Benefits from the Qur’an

Bilad Al Sham Media
This is only written to explain and note down some important points about fighting the Bughat (transgressing group) and not intended to rule that on a certain particular group. Rather there is a difference between Ta’sil and Tanzil. Ta’sil is stating the actual ruling found in the Quran and the Sunnah whereas Tanzil is applying this ruling to a certain group which needs understanding of the reality in addition to the understanding of the Shariah and it is only the scholars who are deep rooted in knowledge who are allowed to do this and the general masses will follow them if it is in accordance with the Shariah. Similarly, I don’t intend by this text to rule upon a certain group and no one should likewise use this text to rule upon a certain group. Rather this text is only for explaining some rulings of the Shariah and refute some of the doubts which have been raised. In a few days, we may hear the fatawa of the scholars regarding this and only than shall we say anything.
Allah said:

وَإِن طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا ۖ فَإِن بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَىٰ فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّىٰ تَفِيءَ إِلَىٰ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ
“And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make peace between the two. But if one of them transgresses (BAGHAT) against the other, then fight against the one that transgresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah.”

1) Muslims may fight each other but this does not justify to call them disbelievers or sahawat or enemies of the Shariah just based on this fighting itself (mujarrad) as Allah called them believers in his statement: (trans.) “And if two factions among the BELIEVERS should fight”

2) Allah called them believers, hence those who make Takfir due to mere fighting (mujarrad), then they have made Takfir upon those whom Allah did not make Takfir and contradicted Ahlus-Sunnah and made Halal, the blood which Allah made Haram.

3) Those who do make Takfir may be innocent of making Takfir upon mujarrad fighting itself according to their claims as they misunderstood it thinking that the opposing groups are ordered by the disbelievers to fight them. So they make Takfir of this which is a kufr but this is no excuse as they made lazim which is not lazim and based their rulings on it and this is how the Khawarij were who made Takfir of Ali and Mu’awiya thinking that they both ruled by other than the Shariah. True that ruling by other than the Shariah is kufr but they took this ruling and placed it in a completely different situation and ruled on it. This is similar to those ones who made Takfir due to sheer fighting only thinking that the fighting is from orders from the disbelievers which is a kufr without doubt, but they did not differentiate between the two situations. Fighting the Muslims is one thing and fighting them due to orders from the disbelievers is another thing and one should not consider that one of them means the presence of the other. And such acts are like saying “He committed Zina and he would not have committed it had he believed in Allah’s punishment and this means he disbelieved in it, hence he is a disbeliever” This is Batil and wrong by the Ijma of the scholars. The benefit for this point from the above Ayat is that Allah labeled both fighting groups as believers and had fighting meant necessarily taking orders from the disbelievers, than Allah would not have labeled them as believers as the latter (second) one is kufr.

4) The obligation upon the people of reputation to make peace between the two fighting groups. The point in the Ayat is that Allah ordered to make peace between the groups and it is easier for the people of reputation than the people of unacceptable opinions and the ones whom Allah made it easy for the fulfilling of a Wajib, the Wajib is more Wajib upon him than the one whom it was made difficult for.

5) The two groups can send a Hakam (arbitrator) from each side in order to make peace and I don’t think anyone disagreed with this except the Khawarij as the companions did this and the ones who disagreed were the Khawarij. And this incident is a benefit against those who reject Qiyas as Ibn Abbas and others did Qiyas for this from the Ayat about the marital problems and the companions were upon this.

6) The ones who contributed to the fighting between the Muslims and applauded it have contradicted the ruling of Allah which says “make peace between them” and have landed themselves in the Haraam.

7) The Muslim groups may have done mistakes but if they repent and come back to peace, they will be dealt with the justice of the Shariah and their rights will be given to them.

8) The command to fight the group that refuses the peace initiatives or does not respond, turning away from them.

9) The group that transgresses are to be fought in order to safeguard the blood, honor and wealth of the Muslims and the security of the Muslim lands which is the taking of a lesser evil in order to repel an evil that which is greater.

10) A people who say Laa ilaaha illallah have their blood safeguarded and its Haram to spill it yet there are exceptions where they can be fought and this is a hukm shar’i which most of the Muslims are ignorant of. In the time of Abu Bakr, no one understood it except him until he debated and won over the others.

