The mongol tatars!

Why they were apostates, who should be fought against and modern so-called Muslim governments and armies.

Ibn Taymiyyahs Fatawaa on the Mongol Tatars, and why they were apostates who should be fought against.

Foreword: All praise is due to Allah, the most high, the most supreme authority, the only super power of unimaginable magnitude, for which mankind and creation cannot fully comprehend. We seek help, guidance and forgiveness from him and we seek refuge in him from the evil of our souls, and from the evil of our misdeeds. Whoever Allah guides there is no deviator for him, whoever He causes to be misguided; there is no guide for him. I bear witness with the utmost conviction that there is no one or Deity worthy of worship other than Allah alone, And I witness the prophet-hood of Muhammad bin Abdillah his slave and messenger. And after that; I will get straight to the point of the matter, as I am not an eloquent writer, nor a scholar, but only a humble servant of Allaah , who seeks to enlighten the reader on what the great scholars have said about the issue at hand. And that is the tatars, why they were called apostates, and for what reason fighting against them became obligatory. These fatwas are of utmost importance to us, in the 14th century (Hijri),because we, as the great 14th century scholars (such as Muhaddith Ahmed Shakir and former Mufti of Saudi Arabia Muhammad bin Ibrahim Al-sheikh ())have said, the new Yaasiq has caused much destruction and deviance in our

present day times. So indeed, many great , truthful scholars have identified some similarities between the situation in the times of ibn taymiyyah ( ) and our times, in order for them to make this analogy (Qiyas) to derive the correct ruling and move forward with the correct action. For verily we live in a time where Islaam only exists upon the tongues of certain claimers of guidance, and only in study circles and books. This treatise is also a decisive refutation of the modern day Jews of the ummah, the Murjiah of our time, who are better known and called as Salafis, whose callers insist that these Fatawas are not concerning our time and cannot be referred to at all to judge our situation. Evil indeed are the distortions they make, and most evil are their ultimate goal of total inaction and pacification of the Muslim youth, who are returning to Islam, by the grace of Allaah .

Direct Translation of Ibn Taymiyas Fatwa on the Tatars. Majmoo Al Fatawaa - Ibn Taymiyyah , Volume 28 , page 576. Question: What do the great Fuqahaa Scholars of this Ummah say, concerning these Tatars(Mongol Tatars), who emerged in the year 699H(Hijri). And they did what they became famous for, the killing of the Muslims, and taking captives from the women and children, and plundering anyone of the Muslims they could find. And they also disgraced the honor of the religion by humiliating the Muslims and damaging the mosques, especially Baytul Maqdis (al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem) and debased it by committing evil inside it. And they took from the wealth of the Muslims, and took from the treasure (baytul Maal) a huge amount, and they made prisoners from a very large number of Muslim men, and removed them from their homeland. And with all of these acts, they claim to cling on to the Shahada, and they claim that it is prohibited to fight against their fighters because of their claims to Islaam, and their following of the fundamentals of Islaam, and because of this, their extermination of the Muslims will be forgiven. So therefore, is it allowed to fight against them, or is it obligatory to fight against them? And whichever is the answer, from which perspective (proofs from the Quran and Sunnah) is the permissibility to

fight them? Or (what are the proofs) of the obligation (Waajib) to fight them?

Answer by Sheikhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (:)

All praise is to Allaah . Every group of people that completely stops complying with any law from the laws of the Shariah, which is apparent and agreed upon, whether it is from this group of people (tatars) or other than them ; then it is obligatory to fight them until they comply to all of the Shariah, even though they may utter the Shahaadataayn ( ) and comply with some of its laws, just as Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq(the truthful (( ) and the Sahaabah(companions) fought those who stopped giving Zakaah. And on this note, the scholars agreed upon this (Ijma) after the debate between Umar and Abu Bakr ( .) So the Sahaabah, all of them agreed upon fighting for the sake of Islaam, acting according to the Quraan and Sunnah . So it has been proven from the Messenger( ) from tens of different Hadith concerning the Khawaarij, he informed us that they were the worst of creation even though he said (concerning their worship): You (muslim Sahaabaa) will belittle your own Salaat after comparing with their Salaat, and your fasting compared to their fasting . So it became known that merely clinging on to Islaam without fully complying and obligating oneself with all of the Shariah, without this, it is not sufficient grounds to stop the fighting. For verily, the fighting is obligatory until the whole of religion is for Allaah alone and until there is no more fitnah. So whenever the religion is for other than the sake of Allaah , then fighting is obligatory. So any group of people that stops from some of the obligatory prayers(stops praying) or stops fasting or hajj or rejects the prohibition of blood(spilling muslim blood) or wealth(taking unlawfully) or drinking intoxicants, or the prohibition of adultery or gambling or prohibition of marrying the mahram(those whom one cannot marry), or rejects (complying to the command of Allaah in Surah Tawbah) with fighting against the disbelievers(jihad), or imposing Jizya upon the people of the book , from these and other obligations from the religion - for which there is no excuse in rejecting it and leaving it- and where the rejecter is the one who disbelieves in the obligations; verily the group that completely stops is fought against due to its

