Pages

US and ISLAMISTS: “Moving from a position as an ally to an enemy”

ISLAMISTS are a gun for hire, America used them in Afghanistan, used them in Libya, after Hilary came and saw and he died, moved them to Syria, and after doing the job, would send them home to Saudi Arabia. If they fail in Syria, and they will,  America would be happy to see them killed. In both cases America is winning wars without losing a single life, and for some stupid people, the Palestinian cause is gaining

Saudis Prepare to Fight Islamists And Move to Shore Up US Ties 

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal. (photo by REUTERS/Fahad Shadeed)
 
posted on Friday, Jul 27, 2012
Translator: Naria Tanoukhi
 
I share the United States’ concern that Saudi Arabia’s turn is coming, whether it be before or after that of other tiny Gulf states.
 
The US knows, and has confirmed, that organized Islamist groups are first and foremost fighting for power. These are groups which have previously fought in Libya, Syria and Yemen, and waged political battles in Egypt. Their ambitions will not stop at the borders of Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else.
 
The US also knows that the Saudi regime — whose system is similar to that which the Islamist organizations may establish in any Arab country — is not exactly the system they prefer. As these groups extend their sphere of control in the region, their desire to seize power in Saudi Arabia only grows.
 
The US knows that the generous aid provided by Saudi Arabia to these organizations, mostly in the form of money and weapons, largely aims to eliminate the threat these organizations pose, both towards Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region as a whole. This also applies to Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. However, the United States believes that the generosity of Saudi Arabia, among others, will not stop the advance of these organizations beyond Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia.
 
At the same time, the US is well aware that the ongoing war in Syria may persist, and might even end with the defeat of Islamist groups and their failure to seize power in Damascus.
 
Over this particular point lies the hidden disagreement between the US and Saudi Arabia. The latter is a staunch believer in the Libyan scenario. Saudi Arabia sees no reason why the US cannot use NATO troops to end the ongoing conflict in Syria, rather than allowing it to persist or falter. On the other hand, the US believes that the Libyan combat landscape was very different and less rugged than that of the Syrian conflict. They cannot risk a US military or NATO intervention in Syria which might drag on for a long time and not achieve its goals.
 
In addition, there is another Saudi-US disagreement concerning the Syrian opposition and its varied positions regarding foreign military intervention. Some Syrian opposition organizations or groups welcome and call for foreign intervention, believing that it could conclusively end the war. Yet others are opposed to foreign intervention, and believe it would eliminate any chance of winning the support of the Syrian people against the regime.
 
Israel has added another dimension to the situation. By this we mean Israel’s announcement, through its Defense Minister Ehud Barak, that it is planning to intervene in Syria for fear of chemical weapons falling into the hands of Syrian opposition groups. While this stance was met with enthusiasm from the US, it further worried the Saudis. This US enthusiasm at the idea of Israeli intervention is due to a US conviction that an Israeli role could help conclusively end the war in Syria.
 
Saudi Arabia’s hesitation, however, comes from a realization that Israeli intervention in Syria would inflame the feelings of the Syrian people against the opposition and all forces that support them. 
 
There are a number of contentious issues related to current developments in Syria over which the US and Saudi Arabia disagree. Moreover, there is no doubt that the ruling regime in Saudi Arabia has left it up to the US to decide upon these issues and do as they please.
 
However, Saudi Arabia is working hard to distance itself from issues upon which the US takes unilateral decisions. This is particularly evident in the bombing that took place in the Syrian national security headquarters in Damascus.
 
This bombing resulted in the killing and wounding of a number of senior Syrian security chiefs. US officials were close to admitting that such a precise and accurate operation could not have been executed without direct assistance from the American side. This assistance is not limited to training and intelligence but included giving directions and specifying the time [for executing the operation]. Saudi Arabia has completely distanced itself and maintained silence over the operation in Syria, even with regard to the humanitarian aspect. This has led some US officials to distance themselves from “the killing,” while maintaining that the operation is a huge blow to the Assad regime, and therefore should be welcomed.
 
Joseph Holliday, a former intelligence officer in the US Army who currently teaches at the Institute for the Study of War, said that the experience of Syrian dissidents in the use of explosive devices “comes in part from the expertise of Syrian insurgents who learned bomb-making while fighting US troops in eastern Iraq.”
 
In this regard, according to Der Spiegel, the reason the Syrian opposition has not yet been able to carry out a major military operation is due to growing divisions within opposition groups, in addition to insurmountable disagreements between Islamist Jihadi militants and the majority of the Syrian population. The Islamist groups, which are being generously funded and equipped with advanced weaponry and equipment by the Gulf States, are holding firmly to the decision-making power. 
 
Der Spiegel adds that “the Americans have spent money on the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly in countries [that have witnessed] the Arab spring. They believe that the Muslim Brotherhood will be the dominant force in the future.”
The Saudis are certainly concerned about the thoughts of their US allies.
 
The question that haunts Saudi leaders is: What would the United States do if the Islamists (the Muslim Brotherhood in particular) unite against the Saudi regime, as part of their ongoing and diligent quest to seize power?
 
The Saudis have no doubt that the Islamists will try hard to convince the Americans that they will maintain their mutual alliance if they gain power in Saudi Arabia.
 
This means that the Muslim Brotherhood and their Salafist allies will pledge to the Americans to continue supplying them with oil from the whole Gulf region.
 
Such a pledge by Islamist organizations will not be harder than that made by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to the Americans and Israelis to preserve the peace treaty signed by the regime of Anwar Sadat with Israel. This treaty was carefully protected by the regime of Hosni Mubarak for more than thirty years.
 
Here, one might say the Saudi regime is very similar to a regime that the Islamists, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, may establish. Therefore, why replace the Saudi regime with a similar one?
 
The answer to this question is again the following: for Muslim groups, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, seizing power is a primary goal that precedes all others. For this reason, Saudi rulers fear that the Islamist opposition at home might revolt against them should they succeed, or even fail, in Syria.
 
The greatest concern for the Saudi rulers is what the United States would do if the Islamists, whom it supports, coalesce and become opposed to Saudi rule. Similarly, it can be said that the Islamist groups are haunted by the following question: How much longer will Islamist groups remain safe from being targeted by the Saudi regime?
 
The answer to these questions is closely linked with a recent Saudi event. This event gained widespread attention in the US and the entire West, yet was of little interest to Arab regimes or media. I am referring to the recent announcement by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia appointing Prince Bandar Bin Sultan as head of Saudi intelligence.
 
The importance of the Saudi decision is that Prince Bandar had previously been [put aside] and given an honorary position.
 
He had served as the President of the Saudi National Security Council, a position that is only symbolically important. However, he was suddenly chosen to be the head of Saudi intelligence. This decision indicates that the kingdom hopes to benefit from Bandar’s experience in the US, including his knowledge of US policies and decisions. The decision could actually mean that Saudi Arabia wants to predict the political intentions of the US regarding Saudi Arabia in the coming years. Prince Bandar occupied the post of Saudi ambassador to Washington from 1983 to 2005, the longest mandate of any ambassador, Arab or otherwise, to Washington. During the same period, the US ambassador to Riyadh was changed six times.
 
