A Faithful Muslim Who Proved That He Wasn’t Treacherous - By Sam Shamoun

8/6/2019 A Faithful Muslim Who Proved That He Wasn’t Treacherous - By Sam Shamoun

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-faithful-muslim-who-proved-that-he-wasnt-treacherous-by-sam-shamoun 1/25

A Faithful Muslim Who Proved That He Wasn’t Treacherous

A Look At Nidal Malik Hasan's Actions In Light Of Islamic Teachings Pt. 1

Sam Shamoun

The recent Fort Hood massacre has gotten the attention of the media (and rightly so). It has

once again brought to the forefront the issue of whether the actions of Muslims such as Major

Nidal Malik Hasan‘s are motivated by the teachings of Islam or are such atrocities at odds

with what Islam says concerning the treatment of non-Muslims.

Hasan himself thought that his actions were justified by the teachings of Islam and even gave

a presentation to senior Army doctors on June 2007 where he demonstrated that Muslims

were expressly forbidden from helping and befriending non-Muslims (*; *). In his

presentation Nidal Hasan mentioned the problems the military could encounter from Muslims

conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries. As his own slides show Hasan also

believed and was convinced that Muslims were commanded to attack and subjugate the non-

Muslims if and when they had the ability to do so.

There were Muslims who actually praised what Nidal Malik Hasan did and even encouraged

other fellow believers to carry out similar attacks against the infidel armies who plan on

―invading‖ Muslim lands in order to spread their ―mischief ‖:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/11/fort-hood-massacre.html

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/11/revolution-muslim-street-dawah.html

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/11/revolution-muslim-yousef-al-khattab-

and.html http://www.answeringmuslims.com/search/label/Fort%20Hood%20Massacre

However, not all Muslims shared these sentiments. Certain Muslim ―scholars‖ anddawagandists claim that Nidal Hasan violated the teachings of Islam by breaking the

covenant that he made with the ―infidels‖. These propagandists argue that Islam condemnsthe violation of oaths and commands Muslims to honor their treaties and contracts (*; *).(1)

In this article we are going to examine the teachings of Islam to see whether the actions of

Major Hasan were in direct violation of what the Quran and Muhammad taught, or do the so-

called authentic Islamic sources condone such murderous and treacherous acts.

The Islamic Prohibition on Befriending and Aiding Non-Muslims

In the first place, Major Hasan wasn‘t supposed to be in the army of the ―infidel‖ since aidingand bef riending the disbelievers,‖ especially Jews and Christians, is a direct violation of theQuran:

O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends (auliya). They are friends

(auliya) one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo!

Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. S. 5:51 Pickthall

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/contact.html


http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/11/major-nidal-malik-hasans-powerpoint.html



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html






http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/11/revolution-muslim-yousef-al-khattab-and.html



http://www.answeringmuslims.com/search/label/Fort%20Hood%20Massacre


http://muslimmatters.org/2009/11/15/responding-to-the-fort-hood-tragedy-imam-zaid-shakir/



http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/don_t_be_treacherous__a_look_at_nidal_malik_hasan_s_actions_in_light_of_islamic_teachings















Muhammad is reported to have told the Muslims that they should only associate with fellow

believers and warned that a man eventually ends up following the religion of his friend:

Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri:

The Prophet said: Associate only with a believer, and let only a God-fearing man eat yourmeals. (Sunan Abu Dawud , Book 41, Number 4814)

Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet said: A man follows the religion of his friend; so each one should consider

whom he makes his friend. (Sunan Abu Dawud , Book 41, Number 4815)

According to the Quran the only time a Muslim can befriend a disbeliever is if s/he lives in a

situation in which the unbelievers outnumber them and/or the Muslims do not have the ability

to subjugate them:

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso

doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves

against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself.

Unto Allah is the journeying. S. 3:28 Pickthall

Here is how noted Muslim scholar and expositor Ibn Kathir explained this passage:

The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers

Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or totake them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers. Allah

warned against such behavior when He said…

(And whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way) meaning, whoever

commits this act that Allah has prohibited, then Allah will discard him. Similarly, Allah

said…

(O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection

towards them), until…

(And whosoever of you does that, then indeed he has gone astray from the straight path.) [60:1]. Allah said…

(O you who believe! Take not for friends disbelievers instead of believers. Do you wish to

offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves) [4:144], and…

(O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of

each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them.) [5:51].

