The Reality of the Neo Crusade War
17-02-2008
بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم
الحمد لله العلي المتعال ذي القدرة والجلال و الصلاة والسلام على النبي الضحوك
القتال
أما بعد
By Sheikh Asshahīd Al Mujāhid Yūsuf Al Uyerī رحمه الله
Extracts from the book
All praises be to Allāh and blessing and peace be upon the Messenger of Allāh
and upon his family and companions and after that:
When the courage is decline from seeking the knowledge and reading and searching
the truth and searching for Dalīl, and varying between how proof is derived from
the Dalīl, and weakness of explaining the truth and weakness in spreading it.
Because the people have become weak in the proofs, they do not know the rulings
except in general. And when I saw that, I thought that I might bring a summary
of some what came in this book, because of what its totality is not
comprehended, it cannot be left as a whole. Thus I feared that one might come
and increase in reading all these pages and leave the book and do not achieve an
increase in good, so I wanted that I present what I mention what is in the book
for all the levels in this summary (so) maybe it would clarify what is in the
book, so whoever wishes to seek more, then he should read the full book, as to
understand what came in it.
Before laying the fundamental upon which is appropriate to base the killing of
women and children of kuffār in America, it is obligatory first, to explain an
important matter, and that is, is America a land of war or land a treaty?
So the chosen word for this is; verily America is not a country of a treaty,
with certainty. And it was never-even a day from the days-under a treaty. And if
we get down to the level of the one who is against, and we agree that verily it
is a country under a treaty, we say; it has returned back to be being a country
of war, this is due to it breaching of the covenant and aiding the Jews before,
fire more than 50 years, upon occupying Palestine and chasing its people out.
And it is a country of war which broke its treaty when she attacked and put Irāq
under siege, and attacked and put Sudan under siege and attacked and put
Afghanistan under siege, and transgressed upon the Muslims.
Thus what is agreed upon is that verily it is a land of war and (in) the lands
of war it is permissible for the Muslims to attack it with all kinds of
destruction, because the blood and the wealth and the honor of those people are
permissible for the Muslims. As the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم did with the
Muhāribīn (fighters against Islām) from kidnapping its citizens as he (صلى الله
عليه و سلم) did with Banu Uqail, and attacking the caravans as he did with the
Qureish, and assassinating its leaders, as he did with K’ab bin al Ashrafand
Salamah bin Abī Haqīq, and burning lands, like he did with Bani Nadhīr, and
demolishing their forts, like he did in tāif and other actions besides that.
As for the talk upon the blessed operation of the Tuesday in America, so we wish
from those who condemn the operation or the people who carried it out to wait,
because it has not been proved, until now with a proof that, verily the person
who did that were from the Muslims, and also if the Land of Cross announces that
the person who did it is a Muslim, thus verily the investigations are going on
are false which is not based upon neither the Book or Sunnah, and also false
because the person who taking the matter is the judge, so it is not permissible
in sharīah basing upon a Shar’ī rule to (come) upon this results, that why we
ask to and not to haste in judgment upon individuals with the results of the
investigations.
It is important that all know, that verily the fundamental regarding the blood
of Muslims and their wealth and honor is that it is forbidden which is not
allowed but due to a Shar’ī cause, like Qisās or apostasy or implementing Hudūd.
And the fundamental in the blood and wealth and honor of the Kuffār is that it
is permissible, and not prohibited except with a treaty or d himmititude (dhimmī)
or with an Amān (refuge given). As for the Harbī (one who fights), thus verily
the fundamental in his blood and wealth and honor is permissibility, and
specified with security in regard of the blood from the Harbī’s are (their)
women and children and very old, and very weak, and those who are not from the
people of battle and this due to the specifying of the evidences for them and
taking them from the (real) fundamental.
So in the situation of the operations which happened in America (if) done by
Muslims, then it is permissible in Shar’ī ways, because it was against a
fighting nation and those who are in it are harbiyyūn.
And a person might say: the people sacrificed were innocent people from women
and old men and children, those whose sacredness of blood is put forward even if
they were from a harbī nation, then how will these operations would be allowed
in Shar’ī ways?