abandonment (of action) even though the group believes in the obligation. And concerning this, I do not know any difference of opinion amongst the Ulamaa. But indeed when they differed (Ulema), they differed about the group that abandons some of the sunnah, such as the two rakah sunnah before salaat-alfajr, and the azaan and iqaamat (with those people who do not agree to their obligation) and other things like these from the religion. Can one fight a group who abandons things like these, or can we not? As for the obligations and prohibitions mentioned (above), and things like these, there is no dispute concerning fighting to uphold these. And these people (tatars and other groups that abandons some of the Shariah); the researchers from the Ulamaa does not take them to the level of the rebels who rebel against an imam(ruler) or those that leave his obedience; such as the people of Shaam vis--vis Ali bin Abu Taalib( .) Verily, they (people of sham) were leaving the obedience of following a particular Ameer (leader), or rebelling against the Ameer to remove him from authority. But as for the mentioned group, then they are outside the fold of Islaam, in the same degree as those who stopped the Zakaah, and the same level as the Khawaarij whom Ali () fought against. And in this way; Ali ( ) differed in his way of fighting, concerning fighting against the people of Basraa and Shaam and the way he fought against the people of Nahrawaan. And his fighting against the people of Basraa and Shaam, was fighting of brothers against brothers . And with the Khawaarij, his fighting them was different . And the texts from the Messenger ( ) has been authenticated which also agrees with the Sahaabaas consensus(ijmaa) concerning the fighting of Siddeeq and the fighting against the khawaarij (i.e. as Abu Bakr fought the people who stopped the Zakaah and as Ali fought the khawaarij( ;)) which is different from the trials and tribulations the people of Shaam and Basraa fell into. Verily, the text (Hadeeth) proves that which has been proved, and the Sahaabaas and the Taabieen differed concerning these (the understanding). There are some Fuqahaa from the Imaams (Shaafiee, Maalikee, Hanafee, Awzaaee, Hanbali etc) who saw that the people of rebellion are those who rebel against the ruler, having with them an acceptable taweel (interpretation), not those who rebel to leave his authority. And other scholars say that both of the groups are also from the Bughaath (people of rebellion), and between the people of rebellion and the Tatars, there is indeed a manifest clear difference . As for those who do not accept or obligate themselves with the ways and Shariah of Islaam which is clear, apparent and

narrated from many sources (Mutawaatir), then I do not know any difference of opinion concerning the obligation of fighting them . So, if you agree with this principle, then these people whom the questions are being asked about (tatars), their military includes people from the disbelievers such as Christians and polytheists (mushriks), also there are people who claim to be muslims and these type of people are the majority of their army personnel - narrating the Shahaadatayn when it is required from them, and holding high esteem for the Prophet ( ,) and most of them pray only a little. And those who fast in Ramadaan are more than those who pray the regular salaats, and they consider the Muslim greater in status compared to others, and to the righteous and pious people from the muslims, they have respect for them. And they have some of the parts of Islaam, and among themselves they differ concerning their adherence. But those that which the people are generally upon; for which they are fought against, consists of leaving (or abandoning) many of the laws of the Shariah or most of it. For verily, they first of all, obligate themselves with Islaam, but do not fight those who leave it, yet those who fight for the sake of the Mongol nation, they elevate their status and leave them alone, even if he is a Kaafir enemy to Allaah and His Messenger ( .) And everyone that rebels against the state (nation of Mongols), they allow fighting against them even though the rebels are from the best of the Muslim people. And they (the mongol army) do not fight the Kuffar, and do not impose upon the Christians and Jews the Jizya and lowliness . And their military does not forbid its personnel from worshipping whatever they want, whether it is the sun or the moon or other than that, but nay what is apparent is that the status of the Muslims with them are the degree of a just person or a righteous pious person, or one who does a lot of voluntary deeds from Islaam, and the Kaafir, they consider him the same degree as a Faasiq from the Muslims or someone who leaves the voluntary deeds from Islaam And in the same way also, the general people of them, do not prohibit the blood and wealth of the Muslims, except when their sultan prohibits it, that is, they do not comply with leaving it alone (wealth and blood of the Muslims). And when they are ordered not to take the wealth and blood or other than that, they obey because of their sultan, not because of their religion. Their people in general do not obligate themselves on performing the obligatory, neither from the salaat nor from the zakaat, and not from the hajj and other than that. And they do not obligate