Allah said, after mentioning the fact that the faithful believers gave their support to the

faithful believers among the Muhajirin, Ansar and Bedouins…

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/abudawud/041.sat.html#041.4814










(And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you do not behave the same,

there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great mischief and corruption.)

[8:73].

Allah said next…

(unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some

areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are

allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers OUTWARDLY, but never inwardly. For

instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people

ALTHOUGH OUR HEARTS CURSE THEM.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The

TUQYAH is allowed until the Day of Resurrection... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; underline and

capital emphasis ours)

Ibn Kathir wasn‘t alone here, nor is his interpretation simply an outdated medieval position.Here is what the Salafi scholars at www.islamqa.com say:

In the Quraan, it says that we can not take the Kuffaar as awliyaa, but what does that mean? I

mean, to what degree? Can we do business with them still? If I'm at school, can we play

basketball with them? Can we talk to them about basketball and stuff? Can we hang out with

them as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves? The reason I ask is because someone I

know does hang out with them in this way and it doesn't affect his beliefs, but I still tell him,

"Why don't you hang out with the muslims instead?" He says that most or many of the

Muslims drink and take drugs where they hang out and they have girlfriends and he's afraid

that the sins of the Muslims will lure him, yet he's sure that the Kufr of the Kaafirs will not

lure him because that's something that isn't attractive to him. So is hanging out with them,

playing sports with them, and talking with them about sports considered as "taking them as

awliyaa instead of the believers" keeping in mind that he is doing that for his own eemaan?

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

Allaah has forbidden the believers to take the kaafireen (disbelievers) as friends, and He has

issued a stern warning against doing that.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

―O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa‘ (friends, protectors,helpers), they are but Awliyaa‘ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (asAwliyaa‘), then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allaah guides not those people who are theZaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)‖

[al-Maa‘idah 5:51]

Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

In this verse Allaah tells us that whoever takes the Jews and Christians as friends is one of

them because of his taking them as friends. Elsewhere Allaah states that taking them asfriends incurs the wrath of Allaah and His eternal punishment, and that if the one who takes

http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8052



http://www.islamqa.com/







them as friends was a true believer he would not have taken them as friends. Allaah says

(interpretation of the meaning):

―You see many of them taking the disbelievers as their Awliyaa‘ (protectors a nd helpers).

Evil indeed is that which their ownselves have sent forward before them; for that (reason)

Allaah‘s Wrath fell upon them, and in torment they will abide.

81. And had they believed in Allaah, and in the Prophet (Muhammad) and in what has been

revealed to him, never would they have taken them (the disbelievers) as Awliyaa‘ (protectorsand helpers); but many of them are the Faasiqoon (rebellious, disobedient to Allaah)‖

[al-Maa‘idah 5:80-81]

Elsewhere Allaah forbids taking them as friends and explains the reason for that, as He says


―O you who believe! Take not as friends the people who incurred the Wrath of Allaah (i.e.the Jews). Surely, they have despaired of (receiving any good in) the Hereafter, just as the

disbelievers have despaired of those (buried) in graves (that they will not be resurrected on

the Day of Resurrection)‖

[al-Mumtahanah 60:13]

In another verse Allaah explains that this is so long as they are not taken as friends because of

fear or taqiyah (i.e., being friendly with them in order to avoid harm); if that is the case then

the one who does that is excused. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

―Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Awliyaa‘ (supporters, helpers) instead of thebelievers, and whoever does that, will never be helped by Allaah in any way, except if you

indeed fear a danger from them‖

[Aal ‗Imraan 3:28]

This verse explains all the verses quoted above which forbid taking the kaafirs as friends in

general terms. What that refers to is in cases where one has a choice, but in cases of fear and

TAQIYAH it is permissible to make friends with them, as much as is essential to protect

oneself against their evil. That is subject to the condition that one's faith should not be

affected by that friendship and the one who is behaves in that manner out of necessity is notone who behaves in that manner out of choice.

It may be understood from the apparent meaning of these verses that the one who deliberately

takes the kuffaar as friends by choice and because he likes them, is one of them. End quote.

Adwa‘ al-Bayaan, 2/98,99

One of the forms of making friends with the kaafirs which is forbidden is taking them as

friends and companions, mixing with them and eating and playing with them.