We say: verily the sacredness of the bloods of women and children and old men of
the kuffār is not a general prohibition, but there are special situations in
which killing them is allowed, if they are from people of Harb. And these
situations will be in specified scenarios. And we say, the operation of Tuesday
in America, innocents were sacrificed in it, but these people will not leave a
status from that statuses in which their killing is permissible, and we shall
mention it here. And it is enough for the oppressors to accept that one of the
situations has been fit upon them, to (accept) the permissibility of the
operations, because it is not a requirement, that all these be fit, but one is
enough , and these situations are:
First situation: It is allowed for the Muslims to kill the innocent from
the Kuffār to treat then with equality, that is if the kuffār are targeting
women and children and elders of the Muslims, (then) it is permissible for the
Muslims to treat them in the same manner and kill from them equal to those who
were killed. This for the saying of Allāh (so whoever transgresses upon you,
then transgress upon him equal to (the level of) they transgressed upon you.)
Second situation: It is allowed for the Muslims to kill the innocent from
the kuffār, in the situation of Ighārah (attack suddenly or with surprise),
where it is not possible to differentiate between the innocent from the fighters
OR from forts, thus it is permissible to kill them, by following and
intentionally, for saying Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم, when he was asked about
the children of the Mushriks who sleeps, they attack at night, thus they harm
their women and children? He صلى الله عليه و سلم said (they are from them), and
this proves upon the killing of women and children following their fathers, when
they cannot be differentiated, and in the narration of Muslim (they are from
their fathers)
Third situation: it is allowed for the Muslims to kill the innocent from
the Kuffār in the situation; if the innocent help upon fighting, whether by
action or word or idea or any kind of help, for the saying of the Prophet صلى
الله عليه و سلمto kill Dureid bin Al Samat when he came with Hawzān, and he has
reached (in age) 120 years when he came out to advice them with his opinion.
Fourth situation: it is permissible for the Muslims to kill the innocent
amongst the Kuffār when it is needed to burn forts or fields of the enemies to
weaken their power to conquer the fort or to bring down a country, even if the
innocent amongst the enemies are sacrificed for that, as the Prophet صلى الله
عليه و سلمdid with banī Nadhīr.
Fifth situation: it is allowed for the Muslims to kill the innocent from
the kuffār in the situation; need to attack them with heavy weapons which
doesn’t differentiate between a fighter and an innocent, as the prophet صلى الله
عليه و سلمdid in tāif.
Sixth situation: It is allowed for the Muslims to kill the innocent from
the kuffār in the situation in the status; of the enemy getting shielded with
their women and children, and when it is not possible to kill those who fight
but with killing the shields, it is permissible for them with Ijmā.
The seventh situation: it is allowed for the Muslims to kill the innocent
from the Kuffār in the status: if the people of treaty breaches their traty, and
the leader sees to kill the innocent to teach them a lesson, as the prophet صلى
الله عليه و سلمdid in Banī Qureidha.
And a person might say: but what are the evidences in the permissibility of
killing the Muslims who were in the world trade centre? As we agree that the
kuffār enters in one of the above situations, but can we put the Muslims who
died in the operation from those who work there?
We say: the refutation for that question is from seven ways, and it is enough
for the Mukhālif (one against this) to agree to one it as to bind him to say its
permissibility……
First way: It is not proven until now that Muslims were available amongst
the killed, and if it is proven, we shall answer with what comes after.
Second way: it is important to find out the reasons of the person who did
if he was a Muslim, if the reason was due to coercion, it is permissible for him
to (do this) action. And if there is no reasons we will answer with what comes
after.
Third way: verily the more certain thought is based upon that; verily the
targets which were hit, only Kuffār would be there, and acting upon what thought
with most certainty, in the Shar’ī rulings, that is what is held responsible by
the Mukallaf . (one unburdened with the Shariah).
Forth way: As Shāfi’ī رحمه اللهand Al Jassās رحمه اللهfrom hanafiyyah
sees that; it is permissible to burn and drown and demolish the lands of the
Muhāribīn, until even if there are Muslims in it, and sometimes they (muslims)
die, with these kinds of actions, because to stop (from fighting) from the lands
of war due to the muslims there, leads to nullifying (ta’tīl: making it
unavailable, or abandoning) Jihād, and Al Jassās رحمه اللهreplies about the
verse (and if there were not believing men…. (وَلَوْلا رِجَالٌ مُؤْمِنُونَ..
الآية)), that this verse doesn’t indicate of it being harām. So if this is the
case, then it is allowed for the person who carries out this operation, even be
him a Muslim, to carry out this action.