themselves to judge between them by the judgments of Allaah( the Shariah); but nay! They judge according to what has been placed for them, agreeing with Islaam sometimes, and disagreeing with Islaam other times . But indeed AsSheezbiroon is the one who showed adherence to Islamic Shariah outwardly, and he is the one who practiced from among Islamic Shariah what was common among the people. And as for these people, then they have entered it but they do not comply with its laws. And fighting against these types of people is obligatory by the ijmaa (consensus) of the Muslims and no one who knows the religion of Islaam and knows its reality, doubts this fact , for verily this peace which they are upon (between the Kuffaar apostates and Muslims) and the religion of Islaam, will never, ever be in conformity . And hence, if the kurds and the Bedouin Arabs and other than these people from the desert, who do not adhere to the Islaamic Shariah; if it is waajib to fight them, even if they do not pose a danger to the people in the cities; what about these people (that does pose a danger to everyone)? Yes, it is compulsory to adhere to the Islamic Sharee way when fighting, such as inviting them (calling to them) to comply with all of the Shariah if the call to it has not reached them, just as the disbelievers are called to Islaam, first of all (before fighting), if the Dawah has not reached them. So if it is agreed upon that whoever fights them will do so in the complete way ,then it is to fight them for the pleasing of Allaah , and making supreme His word, and establishing His religion, and in obedience to His messenger( ;) even if among them (mujahideen); there are those who are sinners; and those with bad intentions, such that they fight for the sake of leadership, or they transgress in some matters.And it was that the evil of not fighting against them is greater in danger to the religion; than fighting them in this context (with transgressors and sinners within the mujahideen); as this wajib was also fighting them to prevent the greater evil from the two evils, by complying with the lesser of the evil. And indeed, this is from the Usool (principles) of Islaam, that which it is necessary to review and understand. And in this regard it is from the fundamentals of the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaaah, to go on military expeditions with every pious, righteous person and with sinful transgressors (as well). And verily, Allah helps this religion with even the sinful man, and with nations who are oppressive, as informed by the Messenger ( .) That is because if there is no agreement in fighting alongside sinful

rulers, or under armies which consists mostly of sinful people, then verily it is one of the two matters: either refusing to fight alongside sinful rulers, and this necessitates that the other party will be victorious, who are a great danger and evil to the religion and the worldly affairs; or fighting alongside the sinful muslims, and thereby preventing the more evil people and establishing the Shariah of Islaam as much as possible; even if it is not established in a complete sense (such as Khilaafah Raashidah). And this is the obligation within this situation and every situation similar to this. But nay! Many of the military expeditions that were achieved after the four rightly guided khaleefahs did not take place except in this way. And it has been authenticated from the Messenger that he said: there will be goodness and blessings tied to the forelocks of horses (used in jihad) until the day of Judgment: reward and war booty (narrated in Bukhaari 2750, Muslim 1783). And so, this Saheeh Hadhith proves the meaning of the hadhith narrated by Abu Dawud in his Sunan; the Messenger said: Military expeditions will remain since the day Allaah sent me until the last of my Ummah fights the Dajjaal; it will not be annulled due to the tyranny of a tyrant, or the justice of a just ruler .And what has been detailed concerning the matter (is that), the Messenger said: there will not cease from my Ummah, the existence of a group upon the truth, they will not be harmed by those who oppose them; until the day of Judgment .And other texts such as these elaborating in the matter, which the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaaah are agreed upon, from all of the groups; to act upon this for fighting (jihad) against those who deserve to be fought, with the leaders who are righteous, and even sinful; contrary to the Rawaafidh and the Khawaarij (who do not believe in fighting with sinful rulers), (and they)who are out of the fold of AhlusSunnah wal-Jamaaah. This is the case; even with what has been informed by the Messenger : there will follow (come) leaders who are oppressive, treacherous, and sinful. So whoever concurs with them (to make it appear as the truth) with their lies; and helps them; then surely he is not from me and I am not from him, and he will not be returned to me at the hawdh . And whoever does not concur and justify their lies, and does not help them in their aggression, then surely he is from me, and I am for him, and he will be returned to me at the hawdh .So if a man comprehends what has been commanded by the Prophet - by making Jihaad which is established under leaders, which will continue until the day of Judgment, even with the Messenger