In the answer to question no. 10342 we have quoted Shaykh Ibn Baaz as saying:

http://islamqa.com/en/ref/10342





Eating with a kaafir is not haraam if it is necessary to do so, or if that serves some shar‘iinterest. But they should not be taken as friends, so you should not eat with them for no shar‘ireason or for no shar‘i purpose. You should not sit and chat with them and laugh with them.

But if there is a reason to do so, such as eating with a guest, or to invite them to Islam or to

guide them to the truth, or for some other shar‘i reason, then it is OK.

The fact that the food of the People of the Book is halaal for us does not mean that we may

take them as friends and companions. It does not mean that we may eat and drink with them

for no reason and for no shar‘i purpose.

Shaykh Muhammad al-Saalih al-'Uthaymeen was asked about the ruling on mixing with the

kuffaar and treating them kindly hoping that they will become Muslim. He replied:

Undoubtedly the Muslim is obliged to HATE the enemies of Allaah and to disavow them,

because this is the way of the Messengers and their followers. Allaah says (interpretation of

the meaning):

―Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those withhim, when they said to their people: ‗Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worshipbesides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and

hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone‘‖


―You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day,making friendship with those who oppose Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), even

though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred (people). For

such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with Rooh (proofs, light and

true guidance) from Himself‖

[al-Mujaadilah 58:22]

Based on this, it is not permissible for a Muslim to feel any love in his heart towards the

enemies of Allaah who are in fact his enemies too. Allaah says (interpretation of the

meaning):

―O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and

polytheists) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in whathas come to you of the truth‖


But if a Muslim treats them with KINDNESS and gentleness in the hope that they will

become Muslim and will believe, there is nothing wrong with that, because it comes under

the heading of opening their hearts to Islam. But if he despairs of them becoming Muslim,

then he should treat them accordingly. This is something that is discussed in detail by the

scholars, especially in the book Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah by Ibn al-Qayyim.



Majmoo‘ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‗Uthaymeen, 3, question no. 389. (Question #59879: What

is meant by taking the kuffar as friends? Ruling on mixing with the kuffar; bold and capital

emphasis ours)

And here is the counsel they gave to a Muslim enlisted in an ―infidel‖ army:

I work in the army of a non-Muslim state, and there are wars between them and the Muslims.

What is the ruling if they send me with a division of this army to wage war against the

Muslims? As a Muslim, my feelings are that I never want to fight against Muslims in any

war.

What should I do?

What is the ruling if I go…?


If you are sent to wage war against the Muslims, then it is not permissible for you to take

part at all. Helping the kaafirs against the Muslims is a form of major kufr which putsone beyond the pale of Islam. Allaah says concerning one who supports the mushrikeen


―And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa‘, i.e., friends), then surely, he is one of them‖[al-Maa‘idah 5:51]

With regard to how you may get out of this situation, and what excuse you can give to get out

of this dilemma if it happens, we ask Allaah to help you, and we suggest that you consult

some Muslims who have relevant knowledge or experience.

We want to emphasize to you the necessity of finding other employment and of leaving

service in the army of the kaafirs, because that implies helping them, strengthening them and

increasing the numbers of their fighters and supporters – unless your work can bring some

benefits to the Muslims, such as giving information and secrets of the kaafirs to the

Muslims so as to help the Muslims, or if your work is purely da‘wah, such as givingkhutbahs and leading prayers for the Muslims in the kaafir army whilst also advising them to

avoid any work that will strengthen the kaafirs. We ask Allaah to keep you safe from

temptation and to give you a good end in this world and in the Hereafter. ( Fatwa No. 14004:

It is not permissible for a Muslim to fight with kaafirs against the Muslims at all ; bold and

underline emphasis ours)

See also their following answers to similar questions:


http://islam-qa.com/en/ref/3885/military

http://islam-qa.com/en/ref/8797/army

The Muslim scripture further forbids the unlawful killing of fellow believers:

It is not for a believer to kill a believer except (that it be) by mistake, and whosoever kills a

believer by mistake, (it is ordained that) he must set free a believing slave and a

compensation (blood money, i.e. Diya) be given to the deceased's family, unless they remit it.If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you and he was a believer; the freeing of a
























believing slave (is prescribed), and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of

mutual alliance, compensation (blood money - Diya) must be paid to his family, and a

believing slave must be freed. And whoso finds this (the penance of freeing a slave) beyond

his means, he must fast for two consecutive months in order to seek repentance from Allah.

And Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise. And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his

recompense is Hell to abide therein, and the Wrath and the Curse of Allah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him. S. 4:92-93 Hilali-Khan

And do not kill anyone which Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause. And whoever is

killed (intentionally with hostility and oppression and not by mistake), We have given his

heir the authority [(to demand Qisas, Law of Equality in punishment or to forgive, or to take

Diya (blood money)]. But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life (i.e. he should

not kill except the killer only). Verily, he is helped (by the Islamic law). S. 17:33 Hilali-Khan

It is interesting that Nidal Hasan himself quoted these very passages in slide 12 of his

presentation. Thus, Hasan knew very well that aiding the ―infidel‖ in ―attacking‖ Muslims in

their lands was a direct violation of the teachings of Islam.

Islam on waging war and spreading mischief

The Quran threatens to punish anyone who would spread mischief and/or seek to wage war

against Allah and his ―messenger:‖

Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in

retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all

mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And

indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even

then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly

and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land! The

recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief

( fasadan) in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet

be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this

world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. S. 5:32-33 Hilali-Khan

According to Muslim scholars waging ―war‖ and spreading ―mischief‖ encompass more than just physical fighting. It also includes such things as spreading a religion other than Islam

and/or disobeying the express commands and prohibitions of Allah:

Fasad

Fasad, literally 'corruption', in Qur'anic terminology, means creating disorder and corruption

earth BY FOLLOWING A PATH OTHER THAN GOD‘S. Islam maintains that true peaceand happiness emanate ONLY THROUGH THE OBSERVANCE OF GOD‘S COMMANDSand through making a conscious effort to see that His laws alone are implemented in every

sphere of life. Fasad occurs when man violates God's laws and disobeys Him. Fasad may

therefore be partial as well as total; partial when one disregards God's law in one aspect of

life while acknowledging His sovereignty in other spheres. If a society is based on the denial

of God, that society is bound to be a corrupt and exploitative society - hence full of fasad.

(Glossary of Islamic Terms, compiled by Ishaq Zahid; capital emphasis ours)

http://www.islam101.com/selections/glossaryEF.html






Ibn Kathir explains that:

The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land

Allah said next…

<The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief

in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off

on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.>

'Wage war' mentioned here means, OPPOSE AND CONTRADICT, and it includes

DISBELIEF, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to

various types of evil. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir , Volume 3, p. 161: capital emphasis ours)

He further says in reference to Q. 2:11-12 which uses the same word fasad :

Meaning of Mischief In his Tafsir , As-Suddi said that Ibn Àbbas and Ibn Masùd commented…

<And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only

peacemakers.">

"They are the hypocrites. As for…

<"Do not make mischief on the earth">, that is DISBELIEF AND ACTS OF

DISOBEDIENCE." Abu Ja`far said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-Àliyah said that

Allah's statement, ...

<And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth,"> , means, "Do not

commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is DISOBEYING Allah, because

whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, OR COMMANDS THAT ALLAH BE DISOBEYED,

he has committed mischief on the earth. Peace on both the earth and in the heavens is ensured

(and earned) through obedience (to Allah)." Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and Qatadah said similarly.

(Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2 (Surat Al-Fatihah to Verse 252 of

Surat Al-Baqarah), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-

Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New

York, Lahore; First Edition: January 2000], pp. 131-132; capital emphasis ours)

And:

Types of Mischief that the Hypocrites commit Ibn Jarir said, "The hypocrites commit mischief on earth BY DISOBEYING THEIR LORD

on it and continuing in the prohibited acts. They also ABANDON WHAT ALLAH MADE

OBLIGATORY AND DOUBT HIS RELIGION, even though He does not accept a deed

from anyone EXCEPT WITH FAITH IN HIS RELIGION and certainty of its truth. The

hypocrites also lie to the believers by saying contrary to the doubt and hesitation their hearts

harbor. They give as much aid as they can, against Allah's loyal friends, and support those

who deny Allah, His Books and His Messengers. This is how the hypocrites commit mischief

on earth, while thinking that they are doing righteous work on earth."

