Islamic identity. This, as you well know, is for the dissolving of the religion of God the Exalted, and so the [Muslim] Brotherhood participated in their old ways of dissolving religion by way of using the ends to justify the means. After that, they asked the people to vote "yes" for constitutional amendments and to stand against the secular march that would vote "no." We hope for an answer from you honorable ones at this crucial stage, and [advice on] how to emerge from it by lawful means to establish the religion of God the Blessed and Exalted, and for a judgment on those who vote "yes" or "no." May God reward you well. [Question by] Abu-Hadhifah al-Masri

Praise be to God. Prayers and peace be upon the messenger of God. Our dear shaykhs: First, we would like to inform you that we love you in God and we consider you one of our sources. Second, with regard to the referendum on the constitutional amendments on the '71 Constitution to take place this coming Saturday: [Voting] "yes" on the referendum: There are those who say that the amendments have no relationship to any creeds of ideologies, but rather contain only systemic procedural changes. But I see that "yes" means, effectively, agreement on the secular, tyrant, and infidel constitution of '71. "No" on the referendum means a rejection of the amendments, and perhaps any polytheist constitution as well. But perhaps it means, some say, that you reject the amendments and accept the constitution as is. In rejection, also, is another issue, which is that it perhaps supports and extends the state of general stability. There is interest in this, as it is generally thought that the current and coming regime will be a secular regime, and stability means the preservation of this regime, whereas lack of stability might perhaps mean the opportunity, by the grace of God, for calling to Islam, elucidation, gathering, preparation, unification of ranks, and seizure of the opportunity to strike at and demolish falsehood. (We have previously conveyed to you to support us and cooperate with us in that goodness that is not to be deferred at a society-wide level, and we have not received a response from you.) [Regarding] the boycott of the referendum: Perhaps there is in it purity and soundness from all this, perhaps it is something negative that will be counted against one. I hope that our dear shaykhs will bring us benefit quickly, by the will of God the Almighty. We entrust you to the care of the Almighty. May the peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you, and I ask your expert advice. [Question by] Ihya al-Khilafah

Peace be upon you, our masters, and the crown of our heads. It appears that the matter in Egypt is difficult and sensitive, and that it is declining. From the front of the loss of opportunity to the secularists and Christians, some Salafist scholars known for their belief in the sovereignty of monotheism have decreed the permissibility of voting in the referendum. Indeed, there are those among them who said, vote yes, with the pretext that the upcoming referendum is only on amending some articles in the constitution. Answer us, that we may cut all their tongues with evidence and scholarly display. May the Guardian assist you. [Question by] Abu-al-Asir

Questioner: Muhammad Bin-Abdallah

Respondent: The Shari'ah Committee in Al-Minbar

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

Praise be to God, Lord of all Creation. May the prayers of God be upon His honorable prophet, and upon all his family and companions. These man-made constitutions by which the people are governed today are what organize the democratic operation and all within it of contradictions to the law of God. These democratic constitutions all agree upon a number of infidel principles contradictory to Islam altogether. Among the most important of these principles are:

1- The pronouncement of submission to the rule of the people rather than the rule of God

2- Making the majority the decisive factor in governance, regardless of its agreement or opposition to the law of God

3- Giving the representatives (legislators) the power to write laws, regardless of their agreement or opposition to the law of God

4- The pronouncement of submission to international law and international treaties, including what is in them that contravenes Islam

5- The basis of the principle of freedom of religion according to the Western democratic concept, rather than the Islamic concept

These are some, not all, of the infidel principles upon which these man-made constitutions are based. These constitutions are, in truth, only a tool for organizing the progress of the democratic operation and what is in it of contradiction to Islamic shari'ah. It is not fit for these constitutions to state that the official religion of the state is Islam, because, as with the basis of the previous principles and laws, this speech remains merely ink on paper. The state remains effectively secular, and Islam and secularism do not mix. It is also not fit for these constitutions to state that Islamic shari'ah is the main source [of law]. Rather, Islamic law must be the only source, in order that the constitution should be Islamic. It is not possible for that to happen, with the basis of the previous infidel principles. The reality is that Islamic shari'ah is not the main source [of law] in any democratic constitution, because in these constitutions and laws therein, Islamic law is not a priority, except with regard to the body of laws for personal matters. And there is much in the way of laws that contravene Islamic shari'ah.

As for issues other than personal matters, Islamic shari'ah is a missing source, and in the best of cases a reserve source! The deciding word is from Roman law, French law, and the so-called scholars of jurisprudence. The like of these attempts striving to confer the tincture of Islam upon these secular constitutions should not deceive the Muslims, because they are, in truth, only from the tribe of [those who] offer pork with black caraway. If this is the reality and truth of these constitutions, attention should be paid to the following:

1- Voting on these constitutions means participation in determining the democratic regime and its implementation and establishment on the ground in the lands of the Muslims.

