Shaykh Faris Al-Zahrani فك الله أسره 

قال الشيخ فارس الزهراني حفظه الله وفك أسره: تأملت التاريخ الإسلامي فوجدتُ أن الذي يرفعُ القلمَ دونَ سيفٍ يذِلّ، والذي يرفعُ السيفَ دونَ قلمٍ يضلّ ويزلّ، ومن يرفعهما معاً فإلى مبتغاه يهتدي ويصل , ورحم الله شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية إذ قال: لا يقوم الدين إلا بكتابٍ يهدي وسيفٍ ينصر وكفى بربك هادياً ونصيراً.Sheikh Faris Al Z’zahrani may Allah protect him and hasten his release said: i observed Islamic history, and found that those who raise the pen without the sword shall be humiliated, and those who raise the sword without the pen shall go astray and stumble down, and those who raise them both along each other shall be guided to what they sought after. may Allah have mercy on Sheikh Al Islam ibn Taymiyyah when he said: the religion won’t rise except through a book that guides and a sword that supports, ‘But sufficient is your Lord as a guide and a helper.’

[A Debate Between the Sword and the Pen, مناظرة بين السيف والقلم]

A Response To The Statement Of Jund Al-Aqsa

A global translation of:

Quick points about the statement of Jund Al-Aqsa

By the jurist of Ahraar Shaam: Abu Muhammad Al-Sadiq
Their statement is filled with contradictions; first they call to unity and after that they announce their withdrawal and split from JF. Their statement is weak and proofs that they lack insight about the actual reality, and proofs that are weak in politics in general and Sharia politics in specific. And it is filled with clear fabrications.    
They do not have a legitimate Sharia excuse to leave the defensive Jihad with JF against the attacking enemies, let alone their conditions which they have set if they would stay and fight a defensive war with JF against the attacking enemies. The Prophet (saws) said “Every condition set which is not in the book of Allah is false even if it were a hundred conditions.” And the scholars have stated that the defensive Jihad against the attacking enemies has no set conditions.   
Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) said: “..The the attacking and occupying enemy who is spoiling the religion and the world; there is nothing more compulsory after faith (imaan) than repelling him. No conditions are set for it..” So where did they come up with these false conditions? And if these conditions are not met, is it then possible for the people of knowledge to say that is not permissible for them to wage Jihad with the rest of the Mujahideen in their defensive Jihad against the attacking enemy?
They claim that there are factions who signed the statement of de Mistura, and this is an outright lie which never happened. On the contrary! All the factions signed a rejection on de Mistura’s proposal.  
They also strangely claim that AS pressured them to fight against the Khawarij, while they were asked to publish a statement which explains their unclear position about the Khawarij, like all the other factions on the field did about their position concerning them. Is it not our right to ask those who live amongst us about their position concerning those who make Takfir on the Muslims and legalizes the blood of the Mujahideen; and about those who fight them and the rule about those killed amongst them and amongst us; and the rule about the car bombs which they detonate amongst the Muslims; and the rule about those who after all this still say that they are our brothers and announces their support for them and embraces their men and security personal, knowingly or unknowingly?  
On the other hand, the battle for Hamaa requires a face to face confrontation with the Khawarij in a certain stage, so it is the right of the military to set the condition of fighting the Khawarij among the participants, because it is not correct militarily to leave the back of JF exposed to the Khawarij, and JA stood in the spotlight because they set the condition of not fighting the Khawarij. 
Thinking about it, their condemnation (of them being pressured to fight against ISIS) shows that they are committing a sin, because it is a sin for them to leave the fight against the Khawarij of ISIS, the fight against the Khawarij is obligatory by the Quran, the Sunnah and the consensus of the scholars. Furthermore the fight against them should be started first like Ibn Taymiyah and others have stated. Let alone when they have attacked the religion, the people, the earth, the honor, and the wealth. Let alone if their treachery (cooperations with the regime) has reached its peak, intentionally or unintentionally, the Mujahideen do not start a front expect that they (ISIS) stab them in the back.     
Those who consider the fight against the Khawarij is only a defensive fight are incorrect in the first place, and after much effort and disorder they declared that they are defending the Muslims against their attacks, but where are their soldiers to defend against the attacks of the Khawarij in N-Aleppo and other regions? And how many battles did they fight to defend the Muslims against the attacks of the Khawarij? Or is the blood of Muslims cheap in these instances and is defending them not an obligatory duty?  
The Prophet (saws) warned for suspicion, so who are the factions (in JF) that aid projects that oppose the Sharia? And what is this project? Or did they not read the charter of Ahraar Shaam and the charter of Jabha Al-Islamiyah? Did they not read my article “The shattered idol” in which I showed the corruption of democracy? Or do projects not become Islamic expect if we keep shouting the slogan “We want the rule of the Sharia!” day and night? Do they not read the principles of the Sharia which states that the clearcut phrases overrules unclear phrases, especially in the case of Sharia politics, which narrow minded people often understand as defeatism. Was erasing the title “The Most Merciful” and “The messenger of Allah” from the truce of Al-Hudaybiyah, a letter of agreement or a defeatist attitude? By Allah our beloved Prophet is far from this. And was the reconciliation of the Prophet with the polytheists by giving up a third of the fruits of Madinah a position of defeatism? Why do they not consider the position towards the Turkish intervention a jurisprudential issue in which a difference of opinion is allowed, or do they see every choice of a group as the religion and other opinions as deviance and defeatism?     
All the factions of the revolution announced that they consider Russia the same as Iran, occupiers and that their graveyard is in Syria, Allah willing. And the same goes for everyone who dares to attack our country and Muslim people, so why do they ask us to name specific countries? Why does Jund Al-Aqsa not set as a condition a deceleration of war against France or Great Britain or Switzerland or South Africa and Mozambique?
Since the founding of JF the participating factions including Jund Al-Aqsa accepted the judicial committee, or did Shaykh Al-Muhaysini and his brothers suddenly become unfit, and why did they not turn to them in this disagreement of theirs. Allah said: “And whenever they are summoned unto Allah and His messenger in order to judge between them, some of them turn away; but if the truth happens to be to their liking, they are quite willing to accept it!” (24:48,49)
Finally we call Jund Al-Aqsa to turn to trustworthy scholars for advise, they should ask them for advise about letting the Muslims down and not supporting them by their withdrawal from JF, and their wrong position in their dealings towards the Khawarij, before the order of Allah comes over them, they are not hurting JF by their withdrawal with the permission of Allah, but they are hurting themselves while do not realize it. 
And all praises are due to Allah the Lord of the worlds.
Abu Muhammad Al-Sadiq
 
Translation by: DMIS
https://twitter.com/DMIS_1U
telegram.me/Maqalaat

Two Sides Of A Coin 

Two Sides Of A Coin‏الطغاة بخبثهم يفتتحون مساجد
ليكسبوا الأمة
ويفتنوها عن دينها

The thugaat (tyrants) with their wickedness open mosques to attract the ummah and to cause turbulance in the religion

والغلاة بغبائهم يفجرون مساجد
لينفرواالأمة
ويفتنوها عن دينها 

Whereas the ghulaat (extremists) with their stupidity blow up the mosques to repel the ummah and cause turbulance in the religion.