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13751










The statement by Ibn Jarir is true, taking the disbelievers as friends is one of the categories of

mischief on the earth... (Ibid., p. 132; capital emphasis ours)

Hence, from an Islamic perspective what Major Hasan did was noble since he sought to

prevent the ―enemies‖ of Allah from ―invading‖ Muslim lands and spreading their

―mischief.‖

Islam on the Permissibility of Violating Oaths and Covenants

These propagandists further failed to inform their readers that Islam actually allows Muslims

to break their agreements and vows:

Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger to those of the

Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), withwhom you made a treaty. So travel freely (O Mushrikun - see V.2:105) for four months (as

you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of)Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers. And a declaration from Allah and His

Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul Hijjah - the 12th month of

Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun (see V.2:105)

and so is His Messenger. So if you ( Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn

away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (O

Muhammad) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve. Except those of the Mushrikun

with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have

supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely

Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2). Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th,

11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see

V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them

each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat ( Iqamat-as-Salat ), and give

Zakat , then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And if

anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah)

seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the

Qur'an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who

know not. How can there be a covenant with Allah and with His Messenger for the

Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) except those

with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah)? So long, as they are

true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

How (can there be such a covenant with them) that when you are overpowered by them, theyregard not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant with you? With (good words from) their

mouths they please you, but their hearts are, averse to you, and most of them are Fasiqun

(rebellious disobedient to Allah). They have purchased with the Ayat (proofs, evidences,

verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah a little gain, and they hindered men from His

Way; evil indeed is that which they used to do. With regard to a believer, they respect not the

ties, either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who are the transgressors. But if they repent,

perform As-Salat ( Iqamat-as-Salat ) and give Zakat , then they are your brethren in religion.

(In this way) We explain the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)

in detail for a people who know. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack

your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of

Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they maystop (evil actions). Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of







Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear

them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers. Fight against them

so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over

them and heal the breasts of a believing people, And remove the anger of their (believers')

hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. S.

9:1-15 Hilali-Khan

We shall see shortly see that, contrary to the assertions of the above passage, it was

Muhammad who broke his treaty with the pagans first, not the other way around. Moreover,

the pagans had already surrendered and come under the subjection of Muhammad when these

verses were composed, and as such they posed no serious threat to him or his followers. For

more on this issue we recommend the following rebuttal.

Returning to the issue at hand, according to the Muslim scholars Q. 9:5, commonly referred

to as the ―sword verse,‖ abrogated every treaty and peace agreement that Muhammad hadwith the disbelievers:

This is the Ayah of the Sword...

<But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily,

Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.>

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who

refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they

embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations... In the two Sahihs, it is recorded

that Ibn ‗Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

<I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify there is no deity worthy of

worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer

and pay Zakah.>

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin

Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator,

EVERY TREATY, AND EVERY TERM." Al-‗Awfi said that Ibn ‗Abbas commented: "Noidolator had any more treaty or promise ever since Sura Bara’ah was revealed. The four

months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and

announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi‘ Al -Akhir." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir

(Abridged), Surat Al- A’raf to the end of Surah Yunus, abridged by a group of scholars underthe supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers &

Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: May 2000] Volume 4, pp.

375, 377; capital and underline emphasis ours)

The following quotes were taken from this page.

Ibn Juzayy:

(Then when the sacred months are over) i.e. the four months designated for them. Those who

say that they are Shawwal, Dhu‘l-Qa‘da, Dhu‘l-Hijja and al-Muharram, says that they are the

well-known Sacred Months - with the addition of Shawwal and omission of Rajab. They arecalled "sacred" because the majority dominates in an Arabic phrase. Those who say that they

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/mo_mercy.htm







http://bewley.virtualave.net/tawba1.html









last until Rab' ath-Thani calls them sacred because of their inviolability and because fighting

in them was forbidden.

(kill the mushrikun wherever you find them) ABROGATING EVERY PEACE TREATY IN

THE QUR‘AN. It is said that it abrogates, "by setting them free or ransom." (47:4) It is also

said that it is abrogated by it and so setting them free and ransom are permitted. (seize them) means to capture, and the one taken is the captive.