Prince Bandar is one of the kingdom’s most knowledgeable and experienced figures in terms of US policies and objectives, especially in regard to the Arab region. He had the chance to make friends from the US ruling elite of both the Democratic and Republican parties. During his years in Washington, he became closely acquainted with all of those who occupied the post of director of the CIA.
 
The importance of the timing of the decision to appoint Bandar is perhaps exemplified best by what the Saudi political analyst Abdullah al-Shammari said:
 
“In these very hectic moments in Saudi foreign policy, we need Bandar bin Sultan. He is a volcano, and this is what we currently need.”
According to Shammari, the current period is similar to the period in which Bandar served as Saudi ambassador to Washington, when the US and Saudi Arabia were allied in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
 
Michael Stephen, a political analyst at the United Royal Services Institute, said, “If they (Saudis) are looking to increase multilateral engagement on the Syrian issue, he’s their man.”
 
Ever since the start of what has been called the Arab Spring, developments reveal that the US has supported holistic change as part of its plans for the Arab region. In other words, the accuracy of US planning for a new policy in the region will be put to a tough test in the coming period. Also, Saudi Arabia’s ability to deal with surprising US shifts will be put to the test. This includes their ability to deal with the US moving from a position as an ally to an enemy…from their position as a supporter of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to a position of support for anti-Saudi Islamist groups. This is a possibility we cannot completely rule out.
Share Button

83 Responses to US and ISLAMISTS: “Moving from a position as an ally to an enemy”

  1. etominusipi July 31, 2012 at 6:24 am #

    holistic change

    great phrase. in Syria this means supporting the zionazi confederation forces in their tireless and heroically self-sacrificing attempt to dethrone the Hitler of Damascus, and institute a universal era of Peace throughout the known universe and beyond.

    (cue for Star Trek theme)

    • Khalid Amayreh July 31, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

      I’m writing to level-headed people, not disoriented and perplexed fanatics.

      Supporting freedom fighters in Syria is not only right. It is also a moral imperative, since it is a moral duty to help a people overthrow a nefarious regime, which is slaughtering its children, raping its women, and destroying its cities in order to stay in power.

  2. Khalid Amayreh July 31, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

    I think that, even for the most evil power in the world, to help an oppressed people overthrow a criminal regime, it is a moral plus.

    • Roy Bard July 31, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

      How is this for a lesson in deficient morality?

      it is a moral duty to help a people overthrow a nefarious regime

      yet

      “even for the most evil power in the world, to help an oppressed people overthrow a criminal regime, it is a moral plus”

      Of course, the idea that the evil powers are helping the ordinary people is somewhat delusional……

      • Jay Knott July 31, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

        “Of course, the idea that the evil powers are helping the ordinary people is somewhat delusional……”

        Sorry, I have to disagree. ‘Evil powers’ frequently help ‘ordinary people’. The Red Army freed Jews and others from death camps.

        The Nazis also freed some people – there are Lithuanians and Latvians who refer to 1941/1942 as ‘the liberation’!

        I used to know an anti-war activist and documentary writer. When he visited Iraq shortly after the US invasion, he was surprised to find how many people supported it. There’s no point in denying this phenomenon. We need instead a view of the world subtle enough to explain it, without actually supporting the ‘evil powers’.

        • Roy Bard July 31, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

          Hello Jay – are you suggesting the Russians went there specifically to liberate people?

          :-)

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 31, 2012 at 3:29 pm #

          “We need instead a view of the world subtle enough to explain it”

          Subtle enough to present the US invasion of Iraq as “liberation”–keep working on it, Jay.

          • etominusipi August 1, 2012 at 9:29 pm #

            liberation from the evil regime of the Butcher of Baghdad by the forces of the Werewolves of Washington, with ‘moral’ support and logistic assistance from their running dogs, the Lackeys of London.

          • Jay Knott August 2, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

            Roy’s reply is more reasonable than Ariadna’s. With characteristic dishonesty, she insinuates something based on insufficient evidence, hoping the reader will not notice. She suggests that I’m ‘working on’ ‘presenting’ the US invasion of Iraq as ‘liberation’. I actually said we need a view of the world subtle enough to EXPLAIN why many Iraqis saw it like that. See the difference?

            My information on Iraq came from respected anti-war campaigners Jo Wilding and Dave (I can’t remember his last name) – see here: http://tinyurl.com/bo9z5we

            They are not only brave enough to have gone to Fallujah while it was under attack by the US forces, they are honest enough to try to falsify their assumptions, defying the hacks who want them to defend only the party line.

            Roy asks if I think the Russians went into Poland to liberate people. No, I don’t, but in some cases it was a side effect. Same with the Nazis, NATO, and just about any other ‘evil power’.

        • Laura Stuart July 31, 2012 at 4:12 pm #

          It could well be true that people supported the invasion in the very early days since their lives were so terrible under sanctions they probably imagined it could not get worse. I am sure after a few months they would have changed their mind.

          You can’t compare Libya or Syria to what happened in Iraq though.

          • Jay Knott August 2, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

            “You can’t compare Libya or Syria to what happened in Iraq…”

            I think Laura is suggesting that the US invasion of Iraq was overwhelmingly negative, NATO bombing of Gaddhafi’s troops in Libya was on balance positive, and Syria is a different case again.

            Laura looks at each country on a case-by-case basis, using empirical information, rather than trying to apply one party line to the entire Middle East, and only looking for the evidence which appears to conform to that viewpoint.

          • Roy Bard August 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

            Of course the cries of “Saddam is evil” “Qadaffi is evil” and “Assad is evil” are entirely coincedental, despite the facts that they are uttered by all the same evil lips ;-) Lips which continue to pay homage to other evil dictators without ever mentioning that they are evil.

            ‘empirical’ in this case seems to be a way of denying empire – just saying :-D

  3. Khalid Amayreh July 31, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

    “Islamists” is a general term. Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Jihaddists, Hamas, Libyan fighters, Islamic Group, FIS< IslamicJihad, Salafi groups, are all hetrogenous groups.

    The same thing applies to Shiite groups. Some like Sistani, Hizbul Daawa, even Amal maitain close ties with the CIA.

    The highest Shiite cleric in IRAQ issued a fetwa OR RELIGIOUS EDICT prohibitinhg Shiites from resisting the American occupation forces.

    On the other hand, Muqtada al-Sadr issued a fetwa urging his followers to fight the Americans.

    • Alex August 2, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

      Yes, Islamists is a general tem, read it within the text. Its about Islamists GUN for Rent.
      Also Narasllah called Iraqis to fight the occupation.

      In fact “The highest Shiite cleric in IRAQ issued a fetwa OR RELIGIOUS EDICT” asking Shiites to stay at home.

  4. Khalid Amayreh July 31, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

    Roy, how are you?

    Don’t we know that the soldiers of Stalin were the ones who liberated Auchwitz anD Treblinka AND Bergen Belsen from the retreating wermacht and SS?