prohibiting the helping in tyranny, it is known that the correct middle path, which is the religion of Islaam, consists of fighting those who deserve to be fought, such as these people, whom the questions are being asked about, under every group of Muslims who are better in Islaam, than these people (tatars), if fighting them is not possible except in this way (under sinful Muslims). And refraining from helping the fighting group; it consists of disobedience to Allaah , but nay! Helping them (the fighting group) is from the obedience to Allaah , but there is no obedience to them in disobeying Allaah as there is no obedience at all to any creation in committing disobedience to the Creator (Allaah .) And this is the best path of the ummah, before our time and after. And it is an obligation upon everyone who is able to do so. And this path is the middle path between the Hurooriyyah and their likes, those who adhere and cling onto chaos and destruction due to lack of knowledge , and between the way of the murjiah and their likes who obey the rulers completely , even though the rulers are not righteous or just. And we ask that Allaah enables us and our brothers leading to what He loves and is pleased with, from the sayings and actions. And Allaah knows best. And may peace and blessings be upon our Messenger Muhammad ( ,) his family and his companions. -END OF TEXTConclusions from the Fatwa 1. The Mongol-Tatars are apostates even if they claim to be Muslims, even if they say the Shahadatayn, pray sometimes, fast sometimes and pay zakah. That is because they claim to believe in the book of Allah but completely stops adhering to and establishing some of its commandments. So they completely stopped, Jizya, jihad against Kuffar (except for the Mongol nation and its priorities), and they considered the Muslims as pious and good people while considering the people of the book as citizens of the mongol nation, deserving merit according to their allegiance to their code and way of life. They, also completely stopped judging according to the Shariah, but that was among them. As for the Muslim subjects, who were the original citizens of the towns and regions they conquered, they allowed them to rule according to the

Shariah and Quran and Sunnah.(So can you imagine what the ruling is concerning these people of today, who obligate all Muslims in their countries, to obey and rule by the laws they have set up, even if they contradict the Quran!).The Mongols were also called apostates due to this action of theirs , that they judged between themselves according to a book called Yaasiq. And concerning this issue, I will elaborate insha Allaah according to the words of Haafiz Ibn kathir from his famous Tafseer. 2. Their military consisted of Mushriks, christians, atheists and other religions. But, most of the people in their army, especially low ranking foot soldiers, were people claiming to be Muslims and those taken from conquered regions, who were claiming to be Muslims. Vast majority of them were Shia, but there were enough of them claiming to be Sunnis. Ibn taymiyyah Classified all of them along with the Mongol tatars as Apostates, and concerning the exceptions, he has elaborated it in another fatwa (saying there is no exceptions during fighting) which we will bring after this (part 2). 3. Ibn Taymiyyah categorically said these type of people, whether they are mongol tatars or not, they are not classified as rebellious Muslims, or sinful transgressing Muslims such as highway bandits and robbers. Rather, these types of people (named as the refraining group Taaifatul Mumtaniaa), they are apostates, who are asked to repent if they do so(if they repent they are left alone), and are killed if they do not. Their blood and wealth are lawful, once they have been asked to repent and they refuse. These people fall into the category of those who refused to pay Zakat to the righteous Khalifah , slave of Allaah , Abu Bakr (May Allah be pleased with him). 4. Ibn Taymiyyah categorically repeats that fighting against such people, those who completely stops any known commandment of Allaah , or any of the prohibitions of Allaah , then such people are fought against as an obligation of the religion of Islaam. Please note, that here, he is talking about two groups of people and they are: A. Those who reject or refuses an obligation. Such people will say, by way of example, I do not believe that prayer is waajib (obligatory) or Zakat is obligatory after the