(If they make tawba) after disbelief. Then He connects belief to the prayer and zakat . That is

an indication that one should fight anyone WHO ABANDONS THE PRAYER AND ZAKAT

as Abu Bakr as-Siddiq did. The ayat encompassed the meaning of the Prophet‘s words, "I amcommanded to fight people until they say, 'There is no god but Allah and establish the prayer

and pay the zakat ." (let them go on their way) granting them security…

as-Suyuti

This [Q. 9:5] is an Ayat of the Sword WHICH ABROGATES PARDON, TRUCE ANDOVERLOOKING. (seize them) is used as evidence for the permission to take captives. (and

besiege them) is permission for besieging and raiding and attacking by night. Ibn Abi Hatim

reported that Abu 'Imran al-Jawfi said that ribat in the way of Allah is found in the words,

"lie in wait for them on every road." (if they make tawba and establish the prayer and pay the

zakat , let them go on their way) Repentance from shirk is not enough to let them go their way

until they establish the prayer and pay the zakat . Ash-Shafi'i took this as a proof FOR

KILLING ANYONE WHO ABANDONS THE PRAYER and fighting ANYONE WHO

REFUSES TO PAY ZAKAT . Some use it as a proof that they are kafirun. (Capital and


The Quran also informs Muslims to break their treaties with those who have proven to be

treacherous:

And if thou fearest treachery from any folk, then throw back to them (their treaty) fairly. Lo!

Allah loveth not the treacherous. S. 8:58

Again, what could be more treacherous than Western armies ―invading‖ Muslim lands andaiding them in that purpose? In fact, is there anything worse from an Islamic point of view

than western forces coming to Muslim lands with a purpose of establishing democratic

governments based on western values as opposed to helping to set up a system which seeks to

implement Shariah or the rule of Allah as ―revealed‖ in the Quran and the sunna of hismessenger? And what could be evil Islamically speaking than Muslims inviting or allowingsuch ―infidel‖ armies to come and wreak ―havoc‖ in their lands by taking over in order to setup their ―infidel‖ forms of government?

After all, didn‘t we read where the Quran warns Muslims against taking Jews and Christiansas their allies (cf. Q. 5:51)? And didn‘t we also see how Muslim scholars claim that it is

expressly forbidden to fight alongside the ―disbelievers,‖ especially when its against fellowMuslims? Here is another example:




Taking the kaafirs as friends (muwaalaah) means supporting them and helping them in

matters of kufr, SUCH AS THE MUSLIMS FIGHTING ALONGSIDE THE KUFFAAR,

such as when the kaafirs launch an assault against a Muslim country and a Muslim befriends

them and supports them and helps them in fighting against that country, whether that is with

weapons or by supplying them with anything that will help them to fight the Muslims. This is

muwaalaah, or a type of friendship THAT IS HARAM, because it means joining them andsupporting them against other Muslims.

With regard to seeking their help, that depends of the purpose to be served. If that serves the

Muslims‘ interests, there is nothing wrong with it, on the condition that we must beware of

their evil and treachery and there be no risk of them betraying us. But if that serves no

interest then it is not permissible to seek their help because there is no good in them. ( Fatwa

No. 10421: The difference between taking the kaafirs as friends and seeking their help;

capital and underline emphasis ours)

Now as far as oaths are concerned we find in the so-called sound-narratives Muhammad

expressly telling his followers that they could break their word and promises if it meansdoing something that is better:

Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Samura:

The Prophet said, "O 'Abdur-Rahman! Do not seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority

on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking

(for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it. If you ever take an oath to do something and

later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do

what is better." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 260)

Again, what could be better from an Islamic perspective than killing the ―enemies‖ of Allahwho were planning to ―attack‖ Muslim lands?

Muhammad himself had no problems breaking his oaths:

O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which Allah has made lawful to you, seeking

to please your wives? And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah has already

ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your Maula (Lord, or

Master, or Protector, etc.) and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise. And (remember) when the

Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to

another i.e. 'Aishah), and Allah made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a

part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said: "Who told you this?" He said: "TheAll-Knower, the All-Aware (Allah) has told me". If you two (wives of the Prophet, namely

'Aishah and Hafsah) turn in repentance to Allah, (it will be better for you), your hearts are

indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet likes), but if you help one another against him

(Muhammad), then verily, Allah is his Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael

(Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers.