11) Here we understand that the defensive fighting is not restricted to the disbelievers. Rather it is against anyone who transgresses the life, honor and wealth. And as for the offensive fighting, it is restricted to the disbelievers. And what gives more strength to this is that the Ayat about the defensive fighting does not mention the word disbelievers, but ordered to fight those who fight you and the Ayat about the offensive fighting orders to fight the disbelievers and does not mention their oppression towards the believers. So the reason for fighting in the defensive fight is to ward off oppression whoever it is from, and the reason for fighting the offensive fight is to ward of the Shirk and Kufr of the disbelievers. And this is from the miracles of the Quran that the wording does not state such while the Muslims at that time did not fight each other and the only ones who fought them were the disbelievers. Yet the wording mentions to fight the ones who fight the Muslims lest someone restricts it to be against the disbelievers only.

12) The command to fight is a command to fight and turning away from fighting the transgressing group is not considered zuhd or keeping away from fitna as some brothers would think. Rather fighting the transgressing group who refuses the peace initiatives is a Hukm Shar’i, revealed in the Quran and we believe it to be the best and the most just of rulings as it is from Allah.

13) If two Muslim groups fight, it is better to avoid the fitna and stay back from the fighting as Allah commanded “make peace between them both”. But if one group refuses the peace initiatives, then the ruling of Allah is that they be fought until they return to peace and this is the way out of fitna in this case. And one should know that the ruling of Allah is the best and it is what has most Zuhd unlike what some brothers think that fighting is the ruling of Allah, but its better and Zuhd to avoid it. Rather what Allah commanded is the best and that is what is from Zuhd as this religion would not contradict.

14) So here we understand two different phases with two different rulings.
a) When two groups of Muslims fight, then stay away from the fitna
b) If one group refuses the peace initiatives, then the way to get rid of the fitna of this group is to fight them until they return to peace. And this is the most wise and just of rulings.

15) The command to fight is until they return to peace as in the Ayat: “until it returns to the ordinance of Allah” So whoever from them drops his arms and turns himself in or runs away is not to be chased and killed. Rather they will be dealt with the Shariah and have the right to defend themselves infront of it. This is as Allah commanded to fight them until they return to peace and did not order to go beyond that.

16) The command to fight here in the Ayat is in order to repel the evil and fitna of this group, hence fighting should be as such. It should not exceed this and go on seeking their wealth as Ghanima or their women and children as slaves.

17) Allah labeled this group as Bughat who transgress after the peace initiative. (Faqaatilu llati TABGHI)

18) They carried this Hukm of being Bughat as a group. The sincere ones who were mistaken will be raised according to their intentions as is known in Hadith.

19) That the Bughat are different to the Muharibin mentioned in another Ayat as both groups are to be punished differently with the Muharibin getting a stricter punishment. The difference between the two groups is that the Bughat have a Ta’weel by which they justify their actions and this shows that a Ta’weel by which these people fight and shed the blood of the Muslims is not a justification of not fighting them due to the presence of this Ta’weel. This is as the lesser evil of fighting against this group is picked inorder to repel the greater evil that which they spread on Earth.


Hadith On Prohibition of Extremism

The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam warned against extremism “beware of extremism in religion as it is what destroyed those before you” and the reason for this warning is destruction for the ummah.

So likewise we follow his footsepts and warn against extremism in religion and this is something praiseworthy and not to be considered betrayal as this is how the ummah can avoid destruction.

From the imprisoned Shaykh ( may Allah free him)

One of the poem by
shiekh Anwar Al-Awlaki

“For the Pleasure of My Lord, The Prisons come Perfumed

Dear Brother, who dwells in these prisons To you I write with distresses,
If to Allah you hold fast Then what harm will a misfortune of time do to you?

