Forum Menu - Click/Swipe to open
 
Top Members

Challange to Awlakis arguments for deliberately targeting civilians

You have contributed 0.0% of this topic

Thread Tools
Appreciate
Topic Appreciation
the fake shaykh
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
9
Brother
3
#1 [Permalink] Posted on 30th November 2015 15:42
Anwar al-Awlaki is often cited by those who argue in favour of deliberately targeting and killing civilians – i.e with bombs, shootings etc. His statements are also used in AQ’s official publications as justifications for their attacks. However, one need only examine his “evidence” to see that it is riddled with contradictions as well as distortions of clear Islamic principles (which may be considered innovations). I want to refer to his own teachings and quotes here, although I do not want to cite them directly (which would of course be preferable) because of the risk to me as a result of spreading his literature (especially due to the climate in the wake of the Paris attacks). The articles can be found however by searching for the quotes which I will share.

Firstly, in the early days of Islam there was a principle called bayat which involved launching attacks at night. Since visibility was difficult, civilians were sometimes killed unintentionally since it was unavoidable, although they were NOT the target. We refer to this now as “collateral damage”. In this case, the civilians are NOT the intended target but were killed unintentionally. Awlaki contradicts himself with the two following sentences. Firstly:

"The attackers would ambush the enemy in their tents and houses and engage them in fighting. This would lead to the deaths of men, women and children who were in the tents or homes because of the difficulty distinguishing between man, woman and child.


He then concludes from this that:
"There is no difference in ruling between bayat and detonating a bomb in a populated center in a nation that is at war with the Muslims."

It is obvious that there is a BIG difference between bayat and leaving a bomb in a populated civilian area (i.e sports stadium, bus, tourist attraction or suchlike). In bayat, civilians die not because they are the primary target, whereas in the bomb attack, civilians ARE the target. This has thus been taken out of context and twisted/distorted to permit something that has been conclusively proven to be HARAAM.

Similarly, he does the same thing with the concept of collateral damage as a result of the use of mangonals. Mongonals were a type catapult used to destroy fortifications and walls in cities. Naturally these types of weapons were indiscriminate and inaccurate – even today “precision bombing” is notoriously deadly to civilians. It was permissible to use these weapons even if civilians were sometimes caught up as a result, although once again – this is an example of collateral damage, since it was not the civilians who were the express target of the attack. Awlaki used precedent of mangonals to claim that it is permissible to leave a bomb in a civilian area to deliberately targets civilians - which is COMPLETELY different from the mangonal precedent.

Awlaki resorts to making up rulings based on his own ideas, for example:

“Therefore, if you ask me as a tactic, is targeting the civilian population of the West a good thing to do? I would say yes, because it is much more potent and powerful. Soldiers are expected to die anyway. That's why they sign up for the army, to fight and kill or be killed. So a soldier is at risk anyway and that risk is factored into his job. But a civilian is not. So when you hit the civilian you hit them where it hurts most and that is what our tactics are about”


This opinion is NOT based on sharia. He then basically refutes HIMSELF with the following quote:

“On the other hand, we know of the hadīth that prohibits the killing of women and children, so how can we combine what was mentioned below with such hadīth. The answer is that women and children should not be singled out, should not be specifically targeted and if they fall as prisoners of war it is not allowed to execute them. Throughout our history whenever women and children would fall captives there lives were spared unlike with the crusaders for example who slaughtered thousands of Muslim prisoners or the Moguls who wiped out the entire populations of numerous Muslims cities.”

Then he contradicts himself again:

“However when men, women and children are mixed and integrated such as in a city or village there is no doubt that it is allowed to target them while carrying the intentions of not specifically targeting the women and children. Therefore, an attack on a population center such as a US, British, French or German city with a bomb or a firearm attack is definitely allowed.”

All cities have men, women and children mixed. So then he makes the very bizarre conclusion that even though it’s not permissible to target women and children - a bomb or gun attack on a population centre is permissible. At best here he is contradicting himself and worst he is scraping the barrel and trying to find loopholes to try to circumvent the Sharia of Allah (this is a sin btw).