The fifth way: generalizing the above mentioned verse unconditionally and
generalizing its ruling leads to abandon the Shi’ār of Jihād upon each fighting
nation, because there is no state but, with a big number from the muslims and
the wars of today kills a big number from people, so generalizing the ruling of
the verse unconditionally is void, because it nullifies the obligation of Jihād
and encompasses it without a Dalīl.
Sixth way: if the person who did this was a muslim, and knows that, the
then the most upon him is to pay half of the killed as Muhammad صلى الله عليه و
سلمgave verdict, for those who were killed from the muslims of Khath’am, who
were living between the people of war from their country, and the Prophet صلى
الله عليه و سلمpaid their blood money from the Bait ul Māl, and did not proclaim
Takfīr upon those who killed them, and did be harsh upon him or pray against him
or announce disunity from him.
Seventh way: and it is permissible also to treat a Muslim who helps the
Kuffār and strengthens them, that verily he is from them in the worldly ruling
and in his hereafter ruling, he is raised upon his intention as Allāh will make
the army which fights ka’ba to sink into the earth, and in them are those are
not from them.
After leaving many passages from between, I have come to the place where the
details of the above seven ways are given, so:
Al Sheikh Al Mujāhid Al Imām Yūsuf Al Uyeirī رحمه الله said:
And there is important question: Thus a person might say, what you have brought
(from evidence) the permission to kill the innocent from the Kuffār in some
situations, is a good saying. But there is an important matter and that is;
there is a number of muslims who were killed in the demolition of the world
trade centre. So how was it permissible to kill the Muslims is the world trade
centre? With (the fact) that you don’t allow the killing of shields (Muslims
taken as shields) from the Muslims except in the situation of necessity, and
(while) there is no necessity in this?
And we answer to this in seven ways:-
(I [Sayyid] says: as for the first three, it is almost the same brought with few
more words, but without an evidence, although, its understood from the
necessities of the religion, and is not in need of a proof to support it, for
its apparentness. So leave the Arabic text of the first three ones and will go
on with the others)
ونجيب عن هذا من سبعة أوجه:-
أولاً: إن عدد المسلمين في مركز التجارة العالمي لم يعرف حتى الآن، بل لم يتأكد
وجودهم من عدمه وإذا كانت لم تنتشل حتى الآن أكثر من ثلاثمائة جثة فكيف لهم بإثبات
موت عدد من المسلمين، وإذا ثبت أن هناك عددا من المسلمين فنقول.
ثانياً: إننا لا نعلم من الفاعل الذي قام بالعمليات، فإذا كان مسلماً فلا بد أن
نعرف ما هي المبررات التي دفعته لمثل ذلك الفعل، هل هي ضرورة أم حاجة؟، فإن كانت
ضرورة وقدّرها بقدرها جاز له الفعل مع احتمال هلاك مسلمين، وإن كانت حاجة فهي خاضعة
لأمر آخر وهو الوجه الثالث.
ثالثاً: إن من المؤكد لدى الجميع بأنه لا يوجد في مركز التجارة العالمي إلا شركات
كافرة، وإن غلبة الظن قائمة بأن هذه الشركات لا توظف إلا كفاراً، كما أن هذه
الأبراج تقع في منطقة تعد أكبر منطقة يتجمع فيها اللوبي الصهيوني والجالية اليهودية،
فالحكم على غلبة الظن في هذه الحالة جائز.