Beware dear Brother, of making your corrupting your thoughts Regarding the Promise of the Deity, Mighty and Strong,

Verily, He has promised the Believers with Salvation As He saved Yunus from the dark depths of the belly of the Fish,

Dear Brother, before you, passed the ancient ones These prisons are but like those prisons,

Did not Yusuf dwelled in them for a phase And Musa, the tyrants threatened him with it,

And such was the Messenger of the Generous Deity To imprison him, the pagans plotted,

So my Lord saved him through his Hijrah In the company of that trustworthy friend,

And in their footsteps, the Believers traversed Like Ahmad, that firm Imam,
And likewise Ibn Taymiyyah was blessed with it In the fortress of Sham, as a prisoner he dwelled,

Hundreds of thousands of the True Faithful Dwelled for a time in these prisons,

Be not weak, dear Brother, nor lose hope When your time comes, nor submit,

Strengthen yourself by remembering the Deity, Most Supreme And hasten in memorizing the Manifest Book,

That is for your heart a secure stronghold And this is for your spirit an assisting provision,

These are hardships, soon they will all cease And remaining from it will be various fruits and benefits,

So if they intimidate you, and they threaten you Never weaken, or soften to them,

And even if they insult you, and they torture you And if they beat you, submit not,

You are not the first to be tortured For a Mighty Religion and a Manifest Legislation,

Nor are you alone on this Path For there are countless caravans throughout the years,

And if an ‘Eid passes by, and a son is born And months rotate, while you are imprisoned,

Do not grieve O Brother of the Righteous Ones Of departing from family and losing children,

And if they forbid you from their visits And likewise their letters never appear,
So if this is for a Lord and Religion Then where is the patience, where is the certainty!?

And where are your past speeches Regarding the (weight of the) Millah of that Trustworthy Messenger?!
That Intimate Friend went willingly To slaughter his son, a clear trial,
On a magnificent, noble day like today Without any anxiety, he put him down upon his forehead,
So my Lord saved him through His Good Will And ransomed him with a fat sheep,

But you, your sons are in a carefree life And diversion and amusement, and a secured home,
Yet you have not been asked to slaughter them Rather, merely for patience of a temporary separation,
For verily, they are in the care of a Merciful Lord And you are in solitude with Him and Faith,
For the Pleasure of a Lord and assisting a Religion Life and all children become insignificant,
For the Pleasure of a Lord, Mighty and Generous The prisons come perfumed, and the bitter come sweet…

Written by Shaykh Abū Muhammad Al-Maqdisī
General Intelligence Prison Facility, Jordan – Cell No. 63
‘Eid Al-Adh’hā 1414 H
(May Allāh hasten his release)

Bay’ah of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to Shaykh Ayman Az-Zawahiri (HA)

An extremely important read. I took it from a page but cant be shared from it. :

Every single detail in this may not necessarily be accurate, but the Bayah of Dawlat (ISIS) to Zawahiri was clear and I dont think we have seen ISIS deny that.


Ibn Nabih from Islamic Awakening :

The issue of the oath of allegiance (bay’ah) between Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (ISIS) and Ayman az-Zawahiri

There are some people that are saying that al-Baghdadi (and ISIS) did not have bay’ah to al-Qa’idah/az-Zawahiri, and thus weren’t obligated to listen to what AQ had to say with regards to the situation in ash-Shaam. And that al-Joulani (leader of Jabhat an-Nusrah) betrayed the bay’ah he had to al-Baghdadi when he didn’t join ISIS.

This is incorrect due to various reasons:

1) When Dr Ayman az-Zawahiri released his statement back in November announcing that ISIS should be abolished and that al-Baghdadi should go back to Iraq, and that al-Joulani should stay in ash-Sham. This statement came with the words saying: “The shura’ council of al-Qa’idah has decided ‘X, Y, Z’ with regards to X group”. “The council will decide if al-Baghdadi stays as an Amir or if someone else should be appointed”. “This is a judgment (Hukm) regarding this case”
(The audio clip can be found here: الشيخ أيمن الظواهري يعلن إلغاء الدولة الإسلامية في العراق و الشام 08-11-2013 – YouTube )

Question: Is this words of someone that isn’t the leader/amir of them? Or are these clear cut orders from a amir towards those under his command?

2) The official statement from al-Qaa’idah stating that ISIS has no relations to them.

A lot of people try to say with this statement: “Look, this is clear evidence that ISIS doesn’t have bay’ah to AQ!”. But what these ignorant people doesn’t seem to realize, the statement stated clearly that AQ issued orders (Amr) to ISIS to be abolished, but that they did not obey their orders!