2- Voting on these constitutions means acknowledgement of the right of the people to practice legislation in general, and it means the voter's practicing of legislation in particular.

3- Voting on any amendments in the constitution does not differ from voting on the entire constitution. The lawful prohibitions against voting on the amendments of the constitution are the same as those for voting on the constitution at all.

4- The hoped-for benefits of the constitutional amendments do not permit participation in voting on polytheist constitutions. If it had been thus permitted, then the implementation of the democratic regime and all therein would be permitted as well. Voting on these constitutions means the implementation of the worst principle among democratic principles: the governance of the people and their practice of legislation.

Indeed, those who call for voting on the amendments are, in reality, entering a battle with illusory results, and there is no fruit therein, on the ground. This is for two reasons:

The First Reason: Because it is in the shadow of the democratic regime, the governance of the people, and the establishment of the majority as the final deciding factor, there is no meaning to the words that shari'ah is the main source [of law] of the constitution, because the deciding factor in making the laws is either shari'ah, and in this case the democracy would not be implemented; or it is the number of the majority, and in this case shari'ah would not be the source. Yes, the representatives might vote to choose to make the law in agreement with Islamic shari'ah, but this is not to be considered a submission to shari'ah, but rather the submission of the representatives who voted on laws in agreement with it or taken from it. In this is an indication that shari'ah might be a source for the constitution or of law, but it is not the decisive [factor]. The governance of shari'ah and complete submission to it is one thing, and its being a source [of law] is another. We have been commanded to establish the divine governance, and this is what we are calling for. We should not be deceived by the issue of the constitution's source of law. It is not possible that this is a legitimate method of establishing shari'ah.

The establishment of shari'ah is not a nominal matter that can be established in any way or by any method. Rather, it is a matter of worshipping God (may He be glorified and exalted), and it is accepted and sound only if it is in submission and obedience to God the Exalted and out of desire to [see] His face, because governance by [shari'ah] is the manifestation of the worship of God the Exalted. And the establishment of governance by shari'ah is not an optional matter that can come by way of voting or referendum. Rather, it is a matter obligated by God (may He be glorified and exalted). God the Exalted said: "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision," [partial Koranic verse, Al-Ahzab, 33:36]. And God the Exalted said: "But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction," [Koranic verse, Al-Nisa, 4:65]. If it is among the provisions of faith that a Muslim find no hesitation in his heart on what God has commanded, and that he submit to it completely, then how can it be permitted for Muslims to undertake referendums or voting on the implementation of the rule of God? These verses have indicated that the law of God is a compulsory matter in which there is no choice. And they indicate that the implementation of the law of God can only be achieved by complete submission and surrender, and this is what is absent from the existence of referendums or voting.

The Second Reason: The article that says: "Islamic shari'ah is the main source of legislation" is in reality merely a slogan to throw sand in the eyes. Its presence means nothing on the ground. It was present previously when Islam was missing from the affairs of life and the politics of the country. I think that the matter is clear now: the implementation of shari'ah in a real way is a possibility completely absent in the shadow of the democratic regime, regardless of whether or not the constitution is changed. We are before two choices only: secularism in the name of Islam or secularism in the name of secularism. There is to be no choosing for either of the two choices. The only lawful choice is to attempt to implement Islamic shari'ah outside the democratic system. And if these voters on the amendments are striving to implement shari'ah, why do they not demand its direct implementation? Why this diffidence, procrastination, and dawdling? Why the shame in calling for the implementation of shari'ah? Why the fear after the tyrants have fallen and the people have attained their freedom? If this democratic regime was imposed upon the people by way of the godless apparatuses of the state, then it is incumbent upon the Muslims to reject it, and their participation in this infidel regime is not permitted. The permitting of voting on these constitutional amendments would open the door before the permitting of the participation of Islamists in democracy, and there is no difference between the practicing thereof and the goal. The participation of Islamists in democracy is a matter that some claim to be the implementation of Islam with the tools of democracy. It is, in reality, nothing but the Islamists' becoming devoid of their religious character. This is what we have seen on the ground.

The callers to God (may He be glorified and exalted) should be an example to the people in rejecting the reality governed by man-made laws and in refusing to trade in it. Indeed, these laws are a tumult sweeping the ummah. They are imposed by the regimes, and they have become deeply tied to the life of the people. Law students, lawyers, and judges have undertaken the establishment of action by these laws, and they number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Thus, if the dealing of the Islamists with these laws is added to that, the calamity would be heightened and the disaster magnified. I think that, even if there is any benefit in the amendment of the constitution, the benefit of refrain from dealing with the laws and constitutions is greater and more useful.