    The Russians or Soviets were not a moral force by any standard of imagination. A few years earlier, they killed or caused the death of 10-15 million Ukranians…by starving them to death.

  5. Khalid Amayreh July 31, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

    If supporting efforts to depose Assad is a Zio-Nazi conspiracy, because he is allegedly against Israel, then by the same token, supporting the Iraqis get rid of Saddam must have also been a Zio-Nazi conspiracy.

    Saddam after all fired missiles on Tel Aviv and awarded the families of Palestinian martyrs financial stipends.

    Your tendentious, confused and iritated contributions are devoid of consistency, veracity and honesty. It is a spasmodic sectarian diatribe.

    • Roy Bard July 31, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

      “supporting the Iraqis get rid of Saddam must have also been a Zio-Nazi conspiracy.”

      Huarrah! :-)

      • Roy Bard July 31, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

        Come on Khalid, EVERYONE knows that we attacked Saddam because he had WMDs…..

  6. Khalid Amayreh July 31, 2012 at 2:48 pm #

    Roy, take it easy. But what is the difference between Saddam and Assad?

    Aren’t they tweedledum and tweedledee?

    And why is it that removing Assad is a Zio-Nazi conspiracy, as some irate posters here insist, whereas removing Saddam was a sublime act of self-abnegation?

    • Roy Bard July 31, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

      Khalid – despite what we were told they never found the WMD. Some people think they might have lied to us to get the war they wanted.

      Over a million people were ‘liberated’ permanently

  7. who_me July 31, 2012 at 3:03 pm #

    “supporting the Iraqis get rid of Saddam must have also been a Zio-Nazi conspiracy.”

    so the “palestinian” supported the war against the iraqi people, also. funny how the “palestinian” supports and defends all of israel’s warmaking.

    i wonder what real palestinians think of that?

    • Khalid Amayreh July 31, 2012 at 5:17 pm #

      you people misunderstand the whole thing.

      I am saying that if opposition to Assad is a Zio-Nazi conspiracy, then by the same token the removal of Saddam was also a Zio-Nazi conspiracy.

      But the entire Shiite leadership, including Faylaq Badre, Hizb al -Daawa, Iran, etc. embraced the American occupation of Iraq.

      I hated Saddam, he was a tyrant who shed a lot of innocent blood, but he too fought Israel and embraced the Palestinian cause.

      Standing against American imperialism alone doesn’t define right and wrong.

      The North Korean regime is an evil regime, but it too stands against the US.

      I am not a political animal, or an opportunit.

      I have a moral copass to go by, it is the Holy Quran.

      This is the reason I must stand against the cultic, evil regime in Syria.

      Life is too short to be wasted in propaganda haggling and political opportunism.

      • Alex August 2, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

        “But the entire Shiite leadership, including Faylaq Badre, Hizb al -Daawa, Iran, etc. embraced the American occupation of Iraq”

        I remmemder you said above that Sadr asked his followers to fight the occupation.
        Other, did what your Manahood is doing now calling Amarica to invade Syria.

        So, stupid, Its politics, not Sunni-Shea..
        Treason have religion, no sect.

  8. Alex July 31, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

    “Roy, take it easy. But what is the difference between Saddam and Assad?”

    There is a huge difference.
    Saddam,during civil war in Lebanon was sending arms to Phalanges.

    Saddam bowed to Iran’s Shah and signed Algeria agreement where he bowed and gave Shat Alarab.
    After the Islamic revolution he fought the 8 years American war against Iran.

    Saddam was a stupid. Glaspy pushed him to invade Kuwait He annexed Kuwait, and refused the Russian advise to withdraw and save Iraq.

    During the sanction years, he let the UN search his bed room, and he invited invasion by destroying his arms.

    Syria stood with Iran, not because Iran is shitte as sectarian claim, but because only Iran would fill the Vacuum Sadat created by Camp david.

    who_me

    Its not true that Palestian supported the Usrael’s war on Iraq, unless you believe the so-called Amayreh, who claimed to represent 1.5 billion Muslim, represents all palestinians,

    In fact, palestinians paid dearly for Arafat sidding Saddam not only in Iraq, but also in Kuwait.
    I hope Palestinian in Syria shall not pay a similar price for Hamas grave mistake of sidding with Syria enemies.

    • Laura Stuart July 31, 2012 at 3:45 pm #

      For me there is no difference between Saddam and Bashar neither of them ruled by Islam and both of them imprisoned, tortured and killed Muslims.

      Ditto Gaddafi.

      Saddam died a Muslim though.

    • Khalid Amayreh July 31, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

      And do you think a regime that built a huge army to fight Israel and is now using it to destroy his own country, slaughter his own people and bomb his own towns, is not stupid!!!!! you must be a great appraisor of political leaders!!!!!

      At least Saddam was giving the families of Palestinian martyrs 20,000 U.S.Dollars.

      This is while the criminal leasder of Damascus slaughtered thousands of Palestinian at Tal al Zaater and now in Syria?

      Saddam also bombed Tel Aviv not Baghdad.

      But your idol. Assad, is bombing Homs, Halab, eve his own capital in order to stay in power.

      both were evil, but in the annals of history, Saddam fares far better than the filthy, evil dictator of Damascus.

      • Alex August 2, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

        “At least Saddam was giving the families of Palestinian martyrs 20,000 U.S.Dollars.

        This is while the criminal leasder of Damascus slaughtered thousands of Palestinian at Tal al Zaater”

        Stop lying, Tel al zaater occure 24 years before Bashar.

        Moreover, accoding to Fateh Leader Nagi Alloush, who died few days ago, Arafat is the sole responsible for the Massacre. Listen to him here

  9. Khalid Amayreh July 31, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    You are absolutely correct, Laura, both supported the Palestinian cause though.

    But you are correct, both were indoctrinated in the atheistic Baathist idelogy, which denies God and religion.

    Both drank from the same fountain.

    The ultimate slogan of the Baath party is:

    امنت بالبعث ربا لا شريك له وبالعروبة دينا ما له ثاني

    The translation: I testify that Baath (Arab renaissance)is my God that has no other partners, and that Arabism is my religion.

    • Alex August 2, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

      So what?

      There is no compulsion in religion – Quran
      BTW, Aflaq, embraced Islam before dying.
      Hafez, did the same in 1960, you would say he pretended to be Muslim.

      I say, may be, but as Prophet Mohammad said when a suspected Muslim was killed: هلا شققت صدره
      Besides who told you that evey Baathist, or comunist is nessarly un-believer?

  10. fool me once... July 31, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

    @Laura
    “Ditto Gaddafi.
    Saddam died a Muslim though.”
    Does that mean Gaddafi didn’t die a muslim? If so, please expand and explain what you mean.
    For your ref.- Khalid said muslims don’t kill muslims.

    • Laura Stuart July 31, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

      We know for sure that Saddam Hussein died a Muslim as he said

      لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
      There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God.

      just before he died.

      Gaddafi wrote the Green book which went against Islam, he seemed to think he knew better than the Creator. There is no record of him saying the shahada in his last moments.