Quote from the statement:
أولاً: تعلن جماعة قاعدة الجهاد أنها لا صلة لها بجماعة (الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام)، فلم تخطر بإنشائها، ولم تستأمر فيها ولم تستشر، ولم ترضها، بل أمرت بوقف العمل بها، ولذا فهي ليست فرعًا من جماعة قاعدة الجهاد، ولا تربطها بها علاقة تنظيمية، وليست الجماعة مسؤولة عن تصرفاتها.

Firstly: Jama’at Qaa’idat al-Jihad announces that it does not have any contact with the group “islamic state in iraq and shaam”, for we were not informed of it’s creation, nor were they ordered to do this, nor were we counseled with regards to this, nor were we pleased it it, rather we ORDERED for it to stop its work, and thus – they are not a branch of al-Qa’idat al-Jihad group, and there are no organizational relationship with it, and al-Qa’idah are not responsible for their actions.
Arabic copy of the statement: summary of it: Do AQ suddenly give out orders to other groups that doesn’t have anything to do with them, or do they issue out orders to it’s branches?

3) The shar’i judge of Jabhat an-Nusrah, Turky al-Ash’ari (who recently performed a self-sacrificial attack and many ISIS people still praise and respect) said answering a question:

Question: as-Salaamu ‘Alaykum Shaykh, how do I answer those that say that Shaykh Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did not give bay’ah to Shaykh Ayman az-Zawahiri. I don’t have any evidence for this, if you have any then please share with us, I love you for the sake of Allah…

Answer: wa ‘Alaykum as-Salaam, say to them: Turky al-Ash’ari says that Abu ‘Ali al-Hamawi stated to me that Abu ‘Ali al-Anbari said to him that we are Tandhim al-Qaa’idah and we have a bay’ah towards Ayman az-Zawhiri. Also he say, that Abu Sulaymaan al-Astraliy said that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi said that Ayman as-Zawahiri is my Amir/leader. Also ‘Uthmaan Al-Naazih affirmed this to me. Also, all of the mujahidin that came to Syria from Khurasaan told me that al-Baghdadi is under the command of Ayman az-Zawahiri.
(Source: )

4) The general shar’i leader of Jabhat an-Nusrah, Abu Maariya al-Qahtaani, confirmed that he has personally heard al-Baghdadi stating while saying wallahi, that he has a bay’ah to az-Zawahiri.
And this was in a sitting were al-Joulani was present and most of the members of ISISs council/shura, and that al-Baghdadi wouldn’t make any decisions without first consulting his leaders in Khurasaaan. And Abu Maariya stated that he is willing to make mubahalah in regards to this.
(Source: )

If someone wants to say: “Well this is only what people outside of ISIS states, there’s no proof that the leaders within ISIS has confirmed this!”
Then we say:

5) The general shar’i leader Abu Bakr Umar al-Qahtaaani of ISIS also admitted, that al-Baghdadi has a bay’ah to az-Zawahiri in a leaked recording.

Here he says that every mujahid within Jabhat an-Nusrah is obliged to give bay’ah to ISIS, and that he personally heard from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, that he swears by Allah, that everyone that gives bay’ah to ISIS and then Shaykh Ayman az-Zawahiri decides other wise, then their bay’ah is dissolved (i.e. the decision would rest with az-Zawahiri [this was before he released his statement abolishing ISIS])
(Source: )

He also states that everyone has to follow what az-Zawahiri ordered, and whoever doesn’t listen to him is a sinner/ ‘aasi.
(source: )

6) Abu Anas al-‘Iraqi, the previous shar’i leader with ISIS in Aleppo, also confirmed in a leaked conversation with Abu Maariya al-Qahtaani al-Juboori (shar’i leader with JN), that ISIS is under the command of Ayman az-Zawahiri and the decision lies with him if ISIS should be abolished or not.

(Source: )

So here we have 2 main leaders with ISIS confirming that al-Baghdadi and ISIS were under the command of AQ/az-Zawahiri, but as we learned later, they refused to obey orders and thus AQ denounced them.

A argument that usually comes up then is:
“Well, there is clear cut audio and video tapes from Abu Hamza al-Muhajir (leader of AQ in Iraq) and az-Zawahiri himself, saying that the islamic state in iraq is independent from them, and this is clear cut proof that there isn’t any bay’ah!”
The answer to this is:
Yes, that was the case before, but after the killing of Abu Hamza and Abu Umar al-Baghdadi (previous leader of the islamic state of iraq), then Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (current leader of ISIS) decided to give bay’ah to al-Qaa’idah once again.