If this is the best attempt by a famous so-called “scholar of jihad”, then clearly the Islamic basis for deliberate attacks against civilians is extremely weak. This does not prevent some who claim that because that an opinion exists – the course of action is therefore valid.
report post quote code quick quote reply
back to top
Rank Image
xs11ax's avatar
Unspecified
3,146
Brother
2,205
xs11ax's avatar
#2 [Permalink] Posted on 30th November 2015 17:12
Abu Sultaan wrote:
View original post


Quote:
The attackers would ambush the enemy in their tents and houses and engage them in fighting. This would lead to the deaths of men, women and children who were in the tents or homes because of the difficulty distinguishing between man, woman and child.


salaam

what is the context of this quote? who was attacking who? what was the reason for the attack?
report post quote code quick quote reply
back to top
Rank Image
Maripat's avatar
Offline
Gham-o-Huzn
2,609
Brother
3,157
Maripat's avatar
#3 [Permalink] Posted on 1st December 2015 05:16
Abu Sultaan wrote:
View original post


Quote:
Anwar al-Awlaki is often cited by those who argue in favour of deliberately targeting and killing civilians – i.e with bombs, shootings etc. His statements are also used in AQ’s official publications as justifications for their attacks. However, one need only examine his “evidence” to see that it is riddled with contradictions as well as distortions of clear Islamic principles (which may be considered innovations). I want to refer to his own teachings and quotes here, although I do not want to cite them directly (which would of course be preferable) because of the risk to me as a result of spreading his literature (especially due to the climate in the wake of the Paris attacks). The articles can be found however by searching for the quotes which I will share.
[/quote]

Masha Allah.
I am glad that a brother of mine has gathered courage to talk about an issue that is essential, even critical, yet we Muslims do not talk about such things. Of if they talked then they were so irresponsible that they ended up harming themselves as well as others. I suppose there will be people who will look at this exercise as pandering to Islamophobic society but that will miss the target by the yards. It is amply clear today that non-Muslim society is confound about the dynamics of the Muslim society today. If we do not clarify the matters ourselves then this will be dereliction of duty on our part. If we look at the Makkan phase of Islam that is solely focused on clarifying the principles, beliefs, aims, objectives and intentions of Islam. That phase is longer by three years as compared to the ten years long Madina phase - the physical implementation of Islam.

Indeed even Muslims will not know what is true, what is false, what is allowed, what is forbidden if we do not talk about these issues.

Targetting civilians is against common sense and Islam ultimately is against violating common sense.

So thanks for taking up the clarification of these issues.

Because of the western tightening of screw on these imbecile elements who will talk all bravado it has so happened that even sensible people can not talk about these critical matters.

Clearly utmost responsibility is needed in discussin these points yet we can not ignore them. Far too many Muslim lives are being wasted in the armed aggression of the western military muscles and the fringe elements from within Ummah only supply fuel to fire by their irresponsible activities.

Quote:
Firstly, in the early days of Islam there was a principle called bayat which involved launching attacks at night. Since visibility was difficult, civilians were sometimes killed unintentionally since it was unavoidable, although they were NOT the target. We refer to this now as “collateral damage”. In this case, the civilians are NOT the intended target but were killed unintentionally. Awlaki contradicts himself with the two following sentences. Firstly:

"The attackers would ambush the enemy in their tents and houses and engage them in fighting. This would lead to the deaths of men, women and children who were in the tents or homes because of the difficulty distinguishing between man, woman and child.


He then concludes from this that:
"There is no difference in ruling between bayat and detonating a bomb in a populated center in a nation that is at war with the Muslims."

It is obvious that there is a BIG difference between bayat and leaving a bomb in a populated civilian area (i.e sports stadium, bus, tourist attraction or suchlike). In bayat, civilians die not because they are the primary target, whereas in the bomb attack, civilians ARE the target. This has thus been taken out of context and twisted/distorted to permit something that has been conclusively proven to be HARAAM.


I agree with this analysis but one crucial point must not be left out of sight.
Awlaki might have adopted above attitude yet he can not be the one who began it or even invented it as an ideological principle. The western military training is the source of all this evil. CIA for long has been using the sabotage and false flag attacks. Even terrorism is rooted in western ideologies. Once someone starts civilian targetting in a region then after some time it takes a life of its own. after that no external fuelling is needed. The Sunni-Shia mutual bombing context in Muslim lands is all a US creation.