      • Roy Bard July 31, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

        I’m not sure what most people would say whilst being forcefully sodomised……

      • fool me once... July 31, 2012 at 6:18 pm #

        “There is no record of him saying the shahada in his last moments.”
        It was hardly a scene of scholarly academia surrounding him taking notes. Maybe he said it in quiet prayer to his creator whilst the “good guys” ripped him to pieces.
        So you think you’d be saying;
        لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
        if you were going through that before death?
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKrlmSSRMIQ

        • Laura Stuart July 31, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

          Definitely any Muslim faced with death or in a deadly situation would keep repeating the shahada because we want to die saying it.

    • Khalid Amayreh July 31, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

      Muslims don’t kill other (innocent) Muslims or non-Muslims.
      It is hardly posible to judge Assad, Saddam and Qaddafi as bona fide Muslims.

      None the less, only God can decide as to whether they go to hell or paradide.

      • fool me once... July 31, 2012 at 7:20 pm #

        @K&L
        I’m not sure of what you two really think of those who are not muslims but believe me they are not all ignorant of human nature. When you say things like;
        L; “Definitely any Muslim faced with death or in a deadly situation would keep repeating the shahada because we want to die saying it.”
        K; “Muslims don’t kill other (innocent) Muslims or non-Muslims.”
        You both come across like the kid who denies eating chocolate cake oblivious to the fact it’s all over their mouth, face and hands. Try this, it’s more believable;
        L; “They would prefer to, but not all Muslims faced with death could or would keep repeating the shahada, even though we want to die saying it.”
        K; “Regrettably, it’s a sad fact Muslims do kill other innocent Muslims and non-Muslims.”

        • Laura Stuart July 31, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

          Fool me Once, Muslims are educated and conditioned to say the shahadah at the time of death so they will try their best.

          If someone dies a Muslim or not is known only by Allah s.w.t.

          Saddam Hussein definitely said it. Gaddafi we don’t know. Both of their cases are with Allah s.w.t.

          • fool me once... July 31, 2012 at 7:43 pm #

            “If someone dies a Muslim or not is known only by Allah s.w.t.”
            Good, you have learned quickly Laura. Let us wait and see how well Khalid does.

          • Laura Stuart July 31, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

            Fool me Once – you are getting there keep with me.
            I was asked how did I know that Saddam died a Muslim – I replied because there were witnesses to him saying the Shahadah. OK Do you find anything to argue with there? He was born Muslim, he committed many sins in his life but he definitely died a Muslim.

            Gaddafi – I said we do not know because no one reports that he said the shahadah. He wrote a book which contradicted Islam which is the biggest sin. We don’t know if he died Muslim or not, we do not know if he made tawbah (repented) or not. I have not said he did not die a Muslim I said we do not know.

            Is this clear now?

          • fool me once... July 31, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

            “I have not said he did not die a Muslim I said we do not know.”
            I can then be forgiven though considering your implication when you wrote…
            “Ditto Gaddafi.
            Saddam died a Muslim though.”
            …wouldn’t you agree?
            Regarding Gaddafi’s last moments, would you agree that those sodomising him with knife or stick and brutally killing him would certainly have an agenda for not reporting his last words if they were;
            لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
            “Saddam…He was born Muslim, he committed many sins in his life but he definitely died a Muslim.”
            So you’re saying a muslim can do as one pleases as long as they say the shahadah before they die? Sounds a bit off to me.
            Anyway, as you say Allah will decide so maybe it’s best if the living stop stirring the proverbial and stfu, wouldn’t you agree?

          • Laura Stuart July 31, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

            Yes, you keep misinterpreting what I said.

            I said none of them ruled according to Islam. Is that clear to you? Anything to argue with there?

            So, none of the three ruled according to Islam.

            Now, to their individuals cases with Allah s.w.t.

            Saddam died saying the shahadah so it was witnessed that he died a Muslim.

            Gaddafi – we do not know.

            Assad – not dead yet.

            There are conditions to the shahadah in life, although Muslims say the shahadah at least 17 times a day during the Salah (prayer) you can’t just say it and commit acts of kufr (disbelief) like ruling like other than what Allah s.w.t. ordained. So – according to scholars a Muslim ruler that rules by other than Islam when he had a choice, has committed kufr or disbelief.

            Morsi and all Muslim brotherhood state their intention to rule by Islam, even if the SCAF will never allow it completely, he has clearly stated his intention so Allah s.w.t. can accept it, from his intention and his wish to do so but the prevailing conditions not allowing him to. However, Gaddafi was an absolute dictator he had the chance to rule only by Shariah but did not.

            At the end – I posted the evidence in previous posts which contained the hadith (narrations) about he who recites the shahadah at death.

            You can research all of this yourself if you want.

      • Alex August 2, 2012 at 1:29 pm #

        only God can decide as to whether they go to hell or paradide.

        If so, then Ikhras

  11. Alex July 31, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    THIS IS for TAKFIRI LIAR, ASSIGNED BY GOD, Their Sectarian God, TO TELL WHO IS MUSLIM AND WHO IS NOT WHO WILL GO TO HELL AND WHO WILL GO TO PARADISE.

    62 . Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
    (إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا والنصارى والصابئينمن آمن بالله واليوم الآخر وعمل صالحا فلهم أجرهم عند ربهم ولا خوف عليهم ولا هم يحزنون) البقرة 62

    “This is My Will”: “Continue the Resistance, Fight any Foreign Aggressor against Libya,…”



    This is my will.





    I, Muammar bin Mohammad bin Abdussalam bin Humayd bin Abu Manyar bin Humayd bin Nayil al Fuhsi Gaddafi, do swear that there is no other God but Allah and that Mohammad is God’s Prophet, peace be upon him. I pledge that I will die as Muslim.”

    Should I be killed, I would like to be buried, according to Muslim rituals, in the clothes I was wearing at the time of my death and my body unwashed,

    in the cemetery of Sirte, next to my family and relatives.I would like that my family, especially women and children, be treated well after my death. The Libyan people should protect its identity, achievements, history and the honorable image of its ancestors and heroes. The Libyan people should not relinquish the sacrifices of the free and best people.

    I call on my supporters to continue the resistance, and fight any foreign aggressor against Libya, today, tomorrow and always.


    Let the free people of the world know that we could have bargained over and sold out our cause in return for a personal secure and stable life. We received many offers to this effect but we chose to be at the vanguard of the confrontation as a badge of duty and honor.

    Even if we do not win immediately, we will give a lesson to future generations that choosing to protect the nation is an honor and selling it out is the greatest betrayal that history will remember forever despite the attempts of the others to tell you otherwise.”

    Translated from Arabic by the BBC

  12. Laura Stuart July 31, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    The verse you quote means the followers of the revelations of those times and who followed the Messenger of the time not for the people who deviated from the message and who altered the Scripture.
    Here is a fatwa on the issue of will Jews and Christians enter paradise?
    http://islamqa.info/en/ref/2912

    Gaddafi’s case rests with Allah s.w.t.

    http://www.kabobfest.com/2011/04/gaddafis-blasphemy.html

    Do you deny the Green book contradicts Islam ?