death of the messenger, or wine other than wine of grapes, is allowed in Islam, or things such as these. B. The second category, that is the one which the Murjiah, both modern day Murjia and the past murjiah, are confused about, those who accept the obligations but refuse or rejects`completely to act upon it. They are those who say, I believe prayer is compulsory and waajib (obligatory) and Allaah has made it compulsory, but I dont want to pray, or will not pray. This is the Kufr of Inaad ( stubbornness) and also arrogance (Kibr).Just as Iblees knows and accepts there is only one Supreme Allaah , and pharaoh knew Moses (peace be upon him) was a messenger of Allaah , they did not accept it publicly and they refused to obey him after knowing the truth. This is not be confused with those who do not follow Islaam due to carelessness or following of whims and desires. Such people are only sinful Faasiq, but Muslims nevertheless. But these rejecters of action, they stop completely one or many obligations of Islaam by saying so, or by way of action or by passing a law which is contradictory to the Quran and Sunnah. When they are asked to repent, they do not do so, and they continue upon refusal. 5. Ibn Taymiyyah cites more than once that there is an Ijma (consensus) from the time of the Sahabaas up until his time that fighting against such people is wajib (obligatory). 6. Refraining from fighting against such people will lead to greater corruption than the consequences of fighting these people (except in rare and exceptional cases(. 7. Those who fight these apostates are Mujahideen and they should fight to raise the word of Allaah and establish his religion on this earth and to establish justice to seek his pleasure and mercy. 8. Refraining from fighting these apostates , due to the existence of sinful leaders within the Mujahideen or the sinful people within the Mujahideen, is contrary to the creed of Ahlusunnah, and it will lead to greater corruption of the earth if the apostates are left empowered.

9. Jihad will remain until the last of the righteous people fights the Dajjal. Jihad will not be stopped due to the righteousness of a just ruler, nor will it be stopped due to the tyranny of a tyrant, according to the hadith. And there will always be from the Islamic nation those who are upon righteousness and those who will make jihad for the sake of Allaah. 10. Those who make jihad against the apostates must be helped and this is from the obedience of Allah. Those who do not help them are sinful. 11. Fighting the apostates, even if they claim the Shahaadathayn, it is from the path of Ahlusunnah wal Jama , and it is only the Khawarij and Rawaafid Shia, who refuse to fight alongside sinful Muslims. And Ibn Taymiyaah says categorically, it is the Murjiah who leave the apostates and Kufaar, while obeying the rulers in all the matters even if the rulers are sinful.

FOOTNOTES Here is the first refutation for those who say that these fatwas are for the tatars only, for Ibn Taymiyah has clearly said on more than one occasion, in this fatwa and other fatawaas, that it is about every group of people, whether the Tatars or not. Ibid. So the principle, that those who leave any known laws of the Shariah, they are to be fought against, the obligation of fighting them (wujoob), is the majority consensus of the scholars as Ibn Taymiyyah has stated. Note: Here begins a very important point of discussion where the present day Murjiah has twisted the meaning of Ibn Taymiyahs Fatwa to justify, whatever they want to justify.Ibn Taymiyyah says in his fatwa about the taaifa mumtani () and the word imtina ( )is used by him.Imtinaa has several meanings and among them is, to stop completely .It can also mean rejection when used as Imtana n .( )So now, the murjiah say, Ibn Taymiyah here , means that those who rejects salaah, or fasting or anything known in islaam.They bring down the

discussion between a rejector and those who dont reject the obligation.But this is mere distortion on their part, because we know very clearly that whoever stops completely anything from the Shariah ,even without rejecting the obligation, he will become an apostate. This is clearly mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah and he says very clearly : And verily the sahaaba and the imams after them agreed upon fighting those who stopped the zakaat even though they prayed the five prayers and they fasted in the month of ramadaan. And concerning these people there is no acceptable doubt about them and for this they were apostates and they are fought against for their stopping of zakaat even if they accepted its obligation (even if they accepted that zakaat is Waajib) as Allaah has ordered (Majmootul fataawaa li Ibn Taymiyyah volume 28 page 586) Many present day countries have abandoned the imposing of Jizya, which is a tax levied upon the people of the book. Once the Jizya is given to those in authority, then, their blood and wealth becomes protected. Countries such as Algeria,Syria,Yemen,Egypt ,Morocco,Iraq etc. whose population also includes some of the people of the book , no such Jizya is taken from them, in fact, they are regarded as equal citizens , according to their respective laws. Please look at the words of Ibn Taymiyah very carefully where he has explained precisely about those who accept the obligation, but refuse to comply or act upon it. That is, no one made Takfeer of each other,but rather, it was in fighting between two believing muslim factions. The sahaaba considered the khawaarij outside the fold of Ahlussunnah, and Majority of them did not make takfeer of the khawaarij even though the khawaarij made takfeer of all of them. However, some Imaams do make takfeer of the khawaarij. Readers should notice this difference, as the entire focus of deriving the rule of apostasy begins from understanding this clear point. Ibn Taymiyya has quoted a consensus on this issue, of fighting against such