To conclude: We advise the monotheist brothers everywhere to refrain from undertaking political work on the basis of the democratic regime and man-made laws, for it is contrary to Islamic rule, and it is not possible [for Islamic rule] to be reached in this way. We advise them to positive and lawful participation in the politics of the ummah by way of the propagation of virtue and the prevention of vice; by warning Muslims against participation in the democratic regime and in governance by man-made laws; and by calling for the establishment of the rule of Islamic shari'ah by direct means, rather than by going through democratic channels.

If the people turn from their call, this does not permit them to mix with people in falsehood. Rather, they must part ways with falsehood and continue in supplication. They must strive to achieve all of what they aim for of worldly benefits by means in accordance with shari'ah, rather than by polytheistic means. And it is known that those who call for participation in voting on these amendments focus on worldly benefits while neglecting the aspect of monotheism. This is the path taken by all those seduced by democracy. We seek the refuge of God from temptations. I advise the zealous brothers to follow the truth and adhere to seeking shari'ah evidence. Do not let names, positions, and fame lead you away from following the truth. God is All-Knowing. Praise be to God, Lord of all Creation.

[To view the vernacular, click here.]

[Description of Source: Minbar al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in Arabic -- Large repository of radical Salafi religious material; serves as official website for Jordanian Salafi cleric Abu-Muhammad al-Maqdisi, who was once the religious mentor to deceased Al-Qa'ida in Iraq leader Abu-Mus'ab al-Zarqawi; URL: www.tawhed.ws]

Hani Al-Siba'i Criticizes 'New Salafists' for Attacking Cleric Tariq Abd-al-Halim

GMP20110415136002 Ansar al-Mujahidin Network in Arabic 15 Apr 11

[Article attributed to Dr Hani al-Siba'i, the director of Al-Maqrizi Center for Historical Studies; dated 15 April: "The Salafists Attack Shaykh Tariq Abd-al-Halim Because He Is Not a Satellite Channel Cleric!" -- "Murasil Markaz al-Maqrizi," user number 1950, posted the article.]

Statement Number 32 in 1432, Corresponding to 2011

The People Pretending to be Salafists Attack Shaykh Tariq Abd-al-Halim Because He Is Not a Satellite Channel Cleric!

Written by Dr Hani al-Siba'i

[Al-Siba'i's e-mail address is posted here.]

Director of the Al-Maqrizi Center for Historical Studies,

Praise be to God. Prayers and peace be upon the Prophet of God.

They attacked him because he is not a satellite channel cleric! They attacked him because they did not know him! They attacked him because he truthfully criticized one of their shaykhs, whom they satisfy to achieve personal interests!

They lashed him with their tongues because he revealed their bad intentions and exposed the weak side of their evidence as they confront the afflictions of the ummah [the community of Muslims worldwide]! Salafists and Salafism are apart from their shaykhs, peers, and a long queue of those who flatter their shaykhs!

This is how the new people pretending to be Salafists dealt with Shaykh Tariq Abd-al-Halim! [The author here spells out "the people pretending to be Salafists" in Arabic and compares its spelling with the Arabic word that means "opportunists"]. I spelled it out to avoid mixing up the two words! However, those who pretend to be Salafists can be likened to 'opportunists.' They are people pretending to be Salafists, who climb on the back of falsehood, considering that they are speakers of truth!

At any rate, this is how the people pretending to be Salafists dealt with His Eminence, the righteous Shaykh Dr Tariq Abd-al-Halim, who is the grandson of Al-Azhar Shaykh Salim al-Bishri! If these people had been more patient and resorted to the methodology followed by the noble predecessors of assessing the men, they would have understood the enormity of what they did. They have even gone further by slandering Shaykh Tariq Abd-al-Halim! Why did these impudent people move heaven and earth and targeted Shaykh Tariq Abd-al-Halim with their insane words?

This is because His Eminence Shaykh Tariq Abd-al-Halim wrote an article, in which he criticized a declaration by Shaykh Ishaq al-Huwayni. Al-Maqrizi Center [for Historical Studies] published this article entitled "Al-Huwayni, between the Salafist Impostors and the Salafism-like preachers," which was sent to us by His Eminence Shaykh Tariq Abd-al-Halim on Tuesday, 9 Jumada al-Awwal 1432, corresponding to 12 April 2011. They acted as if Shaykh Tariq criticized the rulings of Salafism!

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   30


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page