And Allah knows best.
More options

Al Qaeda’s chief representative in Syria reportedly killed

Al Qaeda’s chief representative in Syria reportedly killed
By Thomas JoscelynFebruary 23, 2014

Abu Khalid al Suri, whose real name is Mohamed Bahaiah, has been reportedly killed in a suicide attack in Aleppo. Al Suri’s death has been confirmed on several Twitter feeds managed by Ahrar al Sham and the Islamic Front.

Al Suri, a longtime al Qaeda operative, was a founding member of Ahrar al Sham and a senior leader in the organization at the time of his death. Ahrar al Sham is arguably the most powerful rebel organization within the Islamic Front, a coalition of rebel groups that was formed late last year.

Hassan Abboud, a top official in Ahrar al Sham and the Islamic Front, confirmed al Suri’s “martyrdom” in a Tweet early this morning. The official Twitter feeds for the Islamic Front and Ahrar al Sham say that al Suri was killed along with his “comrades” in a suicide attack at one the Front’s headquarters in Aleppo. And a hashtag commemorating al Suri’s death is already being used on jihadist Twitter pages.

As of this writing, there has been no official claim of responsibility for al Suri’s death. Some reports on social media implicate the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS), which was recently disowned by al Qaeda’s general command, as the group responsible for the attack.

Al Suri was a key figure in the dispute between ISIS and other jihadist groups inside Syria, including Ahrar al Sham and the Al Nusrah Front, which is an official branch of al Qaeda.

In a May 2013 letter, al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri named al Suri as his intermediary in a leadership disagreement between ISIS and the Al Nusrah Front. The dispute became public the previous month when ISIS emir Abu Bakr al Baghdadi attempted to subsume control of the Al Nusrah Front. Abu Muhammad al Julani, the emir of Al Nusrah, rejected al Baghdadi’s order and directly reaffirmed his allegiance to Zawahiri instead.

Al Suri’s mediation efforts failed and the dispute between the groups grew more vehement in the months that followed as Ahrar al Sham, Al Nusrah, and other jihadists rejected ISIS’ power grab.

One last attempt at mediation in January, spearheaded by a popular pro-al Qaeda Saudi cleric named Abdallah Muhammad al Muhaysini, failed after ISIS rejected the initiative. All of the other major rebel groups, including Ahrar al Sham and the Al Nusrah Front, endorsed Muhaysini’s proposal, which was released just hours after a similar appeal by Zawahiri. [See LWJ report, Saudi cleric’s reconciliation initiative for jihadists draws wide support, then a rejection.]

Al Qaeda’s general command, or senior leadership, officially disowned ISIS after it rejected Muhaysini’s proposal. The decision was apparently prepared beforehand in the event that ISIS failed to accept the reconciliation initiative.

The Long War Journal reported on Dec. 17, 2013 that al Suri was a senior leader in Ahrar al Sham in addition to being Zawahiri’s main representative in Syria. US intelligence officials told The Long War Journal that al Suri’s placement within Ahrar al Sham, alongside other senior al Qaeda operatives in the group, revealed that al Qaeda has influence in organizations that are not officially recognized as affiliates or branches of the group.

Al Suri’s al Qaeda role was long known in counterterrorism circles. The Spanish government accused him of serving as Osama bin Laden’s chief courier in Europe prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Spanish officials found that he carried surveillance tapes of the World Trade Center and other American landmarks from the operative who made the videos to al Qaeda’s senior leadership in Afghanistan. [See LWJ report, Syrian rebel leader was bin Laden’s courier, now Zawahiri’s representative.]

Shortly after The Long War Journal reported on al Suri’s dual-hatted role in Ahrar al Sham and al Qaeda in December 2013, the US Treasury Department described al Suri as “al Qaeda’s representative in Syria.” Treasury revealed that an al Qaeda supporter in Qatar had transferred nearly “$600,000 to al Qaeda via” al Suri in 2013 and was preparing to transfer an additional $50,000.

Abu Khaled al Suri’s death, therefore, is a major development in the history of the Syrian war and al Qaeda’s role in it. However, al Qaeda retains the loyalty of numerous other senior jihadists on the Syrian battlefield.