Forth: Until and with certainty of the existence of the Muslims, verily As
Shāfi’īرحمه الله sees, verily halting (from attacking) from the Kuffār in the
lands of Harb, in fear of killing the muslims who are mixed up with them, he
sees that as a mandūb (good action in which it leaver is not punished in both
worlds), and not an obligation and answered regarding this verse (وَلَوْلا
رِجَالٌ مُؤْمِنُونَ وَنِسَاءٌ مُؤْمِنَاتٌ لَمْ تَعْلَمُوهُمْ أَنْ تَطَأُوهُمْ
فَتُصِيبَكُمْ مِنْهُمْ مَعَرَّةٌ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ.. الآية) (Had there not been
believing men and believing women whom you did not know, that you may kill them,
and on whose account a sin would have been committed by you without (your)
knowledge,), He answered in Al Umm 4/244 with his saying: “and if they were in
the land- the land of Harb- captives from the mulims, or traders with Amān, so
it is (or I) disliked to direct upon them which would generalize burning and
drowning and what is similar to that, not clearly forbidden for him. And this is
because; verily the land, even if it is permissible, it is not explained that it
will become Harām because there is a muslim there whose blood is forbidden, and
it is (or I have) disliked for caution, because it is permissible for us, if
there is no muslim in it, to cross it thus not fight it and if we fight without
what generalizes from burning and drowning”
And Al Imām Al Jassās رحمه الله from the hanafiyya said in the Ahkām ul Qur’ān
5/275 supporting this view “ as for the proof of who takes proof from His saying
(Had there not been believing men and believing women ….al āyah) to stop
throwing at kuffār due to the available muslims within them, then the verse have
no proof in it in the point of dispute and this is the most (which can be taken
form it) is that; verily Allāh has stopped the Muslims from them, because there
were a Muslim community therein. The companions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه و
سلم were they to enter it with the sword, they were not at ease that they might
harm them. And this verily proves the permissibility of leaving their throwing
and going forth towards them (attacking). There is no evidence upon the
forbiddance of going forth towards them (fighting them/attacking) with the
knowledge that there are Muslims amongst them (kuffār), because it is
permissible to stop from them (without attacking) due to the Muslims and it is
permissible also to go forth (fighting/ attack), as a choice. So there is No
proof in it (verse) upon the forbiddance of attacking”
Fifth: then verily who generalizes this verse (in taking proof) and forbids
harming the land of Harb due to the availability of the Muslims there, then his
this saying requires to stop the war against any land of Harb in our era,
because today, there is no state from the states kufr and harb today except
there is a number from Muslims which is not little. And the wars in this era
harms all the residents either directly or indirectly, and if we stop to harm
them in any way, then this sometimes leads to abandoning Jihaad against the
lands of Kufr and Harb with the proof of the existence of the Muslims there,
except that, it is not allowed to intentionally be neglectful regarding harming
the Muslims and this in the lands of where the majority of its residents are
from the Muslims. So harming them without any necessity is like the necessity of
taking human shields which is not reasonable. As for killing of a Muslim or ten
in the land of harb in which all its residents are Kuffaar who fights, then the
saying of Asshaafi’ee and Al Jassaas refutes that, and Allah knows best.
Sixth: and if it is supposed that the person who carried out the blessed
operations of the Tuesday was a Muslim, and there is no necessity for him to do
this act, then if the presence of Muslims amongst them are proved to be found
amongst the killed, then the most upon him is to pay the half of the blood money
of the killed (basing upon the harshest conditions), based upon the verdict of
the Prophet صلي الله عليه و سلم, to those who killed the Muslims of Khath’am,
when they were mixed up with the Kuffār. And he صلي الله عليه و سلمdid not
declare takfīr of those who killed them and neither was harsh on him and did not
take Qisās from him and did pray upon him and did not declare himself to be free
of his action as he declared freedom from the action of Khālid رضي الله عنه,
when he killed the muslims from Banū Juzeimah, so the Prophet صلي الله عليه و
سلمpayed their blood money in full and said “O Allāh verily I free my self to
you from what Khālid did”
And so why is the person who is doing what is commanded being criticized of
killing and striking fear in to the people of harb and legalizing their lands?
And the one who goes against the command of the Prophet صلي الله عليه و سلم and
stays with the Mushriks is not criticized? So the one who stood with the command
of Allāh became a criminal and the one from whom the Prophet صلي الله عليه و
سلم declared freedom (became) a Mumin, whose blood and security must be
protected. This doesn’t mean that we are making takfīr of the one who resides
within the Mushriks, eve though the apparent meaning of the saying of the
Prophet صلي الله عليه و سلم requires this, but we say, they are Muslims and the
most what the people who killed them should pay is the half of their blood
money, and this becomes clear with what comes.
At Tirmizī narrated in his sunan from Jarīr bin Abdullāh رضي الله عنه; verily
the Messenger of Allāh صلي الله عليه و سلمsent a troop to Khath’am, so people
took refuge by prostrating, so the killing was quickened within them (they were
killed), so this reached the Prophet صلي الله عليه و سلم(so he commanded them
with half of blood money and said “I am free every muslim who lives within the
Mushriks) they (Sahābah رضي الله عنهم) asked”O Messenger of Allāh, and why?” He
صلي الله عليه و سلمsaid “both should not see the fire of each other”.
And it was narrated by Samurah Bin Jundub رضي الله عنهfrom the Prophet صلي الله
عليه و سلمhe said “don’t reside with the Mushriks and do not intermingle with
them, thus whoever lives with them or intermingles with them, then he is like
them”.