  13. Alex July 31, 2012 at 9:07 pm #

    I don’t need you nor your Sheikhs Fatwas to understand my religion. I read the living Quran as a message of living God revealed yestday to me, to you, to every human, not to “Muslims” only. Though I am a born Sunni, I relly embrance Islam at my early forties, after I realized the Islam is something, and History of Islam, Human understanding are something else. I am certain that people living in the 21st century, are able to read, understand Quran better than the Bukharim Muslim and the 4 Imans.Your Sheiks are still living in the 6th century, they put their brains in a deep freezer.
    I wonder if you recognize the difference between a Muslim and a Moamin, between Isam and Iman. The Quran told us, that All prophets and messengers are Muslims, so their follower. Quran told us that there is one God and one religion.I

    Islam is surrender to God

    A Muslim is any person who belive in God, judgement day and work righteousness. FULLSTOP

    A Moamin is a Muslim who follow Mohammad PUH

    Gaddafi’s case, and every case rests with Allah s.w.t.

    I haven’t read the green book, but I believe that, despite good or bad intentions Muslim like you are worse that worst enimy of Islam.

    • Laura Stuart July 31, 2012 at 9:19 pm #

      I don’t need you nor your Sheikhs Fatwas to understand my religion. I read the living Quran as a message of living God revealed yestday to me, to you, to every human, not to “Muslims” only. Though I am a born Sunni, I relly embrance Islam at my early forties, after I realized the Islam is something, and History of Islam, Human understanding are something else. I am certain that people living in the 21st century, are able to read, understand Quran better than the Bukharim Muslim and the 4 Imans.Your Sheiks are still living in the 6th century, they put their brains in a deep freezer.
      I wonder if you recognize the difference between a Muslim and a Moamin, between Isam and Iman. The Quran told us, that All prophets and messengers are Muslims, so their follower. Quran told us that there is one God and one religion.I

      Islam is surrender to God

      ……..For sure but you also have to surrender to what He commanded you to do – the fard and avoid Shirk and kufr………

      A Muslim is any person who belive in God, judgement day and work righteousness. FULLSTOP

      …….Actually that is not agreed upon because there are things that are kufr, like not performing Salah because the difference between a Muslim and a non Muslim is the prayer. Also shirk takes one out of Islam and ruling and judging by other than Shariah. There are some good talks on the conditions of shahadah………

      A Moamin is a Muslim who follow Mohammad PUH

      Gaddafi’s case, and every case rests with Allah s.w.t.

      I haven’t read the green book, but I believe that, despite good or bad intentions Muslim like you are worse that worst enimy of Islam.

      ……….I think you give me too much value if you believe that I can harm either Allah s.w.t. or His Message………

  14. Alex July 31, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

    “…….Actually that is not agreed upon because there are things that are kufr, like not performing Salah because the difference between a Muslim and a non Muslim is the prayer.” Laura

    Alex: Produce your proof if ye are truthful

    Baqara 111 . And they say: “None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.” Those are their (vain) desires.Say: “Produce your proof if ye are truthful.”

    112 . Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to Allah and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

    وقالوا لن يدخل الجنة إلا من كان هودا أو نصارى تلك أمانيهم قل هاتوا برهانكم إن كنتم صادقين
    بلى من أسلم وجهه لله وهو محسن فله أجره عند ربه ولا خوف عليهم ولا هم يحزنون

    ======

    “…….Actually that is not agreed upon because there are things that are kufr, like not performing Salah because the difference between a Muslim and a non Muslim is the prayer.” Laura

    I disagree
    but I would ask you two Questions
    The First
    While reading Quran, I noticed that Paraying is writen in two forms (Salah الصلاة) and (Salwa الصلوة )
    Al-Baqara 3 and 109:

    الذين يؤمنون بالغيب ويقيمون الصلاة ومما رزقناهم ينفقون

    وأقيموا الصلوة وآتوا الزكاة وما تقدموا لأنفسكم من خير تجدوه عند الله إن الله بما تعملون بصير

    Both are considered and translated as praying.
    Is it a dictation mistak? if so why they don’t dare to correct it.?

    The second question:
    Who are the Mogrimoun (المجرمون)
    Looking forward for your answers

    • Laura Stuart August 1, 2012 at 7:13 am #

      Thats interesting you speak Egyptian Arabic.

      So why don’t you tell us all the answer?

  15. Blake July 31, 2012 at 11:37 pm #

    Amazing double standards

  16. Alex August 1, 2012 at 12:51 am #

    Luara
    I am waiting your answer. if it is tough you may get help

  17. Alex August 1, 2012 at 12:16 pm #

    “Thats interesting you speak Egyptian Arabic.” Laura

    Alex
    I do speak Egyptian Arabic, I lived 4 years there when Egypt was Arabs and non-Arabs political Qibla (1952-1970)
    Here I am not talking Egyptian.
    I am talking Quran.

    قال إنما أوتيته على علم عندي أولم يعلم أن الله قد أهلك من قبله من القرون من هو أشد منه قوة وأكثر جمعا ولا يسأل عن ذنوبهم المجرمون

    Qussas 78 . He said: “This has been given to me because of a certain knowledge which I have.” Did he not know that Allah had destroyed, before him, (whole) generations,- which were superior to him in strength and greater in the amount (of riches) they had collected? but the wicked (the right translation should be the non believer) are not called (immediately) to account for their sins.

    ====

    “So why don’t you tell us all the answer?” Laurah

    Alex

    So you don’t have the carriage to say: I don’t know
    I am certain your Sheiks also don’t know. For them Kullo Batteekh

    So, I will give you the answer (وأجري على الله)

    It is not a typing mistake.
    God is precise in his word (Quran) the same way he is precise in his creation. Consequently there is no Batteekh in Quran. In all languages thete is no two words have the same exact meening.

    Salah and Salwat are not the same. Salah الصلاة (From Sila صلة) refers to relation with God. Salwat الصلوة refer to praying.

    Non believer who have no relation with God don’t pray, believers, Muslims, Christians and Jews pray in different ways, some don’t pray. Those who believe and don’t pray are not Kuffar

    Coming to Mugrimoun it’s from “Jarm” means cut.

    In Arabic Mugrim means criminal, a person who cut the relation with community, In Quran, a person who cut the relation with God (Non-Believer).

    Now why the non-believer are not called to account their sins??
    Because, they failed to open an account in the God’s Bank. They are not among “whoever submits his whole self to Allah and is a doer of good, who, after submitting account will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall, they grieve.

    It is so simple, any person who (believe in God, judgment day) is a Muslim entitled for have an account with his Lord, his deeds (savings) are booked in that account (and work righteousness). According to his balance he would go temporarily to hell or to paradise. Non believers go directly to hell and their stay is eternal.  