people. So can you imagine, Oh you who have been blessed with brains, and the faculty of thinking, how is it, we have come to the stage today, where such abandonments of Shariah is practiced day and night, while the proclaimed scholars issue fatwas, justifying such rulers, and labeling those who fight against them as Khawaarij. Think about this deeply, and you will begin to see that which has been hidden from you, while right in front of your eyes!!! . The Majority of the army of the Tatars included personnel who claimed to be Muslims, reciting the shahadatayn, praying, and fasting. Oh you who have the fortunate knowledge of guidance, do you not see the conditions!!! Oh you who have doubts about your National Armed forces and police!!! On what basis do they fight? And for whom? and why? How many scholars, students of knowledge, rejecters of the Apostate ruler and Mujahid have been imprisoned in your country, just for rejecting the falsehood of your nation and what it stands for??Were they not, the best of your people??? Did they not seek anything but the best for the national cause which is only achieved by obeying Allah and pleasing him alone???Did you not sleep, or ignore them, once their stories were gone from the current headlines? Are these prisoners, the wretched and forgotten of the nation, while you have a full life ahead of you?? What then, are the benefits for you from reading the Quran, especially about what happened to prophet Yusuf (?) Why do you read the Biographies of scholars such as Imam Abu Haneefa, Shafiee, Imam Ahmed ibn hanbal and even Ibn Taymiyyah ( ??) Was Ibn Taymiyyah( ) forgotten when he died in jail? Was Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal( ) wretched when he was tortured in prison?............... And if You call them to guidance, they hear not and You will see them looking at you, yet they see not. (7:198) Can you hear the American Fighter Jet flying over your head? It just refilled with fuel and bombs from an airbase in your home town or country, ready for another day of killing our people. Can you hear the U.S pilot saying to you down below, See you later Give my regards to the King!!.If you cant, then go back to sleep and it will

be more bearable for you when you hear that your sisters got raped!!! May you and your progeny be destroyed if you cannot hear their silent screams, and then the sounds of silence? Just like the current Constitutions and laws in most so called Muslim countries. These are the words of Ibn Taymiyyah , proclaiming no one who knows the religion, doubts the fact that these people should be fought against as an obligation. What are they then spewing out, from the official fatwa committees, the official state muftis and the so called inheritors of the Salafi way, in Saudi Arabia specifically? Yes, Saudi Talafy who is reading this chokes on these words. Ibn baz, and Uthaymeen and those who make taqleed of their way, they have a lot of explaining to do!!! Can you read that!!! Ibn Taymiyyah has explained a very important reality about the absolute truth (al-haqq) and that is IT WILL NEVER, EVER BE AT PEACE AND CONFORMITY WITH THE FALSEHOOD!!! When Sayyid Qutb () explained this fact of Islam,the true and only religion sent by the supreme Allaah , he was killed for it. And the Talafy sheikhs could not bear his speech, especially, when his words were given new life in our time, with his sacrificial blood, years and years after he was killed, up until this day. From the Sahih hadeeth narrated in Saheehul-Bukhaari 3063 and Sahih Muslim 111 So, where are those who claim the principle of the lesser of the two evils in situations such as these? Has not Ibn Taymiyyah categorically said, that in such cases, it is more important to fight against those who stop or change the Shariah than refraining from fighting against them because those who wish to engage in fighting the apostates are sinful, or they lack in their completeness of Iman? Yet, today, people quote other texts of Ibn Taymiyyah to justify stopping the commanding of good and forbidding of evil, saying if the outcome is more tribulations, then we have to refrain and be content with the lesser of the two evils. This is meant for those societies under the rule of Shariah and Islaam with muslim rulers. Evil indeed is what they distort and proclaim. What is the lesser of the two evils in this case? Is it the allowing of apostates to dominate Muslim lands and let them flourish while they attack those who reveal the truth? Or is it the civil wars, and the spilling of blood, which makes it difficult for them to rule as they wish, so they are forced to make