Al Mubārik Fūrī said in Tu’hfatul A’hvazī 5/189; His saying: “thus the people
took refuge with prostrating” ei; people from the Muslims who resided with the
Kuffār, they prostrated depending that the Muslim army would leave us from
killing when they see us prostrating, because prostration is a sign of Faith.
(so he ordered them with half of the blood money) ei; it means half of the blood
money. (he)said in fat’hul Wadūd: because they helped against their own selves
by their staying between the Kuffār, so they were like those who were destroyed
with his own action and the action of others, so the part of where he is guilty.
(between the Mushriks) ei; between them, and the word which is more clear is
inserted (they should not see each others fire) this is from Tarāī, action from
each other from seeing, it is said “tarāā al qowm al qowm” when they saw each
other. And seeing a thing, ei; it became clear until I saw it. And the reality
in tarāā was tatarāā, thus one of the ‘tā’ was aborted for easiness. And the
ascribing the seeing to the fire is a hint from their saying ‘my house is seen
from the house of so’ ei; it is infront of it.
He said in An Nihāyah “it means it is compulsory upon the Muslim to make his
house far from the house of a Mushrik, and do not reside where, if he makes a
fire, it becomes clear and becomes apparent for the Mushrik when he lights it in
his house, but he should reside with the Muslims, and in this there is an
encouragement for migration.
Al Khattābīرحمه اللهsaid: there are three ways in it meaning: It is said: it
means that their rulings are not the same, and it is said: its meaning ism
verily Allāh differentiated between the Dār ul Islām and Kufr, so it is not
allowed for a Muslim to reside with the Kuffār in their lands, to the limit that
if they make a fire, he should (be away) from them until he doesn’t see it
(fire), and it is said: its meaning the Muslim must not take the ways of a
Mushrik and neither imitate him in his guidance and his looks.
His saying: (and in the chapter from Samurah) it was narrated by Abū Dāūd as a
Marf’ū chain:” whoever imitates a Mushrik and stays with him, then he is like
him”. And At Tirmizī mentioned it like it, and did not mention its chain. And
the Hadīth of Jarīr which is mentioned in the chapter, it was also narratd by
Abū Dāwūd and Ibn Mājah and its men (of the chain) are authentic. But Al Bukhārī
and Abū Hātim and Abū Dāwūd and At tirmizī and Ad DārQutnī decalred it being a
‘Mur’sal’ to be Sahīh. And likewise At tabrānī narrated it as Mausūl, in An
Neil. I said and Alalbānī declared it Sahīh in Al Adab Al Mufrad.
Al Hāfiz Shamsud Dīn Ibn Qayyim رحمه اللهsaid upon his foot note upon ‘Aunul
M’abūd 7/218: some people of knowledge said: verily he (صلي الله عليه و سلم)
ordered half of blood money after his knowledge of their embracing Islām, was
due to the reason they helped against themselves with their staying between the
Kuffār, so they are likepeople who were killed due to their fault and fault of
others, and this (understanding) is very good. And what is apparent from the
understanding of the hadīth: verily the fire is the symbol of the Nation, when
residing, and their sign. And it calls them, and the traveler of the night,
takes comfort from it, and when he gets near it and resides with its people and
makes peace with them, thus the fire of the Mushrikīn calls towards the Satan
and towards the fire of hereafter, thus verily it is burnt in the disobedience
of Allāh and the fire of the believers call towards Allāh and towards His
obedience and to honouring His religion.
So how can the two fires get together? While this is its condition? This is the most clear of speeches and the greatest of it, which consists upon a great many meanings, with the shortest phrases. And verily An Nasāī narrated from the Hadīth of Bahz bin Hakīm from his father from his grandfather رضي الله عنهم, he said “I said O Messenger of Allāh صلي الله عليه و سلم I have not come to you until I have vowed to the number of the fingers of my hand that I will not come to you or to your religion, I was a person who would not understand but what Allāh and his Messenger صلي الله عليه و سلم taught me, and I ask you with the “vajhullāhi” (Vajh is face, also translated as pleasure), with what did out Rabb send you with to us? He صلي الله عليه و سلمsaid: “with Islām”. I said “what are the signs of Islām?” He said “it is that you say: I have submitted my (vajh, here translated as will, pleasure) to Allāh and I have left (everything besides that), and that you perform prayer and that you give zakāt.