People have put the US on the back foot citing the US support and training of ISIS. Someone has to do some work on US role in the early phase of civilian bombing and assign the due responsibility. Anwar Awlaki is a single point issue and he is no more. Let us say that we do not approve his arguments and then we must come back to the role of US in false flag attacks in Muslim lands. Of course after taking that into account we have to talk to them about their encroachment on our life space.


[quote]Similarly, he does the same thing with the concept of collateral damage as a result of the use of mangonals. Mongonals were a type catapult used to destroy fortifications and walls in cities. Naturally these types of weapons were indiscriminate and inaccurate – even today “precision bombing” is notoriously deadly to civilians. It was permissible to use these weapons even if civilians were sometimes caught up as a result, although once again – this is an example of collateral damage, since it was not the civilians who were the express target of the attack. Awlaki used precedent of mangonals to claim that it is permissible to leave a bomb in a civilian area to deliberately targets civilians - which is COMPLETELY different from the mangonal precedent.

Awlaki resorts to making up rulings based on his own ideas, for example:

“Therefore, if you ask me as a tactic, is targeting the civilian population of the West a good thing to do? I would say yes, because it is much more potent and powerful. Soldiers are expected to die anyway. That's why they sign up for the army, to fight and kill or be killed. So a soldier is at risk anyway and that risk is factored into his job. But a civilian is not. So when you hit the civilian you hit them where it hurts most and that is what our tactics are about”


This opinion is NOT based on sharia. He then basically refutes HIMSELF with the following quote:

“On the other hand, we know of the hadīth that prohibits the killing of women and children, so how can we combine what was mentioned below with such hadīth. The answer is that women and children should not be singled out, should not be specifically targeted and if they fall as prisoners of war it is not allowed to execute them. Throughout our history whenever women and children would fall captives there lives were spared unlike with the crusaders for example who slaughtered thousands of Muslim prisoners or the Moguls who wiped out the entire populations of numerous Muslims cities.”

Then he contradicts himself again:

“However when men, women and children are mixed and integrated such as in a city or village there is no doubt that it is allowed to target them while carrying the intentions of not specifically targeting the women and children. Therefore, an attack on a population center such as a US, British, French or German city with a bomb or a firearm attack is definitely allowed.”

All cities have men, women and children mixed. So then he makes the very bizarre conclusion that even though it’s not permissible to target women and children - a bomb or gun attack on a population centre is permissible. At best here he is contradicting himself and worst he is scraping the barrel and trying to find loopholes to try to circumvent the Sharia of Allah (this is a sin btw).


Once again this all amounts to clarifying an important point - targetting civilians is not expressly permitted in Islam. yet this will leave a western or non-Muslim still perplexed. The question still will remain that why are some Muslim youth so excited to join organizations like the Islamic State. So far the argument has been the Palestinian problem. Then there are some phony arguments like western support for despots in Muslim world and not enough support for democracy. In reality we have not academically polished our argument for Islamic values and unchalleged western assumption that western values are universal and everyone must succumb to their values willingly or unwillingly.
report post quote code quick quote reply
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
1,168
Brother
587
#4 [Permalink] Posted on 1st December 2015 10:35
I would be very careful in criticizing the likes imam anwar al awlaki رضي الله عنه. other scholars including deoands can learn from him instead of being cowards. just saying
report post quote code quick quote reply
back to top
Rank Image
Abu_Bilal's avatar
Offline
Pakistan
196
Brother
256
Abu_Bilal's avatar
#5 [Permalink] Posted on 1st December 2015 10:43
He is "Imam" Anwar Al Awlaki according to hollywood jihadis and salafies. According to muhaqqiq ahl e sunnat ulema, he is NOT an "Imam". Having said that, may Allah have mercy on his soul, and grant him jannatul firdous, ameen.

However, his views regarding fiqh of jihad are very faulty. Pointing out his mistakes, to save common laymen, is not criticizing. Specially when his confused fiqh of jihad has resulted in thousands of innocent casualties.