     أرأيت الذي يكذب بالدين، فذلك الذي يدع اليتيم، ولا يحض على طعام المسكين، فويل للمصلين، الذين هم عن صلاتهم ساهون، الذين هم يراءون، ويمنعون الماعون
    1 . Seest thou one who denies the Judgment (to come)?  [No-Believer posing as Muslim}
    2 . Then such is the (man) who repulses the orphan (with harshness),
    3 . And encourages not the feeding of the indigent.
    4 . So woe to the worshippers
    5 . Who are neglectful of their prayers,
    6 . Those who (want but) to be seen (of men),
    7 . But refuse (to supply) (even) neighborly needs.

    If you read the Surat together and consider the first verses as the key verses supported by the 6th verses, you will understand that God is taking about Fake-Believers

    Finally Sheikh Mohammad Abdu, after visiting France said that in France he saw Islam without Muslims, in Muslim countries he saw Muslims without Islam. Sheikh Mohammad saw in France the Values of Islam at work such as welfare..

    In Muslim countries he saw only or worshiping routines (praying, fasting, Haj…)

  18. Laura Stuart August 1, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

    Alex – if you do not want to follow the scholars then what should I reply to you? If you want to follow an Islam of your whims and desires then so be it.

    What is the one sin that Allah s.w.t. will not allow people to leave the hellfire for?

    Shirk

    • Alex August 1, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

      Yes I don’t want to follow your schoolar. I follow my Quran.

      I asked you two question, you failled to Answer.
      You asked my answers. I gave it to you failed to comment, and asked a stupid question, any Muslim boy know its answer.

      So- stop breaching us about Islam. stop abusing Islam to serve the ememies of Islam

      • Laura Stuart August 1, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

        It is your choice if you make up your own version of Islam and believe that you know better than the scholars.

        • Alex August 1, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

          I don’t claim I am a scholar, I am doing what my God asked me to do, think using the brain he granted me. .يعقلون يتفكرون

          You want me to say that Christian are Mushrikeen, and shall go to hell, because they believe Jesus is the son of God.

          On that I just say: that’s not my concern, God will decide, not me, not you.

          With my limitted information about Christianity I guess they may failed to realise that the words SON and Father does’nt mean the biological son and biological father.
          Both Muslims and Chrisian believe, without going into details that by God’s blow we become responsible Humans. In that sence all humans are the sons of God.

          There is no compulsion in religion, because God created us free to select our path, and be responsible for our selection.

          Forcing people to be Muslims or.., or stay Muslim or..is not Islam and is not the way of God. Be Muslim, be Christian, be Sunni or Shiite, or Durzi, but respect the other freedom and choice.

  19. Laura Stuart August 1, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

    If you want to believe that in spite of all of the evidence by the scholars it is up to you.

    If you lived in Egypt you will know Koshary. I made the best Koshary today :)

  20. Alex August 1, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    I lived 4 years, but never eaten it.
    Your scholars’s evidence are Koshary

  21. Laura Stuart August 1, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

    Never eaten Koshary! Was it not kosher enough for you :)

  22. Alex August 1, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

    “Was it not kosher enough for you”
    Actually, I have eaten too much kosher in the second revelation, and tafseer books, but never digested any.

    • fool me once... August 1, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

      @Alex
      “Actually, I have eaten too much kosher in the second revelation, and tafseer books, but never digested any.”
      Will you explain your sentence Alex as I could not find a decent version of explanation for “the second revelation”? What is “the second revelation” and what is “kosher” about it? Thanks

      • Alex August 1, 2012 at 11:00 pm #

        The first revelation is Quran the message of God

        The second revelation is “Haddeath”, there is more that 700,000 Hadeath,Bukhari screened it to 7000. If consider repetions (Same Hadeath told by differnt people) your are left with some 2000.
        In deciding wheather the Hadeath is fake or not, they considered the “crdibility of” the teller, more that the content.
        Abu Hurairah, the student of Kaab Al-Ahbar (Jew), though, Abu Hurairah he lived with Prophet for 3 months, he told 5000 Hadeaths.
        The problem is they use the Hadeath to Explain the holly text.

        By Kosher, I mean the Israelites that leaked to Islam after the Prophet PUH

        • fool me once... August 1, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

          @Alex
          thanks

          • Alex August 1, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

            welcome

        • Laura Stuart August 1, 2012 at 11:21 pm #

          Hadith is not revelation

          I know that the Shia hate Abu Hureira. I have always been told that he spent a few years with the Prophet s.a.w. and that he hardly left his side, this is the reason that he narrated so many of the ahadith.

          The science of hadith and how they were collected explains best how they were graded and the character of the narrators was only one aspect.

          Do you know the hadith about the Prophets when they come to enter paradise – each will have his ummah with him, Mohammed s.a.w. will have the biggest ummah and some prophets only one or two followers. This is because, as I said before, only those who were near to that prophet at that time followed him and always later the followers deviated. We have the Quran which did not get altered but the former Muslims had nothing like that. So those who enter paradise will be the ones who stayed “on message” not اهدِنَــــا الصِّرَاطَ المُستَقِيمَ

          صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنعَمتَ عَلَيهِمْ غَيرِ المَغضُوبِ عَلَيهِمْ وَلاَ الضَّالِّين

          • Alex August 1, 2012 at 11:45 pm #

            Scolar Laurah
            Could you tell us why Omar removed Abu Hurairah from his postion as worker in Bahrain?
            Whould you please Explain the following Quranic terms
            Sirat Al-mustakeem
            Hikma
            and Forkan

            I know whar you would Answer: tell us you amswers.
            If you don’t know, and I am sure you don’t, Just Tell us about the Sirat Al-Mostakeem you quoted.

          • Khalid Amayreh August 2, 2012 at 1:20 am #

            You hate Omar even more than you hate Abu Hurayra.

            You even don’t believe the Quran, thinking it is Muharraf or distorted.

            You call the wives of the Prophet “whores” but the Quran calls them the “mothers of the belivers”

            Abu Bakr, the great companion of Muhammed, who is alluded to in the Quran in the verse “the second of two who were in the cave….etc,” you call him Kafer!

            Even Imam Hassan, you call him “the humilator of believers” because he reached peace with Muawiya.

            So how could he be imam Maasum (sinless) and humilator of the believers at the same time ???

          • Alex August 2, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

            You hate Omar
            هلا شققت صدري؟

            Six months ago I named my first grandsom OMAR

          • Laura Stuart August 2, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

            Mabrouk !

          • Laura Stuart August 2, 2012 at 8:09 am #

            I can clearly see the problem now. You have been reading and following Shia books. It is also now clear how you put your faith in people and personalities like NasrAllah or Assad instead of accepting that Allah is the only power. I worship The Creator and not His Creation. No wonder the Muslims are in such a mess. No wonder the Palestinians are in such a mess when so many I have met have deviated into secular ideas. Our Ummah will only regain dignity again when we use Islam as the criteria. Sometimes I think the seige of Gaza is Rahma from Allah on the people of Gaza so that they will return to the right path. See how the fitna comes to the Palestinians in Syria? Those who follow other than Islam like the PLFP now killing their brothers. Fitna only Fitna.

            I will never agree with you on any of the lies the Shia have propagated against the Sahabi such as Abu Huraira r.a.