some concessions to the so called Islamic Daees, just to prevent fighting , and stop armed opposition? Those who say the spilling of unlawful blood is Haram and it is causing mischief on the earth, May we ponder and think whose blood is innocent and who is the one spilling it? Are these rulers, innocent? Are their soldiers protecting them innocent? Are their soldiers and government appointed scholars protecting and justifying these regimes, while distorting the rulings of Allaah , are they innocent? Allah Has categorically said that : The fitna is more sever(more hateful in front Allaah ) than the killings. Most mufassireen has said Fitna in this ayah means Al-Shirk Al Akbar, Al-Kufr Al-Akbar. So the spreading and empowering of shirk and clear cut disbelief is worse than the consequences of fighting against it, and this well known among the Ulema. So what are these villifiers of the mujahideen, mouthpieces of the regime, and self-proclaimed reformers of this Ummah talking about when they say Lessere of the two evils. Have you no sense? I say these words, to defend and justify the heroic operations of the Mujahideen in Algeria ,Libya ,Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia, while condemning those who vilify the mujahideen. They distort the true intentions of The Al-Qaeda organization in The Maghreb and Saudi Arabia, which is to weaken the apostates and the Americans they protect. And most of their targets have been soldiers and Government officials who are defenders of the apostate regimes. Yet they distort the news, and say they kill innocent Algerian Muslim brothers and sisters, to Allah we belong and to him we return. I also condemn the killing of innocent Muslims by unknown parties, organizations, and the security apparatus of the apostate nation, to distort the image of the jihad and mujahideen. I also warn My mujahideen brothers, to be careful of their operations , in their methods and ways, and to take utmost care to make sure that innocent Muslims are not killed. So if there is a lax in their part, they are responsible, but this does not invalidate their jihad , nor their obligations for the struggle, so let the munafiqeen take their excuses to refrain from fighting, just as they did during the time of our prohet , and just as the Quran has predicted their behavior. I also want to warn those who are care-less in making takfeer of Muslims, and it is not the duty of every normal Muslim to form armed groups or fighting movements, except under the leadership of true Ulema and those with understanding of religion and worldly affairs. And since their already exists an organization based on the Quran and Sunnah, under the leadership of proven truthful mujahideen and

scholars, my personal advice is to join them and be as one strong united body. Currently, I consider this organization is Al-Qaida (but Allah knows best), under the command of the lion of Islam, Usama bin laden (may Allah protect him), who has given his oath of allegiance to Ameer Mullah Mohammed Omar. The flag has been raised, the frontlines have been drawn, Oh Muslims, unite and fight for the sake of allah and his religion, let the apostates and the American Kafirs taste bitterness by your hands!!! ( Allah knows best) Daeef: Abu Dawud 3532 from the Hadith of Anas bin Malik . Haafiz Ibn Hajar says in Fath-al-Baaree 6/67: in its isnaad, there is weakness. Saheehul-Bukhaari 7311, Muslim 1921 and other narrators. Hawdh is a pool and fountain of water by which the messenger will wait for his nation, on judgement day. Saheeh Tirmithi 2259, Nasaai 5/230, from the Hadeeth of Kaab bin Ujra. Oh you who claim to follow the way of the Sahaabaa ( ,) what is your excuse for refraining to help the fighting mujahideen, when here is Imam Ibn Taymiyyah condemning those who do not help the mujahideen who fight the apostates? Another name for the Khawarij. Such as those people of today who are careless in making Takfeer, and call Muslim societies Kaafir, and call all those who work in apostate Governments Kaafir, and call all the scholars who do not support the Mujahideen as Kaafir. This is wrong, and we Muslims do not label anyone as Kaafir unless it proven that a statement of disbelief has been uttered or an action of disbelief in validating Islaam has been committed. Even then, the conditions of making takfeer must be exhausted before individually labeling a person an apostate. The only exception are the soldiers of the apostate army during war. And concerning this issue, it will be answered in the next fatwa of Ibn Taymiyya ( Majmooatul fatawa volume 28) insha Allaah. Here is Ibn Taymiyyah Himself labeling such people as Murjiah, those that

refuse to make takfeer of the individual apostates and refuse to fight the apostates, after believing in the principles of Ahlusunnah. Today, a lot of so called scholars specifically in Saudi Arabia fall into this category.