And Alhamdolillah ulema e deoband do not need to learn anything from him, regarding cowardice. Alhamdolillah they have been fighting the satanic forces for the last 150 years.
report post quote code quick quote reply
back to top
Rank Image
gatekeeper 's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
93
Brother
29
gatekeeper 's avatar
#6 [Permalink] Posted on 1st December 2015 17:34
Maulana abu bilal sab, please can you tell us about these stories. Could you also includ present day stories
report post quote code quick quote reply
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
1,168
Brother
587
#7 [Permalink] Posted on 1st December 2015 22:05
maulana abu bilal sb seems to be living in the past and living off the legacy off the akaabir. with exception of maybe the afghan taliban, mufti rasheed ludhvani رضي الله عنه mufti yusuf ludhavi رضي الله عنه mufti shamzai رضي الله عنه and perhaps a few others who you can count on 1 hand what have deos done for the ummah? deobandi schoalrs struggle to even declare likes of maajid nawaz as kaafir never mind rising up and standin to kuffar lol.

here in uk i thik those who do most to defend and help islam are non scholars like the people from cage uk, mend, hhugs, abdullah andalusui. islam is being teared apart and our scholars still wana go on about salafis. never heard our scholars talk about fitnah of secularism, rise of apostacy and heretical beleifs but no shortage of salafi bashing. deos cant even get their priorties right yet we want to bad mouth scholars like al awlaki رضي الله عنه who gave his life. he could of been a house scholar in usa but chose Allah. shame i cant say same about many deo scholars. most r just happy relaxing in UK living the easy life
report post quote code quick quote reply
back to top
Rank Image
Abu_Bilal's avatar
Offline
Pakistan
196
Brother
256
Abu_Bilal's avatar
#8 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd December 2015 05:06
mkdon101 wrote:
View original post


From your writings, it is evident that you have very little idea of deobandi movement. I am not aware of much of the situation in UK, however, deobandi movement is easily the leading movement in the world. The amount of academic research and work done by the deobandi ulema is second to none.

Furthermore, you saying that ulema do not talk about fitnah of secularism, rise of apostacy and heretical beliefs, means that you have ZERO knowledge about deobandi ulema. There has been so much work done by deobandis against all these fitnahs, Alhamdolillah. The leading jihadis like Shaykh Usama and Shaykh Abdullah Azzam have acknowledged deobandis as the HAQ jamaat. No one needs your acknowledgement.

And where have i said that Anwar al Awlaki didn't chose Allah? He did sacrifice his life, and may Allah bless him janaatul firdous, ameen. But that doesn't mean that one can not criticize his faulty jihad beliefs.

You seem a typical hollywood jihadi. "Sitting in their homes", "not talking about heretical beliefs", "standing up against the kuffar", these are typical IS lines. Sick and tired of them.

report post quote code quick quote reply
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
1,168
Brother
587
#9 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd December 2015 14:39
IS lines? what a silly comment, everyone on here knows I oppose them clowns. its you who got the hunch. anyone who speaks agaisnt deobandis you label them as anti deos or what not. you keep making wild statemtns but dont back them up. since the akaabir and the few ulema i mentioned tell me what have deobandis done?

they a pacafists. they are the other extreme of isis and hot headed jihadis. i said this before and il say it again if it wasnt cos of the akaabir no deobandi scholar alive would even called mirza ghulam a kaafir. they prob say oh fear Allah we dont know whats in his heart we cant make takfir.

anyways im done with this. if you still wana fink deos are some infallible species and best thing since slice bread im not gana stop you just dont try tellin everyone to think same
report post quote code quick quote reply
back to top
Rank Image
Abu_Bilal's avatar
Offline
Pakistan
196
Brother
256
Abu_Bilal's avatar
#10 [Permalink] Posted on 3rd December 2015 03:57
mkdon101 wrote:
View original post


Saying that deobandi ulema have done a lot for the ummah, is a wild statement?

You seriously have very superficial knowledge. Deobandis are pacifists? They won't even call a qadiyani kafir? So slitting the throat of an innocent person, and making takfir of someone, these are the only criteria for you for judging someone? Honestly, these two things when combined with a "young" mind makes an ideal IS and TTP jihadi.

And i honestly do not know how to back up my claims here on the internet. Unless you come to Pakistan, and i can take you across from Karachi to Khyber, showing you the deobandi madaaris, tableeghi maraakiz, akabir auliya and mashaiykh and you can see the amount of deeni work they have done.
report post quote code quick quote reply
back to top