Each
Muslim upon the other Muslim is Harām, two brother who
help. Allāh will not accept from a Mushrik an action after he becomes a Muslim
or he has to leave the Mushriks and (come) to the Muslims”. And verily Abu Dāwūd
from the Hadīth of Samurah رضي الله عنه, from the Prophet صلي الله عليه و
سلم“whoever intimidates with the Mushriks or reside with them, then verily he is
like them”. And in the Marāsīl of Abū Dāwūd from Mak’hūl from the Prophet صلي
الله عليه و سلمsaid “do not leave children with (near) the enemy”
Al ‘Adhīm Abādī said in ‘Aun ul Ma’būd 7/218:
(to Khath’am): a tribe (so he commanded them with the half of Blood money): it
means half of blood money. Said in Fat’hul Wadūd: it is because they helped upon
themselves with their staying between the Mushriks, so they were people were
destroyed due their own action and the action of others, thus the part of their
fault was dropped. (between the Mushriks): it means that between them and the
word “Adh’har” is an inserted word. (they should see each others fire): it was
written like this in the copies and in some of it “لا تراءى”. Said in Nihāyah :
it means it is binding upon the Muslim and it is compulsory upon him to keep his
house away from the house of the Mushrik. And not stay where if a fire is made
there, it becomes clear and apparent for the mushrik, when he burns it in his
house. BUT he must reside with the Muslimīn. And this is an inciting to make
migration.
Al Munzirī said: and At Tirmizī and An Nasāī narrated it. And Abū Dāwūd
mentioned that a group narrated it as Mursal. And At Tirmizī also narrated it as
mursal and said this is more authentic, and mentioned the most companions of
Ismāīl; he meant Ibn Abī Khālid, did mention Jarīr in it and it is mentioned
from Al Bukhārī, that he verily said ‘it is authentic that it is a mursal, and
An Nasāī did not narrate it except as Mursal.
Seventh: Verily the person who works in the World Trade Centre, he works in the
most important economic centre of a Harbī State, then it is possible for the
Muslims, when they wish to do an operation against a power of Kufr, and were
unable to differentiate, to treat him, as if he was a participator with the
kuffār and take the same worldly ruling and not the hereafter ruling. And the
proof for this is, what came in As Sahīhein and others besides those two. Verily
Aishah رضي الله عنهاsaid: The Prophet صلي الله عليه و سلمgot amused in his
sleep, so we said ‘O Messenger of Allāh, you have done something in your sleep
which you did not use to do’. So he said (Astounding! Verily some people of my
nation would head towards the House towards a man from Qureish who has taken
refuge with the House (of Allāh), and until they reach Al Beidā, they are
swallowed in to the earth) so we said ‘O Messenger of Allāh, the road collects
people (means may people come to it), he said (yes, from them are those who
search and people under coercion and travelers, they would be destroyed all
together and sent differently, Allāh would raise them upon their intention) and
in Al Bukhārī, she said, I said “O messenger of Allāh, how would all of them
would be swallowed? While within are their markets and who is not from them”, he
said (all of them would be swallowed and then sent upon their intention). At
Tirmizī added in the Hadīth of Safiyyah (and their middle people would not be
saved), and in a word of Muslim, from the Hadīth of Hafsa ( Nothing will remain
except for the stray which would inform of them).
Ibn Hajar said in Al Fat’h commenting on this Hadīth “all will be swallowed due
to the misfortune of the wicked and then everybody would be treated in
accounting according to his intention. Al Muhallab said: (there is) in this
Hadīth, verily whoever increases the number of a people in disobedience,
choosing it, (then) verily the punishment is bound upon him, with them. He said:
And Mālik derived from it, the punishment of the one who sits the people who
drinks wine even if he doesn’t drink it”
And Ibn Taimiyyah took evidence in his Fatāwā Kubrā and his student Ibn Qayyim,
from this Hadīth to fight the preventing group (tāifah Mumtani’ah), even if
there are Muslims in their ranks, he said ‘they would be destroyed altogether
and sent differently’.
Thus the Muslims who worked in the world trade centre, it is possible to take
them as those who help the war in worldly ruling, and it is possible to take
what happened to them as a punishment upon increasing the group of the Kuffār
and due to their benefiting them, and Allāh knows best!
(Pray that the rest also maybe translated)
Sayyid
Submitted by a Mujahid