            Allah Guides Whom He Wills

            لَکُمۡ دِیۡنُکُمۡ وَلِیَ دِیۡنِ

          • Alex August 2, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

            “I can clearly see the problem now.”

            You are blind

          • Khalid Amayreh August 2, 2012 at 1:36 am #

            The main problem is that lying is legal and legitimate in Shiite Islam.

            This is why the Shiites don’t have a single Hadith “book” that is “Sahih” or “authentic”

            We Muslim Sunnis have had Sihah hadith references for more than a thousand years.

            These books were meticulously researched to make sure no weak or unauthentic Hadith existed.

          • Alex August 2, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

            Yes, You, Muslim Sunni were the polical power, the financial power, and the media power for more than thousand years. on the otherhand they were oppresed for the same period.

            You faked Hadeath to justify the deeds of the Sultan, and turmed Islam from Deen Al-Rahman into Deen Al-Sultan, created the so-called Quran siences, to disable and desert Quran to Bukari

        • Khalid Amayreh August 2, 2012 at 2:22 am #

          The Shiites don’t have a ingle authentic book of Hadith.

          This is why they quote from Sunni books if they wanted to be believed.

          But then they even call Bukhari Kafer because he did not believe in their 12 saitnts or mini gods.

  23. Alex August 1, 2012 at 9:02 pm #

    Back to politics

    The Brother of America” have no doubt that the moral callousness and depravity eroding America, mainly as a result of Jewish domination, will boomerang sooner or later. There are many signs the payback process has already begun.”
    America is nice, America is pregnant, let wait, EizenhewerII is comming.
    I say: O stupids
  24. Khalid Amayreh August 2, 2012 at 1:26 am #

    The agent of KGB and student of Sistani and Alqami thinks that the Hitler of Damasus will survive thr revolution.

    I have bad news for him, he won’t!!!

    His downfall is a matter of time.

    So, get some medicine for depression, now.!!

  25. Khalid Amayreh August 2, 2012 at 10:00 pm #

    Abu Raghal was Shiite, so was al-Alqami, So were the killers of Imam Husein and his son Omar at the battle of Taff, so was Abu Lo’loa the murderer of Omar. Throughout history, the Shiites colluded with the enemies of Islam, with the Crusades, and the Tatars, with the French mandate in Syria, with the American occupiers of Iraq, and now with Israel against the peopleof Syria.

    The Shiite stories are many, but mostly they are silly…just like their discourse which we witness here.

  26. Alex August 2, 2012 at 11:44 pm #

    The Liar claimed that Abu Reghal Was a Shiite
    Who is Abu Reghal?

    He is the first Arab Traitor, In year 570 A.D, Abraha intended to destroy Ka’aba, and  Abu Reghal is the traitor who agreed to show ABRAHA the way to MACCA. Abu Reghal died on the way.
    Prophet Mohamad was born in 571 A.D. At his 40 he started reciving the revelation, i.e year 611
    Ali was born in 599 A.D.
    Bassed on Musailama the Liar claim, Shea existed at least 29 years before the birth of Ali, at least 41 years before Islam.

    “So their chief Masood came to Abraha and told him that as Abraha intended to destroy Ka’aba and his tribe did not want to check his way instead he offered to provide a guide to Abraha to show the way of Makkah. Masood gave a person named Abu Raghal to show the way to Makkah. When they reached near Makkah at a place named Maghrnas, Abu Raghal died. Later Arabs used to stone the grave of Abu Raghal due to his shameless act of guiding Abraha towards Makkah They also taunted the tribe of Bani Thaqeef for guiding the invaders”

    Qintar resembles Jumblatt with ‘Abu Raghal’ the first Arab traitor in history

  27. etominusipi August 2, 2012 at 11:52 pm #

    this is fatwah, not from self-serving preservers of beards, but from the deep truth which underlies the many deceptive appearances of this world. accept or reject according to your desire to serve allah.

    Daniel Masbout is Muslim
    Alex is muslim

    KA and LS are not muslim.

    if they wish to work for ther benefit of their souls and mankind, should study the following text and take it to their hearts.

    but perhaps will not, for reasons explained in the the Holy Quran and the Injil. for example, here:

    Having eyes, see you not? and having ears, hear you not? and do you not remember?

    i sincerely inform you both that if you do not heed this warning, you will live to regret crossing this line drawn in the sand with the blood of murdered innocents.

    The Signs of a Hypocrite in Islam:

    Abdullah ibn ‘Amr (RA) says that Rasulullah (SAW) said:

    “Four traits whoever possesses them is a hypocrite and whoever possesses some of them has an element of hypocrisy until he leaves it: the one who when he speaks he lies, when he promises he breaks his promise, when he disputes he transgresses and when he makes an agreement he violates it.” (Muslim and Bukhari)

    1) Other wordings of this same hadith: “The signs of the hypocrite are three: when he speaks he lies, when he promises he breaks his promise and when he is entrusted he betrays the trust.” (Bukhari and Muslim)

    “…even if he prays and fasts and imagines that he is a Muslim.” (Muslim)
    2) Nifaq (hypocrisy): in the Arabic language means the general category of deception, scheming and presenting an outward appearance of good while concealing its opposite.
    3) In the Shari ‘a, nifaq is of two types:
    a) Greater (An-Nifaq Al-Akbar): To present an outward appearance of belief in Allah, his Angels, his books, his messengers, the last day, etc. while concealing within that which negates all or some of that. This is the hypocrisy which Rasulullah (SAW) confronted during his life and the ones who Allah said in the Qur’an that they are in “the lowest depth of hell-fire”.
    b) Lesser (An-Nifaq Al-Asghar) or hypocrisy of action: To present an outward appearance of good and good deeds while concealing within that which negates that. This form of hypocrisy is built on the 5 things mentioned in the hadith at hand.
    4) The actions in this hadith are all part of lesser hypocrisy: One who has these character traits in interaction with other people is most likely to have them with regard to Allah and his Prophet’s (AS’s). That is why the existence of them is a ‘sign’ of the existence of greater nifaq.
    5) Lying. Al-Hassan Al-Basri said: “Nifaq is the difference between the inner and the appearance, between statement and action and between entering and leaving and it used to be said that the foundation of nifaq upon which it is built is lying.”
    6) Breaking Promises. This falls into two categories: a) Making a promise with no intention of keeping it. Al-Awaa’il said that one who says “I will do such-and-such Inshallah” without intending to do it has committed both lying and breaking a promise.
    b) Making a promise intending to keep it and then later deciding to break it.
    7) Transgression in Dispute: The main meaning of ‘transgression’ here is to intentionally speak other than truth making truth falsehood and vice versa. Lying “calls to” this as in the hadith: “Beware of lying for lying guides to transgression and transgression leads to the fire.” (Bukhari, Muslim). Rasulullah (SAW) said: “The most hated of men to Allah is the one given to fierce and violent disputation.” (Bukhari, Muslim) Rasulullah (SAW)) said about the one who takes what is not his through clever speech has only been given a piece of the fire.
    8) Breaking Agreements. Allah said:

    وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا مَالَ الْيَتِيمِ إِلَّا بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ حَتَّىٰ يَبْلُغَ أَشُدَّهُ ۚ وَأَوْفُوا بِالْعَهْدِ ۖ إِنَّ الْعَهْدَ كَانَ مَسْئُولًا

    “And fulfill your agreements for verily agreements will be asked about.”(Surah Al-Isrâ 17: 34)

    Allah says: وَأَوْفُوا بِعَهْدِ اللَّهِ إِذَا عَاهَدْتُمْ وَلَا تَنْقُضُوا الْأَيْمَانَ بَعْدَ تَوْكِيدِهَا وَقَدْ جَعَلْتُمُ اللَّهَ عَلَيْكُمْ كَفِيلًا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ مَا تَفْعَلُونَ

    “And fulfill Allah’s agreement when you have made an agreement and don’t violate your oaths after they have been established and you have made Allah your guardian (therein).” (Surah An-Nahl 16: 91)

    The most serious oath to dishonor is the oath of allegiance to the khalifah of the Muslims.
    9) Betraying of Trusts: When a Muslim is entrusted with something, he must do his best to protect it. Allah said: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَخُونُوا اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ وَتَخُونُوا أَمَانَاتِكُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

    “O ye that believe! Betray not the trust of Allah and the Messenger, nor misappropriate knowingly things entrusted to you.” (Surah Al-Anfaal 8: 27)
    10) These issues have all been connected to hypocrisy in the Qur’an:
    a) Surah Al-Munaafiqoon 63: 1-2 (Lying, breaking oaths)
    إِذَا جَاءَكَ الْمُنَافِقُونَ قَالُوا نَشْهَدُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُهُ وَاللَّهُ يَشْهَدُ إِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ لَكَاذِبُونَ

    َ اتَّخَذُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ جُنَّةً فَصَدُّوا عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّهُمْ سَاءَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

    “When the Hypocrites come to thee, they say, “We bear witness that thou art indeed the Messenger of Allah.” Yea, Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His Messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the Hypocrites are indeed liars. They have made their oaths a screen (for their misdeeds): thus they obstruct (men) from the Path of Allah. Truly evil are their deeds.”
    b) Surah At-Taubah9: 73-77 (False oaths, breaking promises (to Allah), lying)

    يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَ وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ وَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ ۖ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ

    يَحْلِفُونَ بِاللَّهِ مَا قَالُوا وَلَقَدْ قَالُوا كَلِمَةَ الْكُفْرِ وَكَفَرُوا بَعْدَ إِسْلَامِهِمْ وَهَمُّوا بِمَا لَمْ يَنَالُوا ۚ وَمَا نَقَمُوا إِلَّا أَنْ أَغْنَاهُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ ۚ فَإِنْ

    يَتُوبُوا يَكُ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ ۖ وَإِنْ يَتَوَلَّوْا يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ ۚ وَمَا لَهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ مِنْ وَلِيٍّ وَلَا نَصِيرٍ

    ۞ وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ عَاهَدَ اللَّهَ لَئِنْ آتَانَا مِنْ فَضْلِهِ لَنَصَّدَّقَنَّ وَلَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ فَلَمَّا آتَاهُمْ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ بَخِلُوا بِهِ وَتَوَلَّوْا وَهُمْ مُعْرِضُونَ

    فَأَعْقَبَهُمْ نِفَاقًا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ يَلْقَوْنَهُ بِمَا أَخْلَفُوا اللَّهَ مَا وَعَدُوهُ وَبِمَا كَانُوا يَكْذِبُونَ

    ”O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed. They swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty with which Allah and His Messenger had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: They shall have none on earth to protect or help them. Amongst them are men who made a covenant with Allah, that if He bestowed on them of His bounty, they would give (largely) in charity, and be truly amongst those who are righteous But when He did bestow of His bounty, they became covetous, and turned back (from their covenant), averse (from its fulfillment). So He hath put as a consequence hypocrisy into their hearts, (to last) till the Day, whereon they shall meet Him: because they broke their covenant with Allah, and because they lied (again and again).”

    c) Surah Al-Ahzaab 33: 72-73 (Betraying trusts)
    إِنَّا عَرَضْنَا الْأَمَانَةَ عَلَى السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَالْجِبَالِ فَأَبَيْنَ أَنْ يَحْمِلْنَهَا وَأَشْفَقْنَ مِنْهَا وَحَمَلَهَا الْإِنْسَانُ ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ ظَلُومًا جَهُولًا

    لِيُعَذِّبَ اللَّهُ الْمُنَافِقِينَ وَالْمُنَافِقَاتِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ وَالْمُشْرِكَاتِ وَيَتُوبَ اللَّهُ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتِ ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا

    “We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof: but man undertook it, He was indeed unjust and foolish, (With the result) that Allah has to punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Unbelievers, men and women, and Allah turns in Mercy to the Believers, men and women: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
    11) Umar (RA) mentioned Rasulullah (SAW) saying: “The thing from which I fear for you the most is the knowledgeable hypocrite.” Umar (RA) was then asked: “How can a hypocrite be knowledgeable?” Umar (RA) answered: “He speaks with wisdom but acts with injustice.”

    12) Ibn Umar was told: “We enter the presence of the ruler we speak to him other than what we say after we leave.” Ibn Umar said: “We used to consider that hypocrisy.” (Bukhari)
    13) Ibn Abi Malaika said: “I encountered thirty Companions of Rasulullah (SAW)) every one of them fears hypocrisy for himself and Al-Hassan Al-Basri used to say about it: “No one fears it but a believer and no one feels safe from it but a hypocrite.” (Bukhari)
    14) Another aspect of hypocrisy: to do apparently good deeds with wicked intentions. Allah said:

    وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مَسْجِدًا ضِرَارًا وَكُفْرًا وَتَفْرِيقًا بَيْنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَإِرْصَادًا لِمَنْ حَارَبَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ ۚ وَلَيَحْلِفُنَّ إِنْ أَرَدْنَا إِلَّا الْحُسْنَىٰ ۖ وَاللَّهُ يَشْهَدُ إِنَّهُمْ لَكَاذِبُونَ

    “They set up a Masjid for the purpose of harm, Kufr, creating division among the Muslims and as an outpost for those making war against Allah and His Prophet before this and they will swear “We only intended good.” And Allah bears witness that they are liars.” (Surah Taubah9: 107)
    15) Allah says:

    لَا تَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِينَ يَفْرَحُونَ بِمَا أَتَوْا وَيُحِبُّونَ أَنْ يُحْمَدُوا بِمَا لَمْ يَفْعَلُوا فَلَا تَحْسَبَنَّهُمْ بِمَفَازَةٍ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ۖ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

    “Do not imagine that those who are joyful with what they have done and love to be praised for that which they did not do – do not imagine them to be safe from punishment – and theirs is a painful punishment.” (Surah al-Imraan 3:188)

    “Inshallah we KEEP the PROMISES and OATHS that we take, May we be saved from hypocristy. aameen Thuma Aameen”

Leave a Reply