S. 66:1-4 Hilali-Khan

We are told that these verses refer to Muhammad making an oath to his wife Hafsah that he

would not have conjugal relations with his slave girl Mariah the Copt anymore:

O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, in terms of your Coptichandmaiden Māriya — when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa, who had been away, but

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/10421/treachery




http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.260








who upon returning [and finding out] became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her

own house and on her own bed — by saying, ‗She is unlawful for me!‘, seeking, by making

her unlawful [for you], to please your wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful, having

forgiven you this prohibition. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

Verily God has prescribed, He has made lawful, for you [when necessary] the absolution of your oaths, to absolve them by expiation, as mentioned in the sūrat al -Mā‘ida [Q. 5:89] andthe forbidding of [sexual relations with] a handmaiden counts as an oath, so did the Prophet

(s) expiate? Muqātil [b. Sulaymān] said, ‗He set free a slave [in expiation] for his prohibitionof Māriya‘; whereas al-Hasan [al-Basrī] said, ‗He never expiated, because the Prophet (s) has

been forgiven [all errors]‘. And God is your Protector, your Helper, and He is the Knower,the Wise. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

However Allah permitted him to break his word, something which he did often whenever it

suited his purposes:

Narrated Zahdam:

We were in the company of Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari and there were friendly relations between

us and this tribe of Jarm. Abu Musa was presented with a dish containing chicken. Among

the people there was sitting a red-faced man who did not come near the food. Abu Musa said

(to him), "Come on (and eat), for I have seen Allah's Apostle eating of it (i.e. chicken)." He

said, "I have seen it eating something (dirty) and since then I have disliked it, and have taken

an oath that I shall not eat it." Abu Musa said, "Come on, I will tell you (or narrate to you).

Once I went to Allah‘s Apostle with a group of Al-Ash'ariyin, and met him while he was

angry, distributing some camels of Rakat. We asked for mounts but he took an oath that he

would not give us any mounts, and added, ‗I have nothing to mount you on.‘ In the meantimesome camels of booty were brought to Allah's Apostle and he asked twice, ‗Where are Al -

Ash'ariyin?" So he gave us five white camels with big humps. We stayed for a short while

(after we had covered a little distance), and then I said to my companions, ‗ Allah's Apostle

has forgotten his oath. By Allah, if we do not remind Allah's Apostle of his oath, we will

never be successful.‘ So we returned to the Prophet and said, ‗O Allah's Apostle! We askedyou for mounts, but you took an oath that you would not give us any mounts; we think that

you have forgotten your oath.‘ He said, ‗It is Allah Who has given you mounts. By Allah,and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do

what is better and expiate my oath.‘" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427)

Keep in mind that the oath mentioned in Q. 66 was not a vow or oath sworn to Allah, but anoath sworn by Muhammad to his wives. Now if Muslims can even dissolve oaths to their

wives, why should anyone assume they cannot dissolve oaths sworn to foreigners and infidels

with the explicit backing of Islamic teaching?

Muhammad also expressly violated one of the stipulations of the treaty which he made with

the Meccans:

After Al-Hudaybiyyah, Emigrant Muslim Women may not be returned to the

Disbelievers

In Surat Al-Fath, we related the story of the treaty at Al-Hudaybiyyah that was conductedbetween the Messenger of Allah and the disbelievers of Quraysh. In that treaty, there were

http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=66&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2














these words, "Everyman (in another narration, EVERY PERSON) who reverts from our side

to your side, should be returned to us, even if he is a follower of your religion." This was said

by Ùrwah, Ad-Dahhak, Àbdur-Rahman bin Zayd, Az-Zuhri, Muqatil bin Hayyan and As-

Suddi.

So according to this narration, this Ayah specifies and explains the Sunnah. And this is thebest case of understanding. Yet according to another view of some of the Salaf, it abrogates

it.

Allah the Exalted and Most High ordered His faithful servants to test the faith of women who

emigrate to them. When they are sure that they are faithful, they should not send them back to

the disbelievers, for the disbelievers are not allowed for them and they are not allowed for the

disbelievers. In the biography of Àbdullah bin Abi Ahmad bin Jahsh in Al-Musnad Al-Kabir ,

we also mentioned that Àbdullah bin Abi Ahmad said, "Umm Kulthum bint Ùqbah bin Abi

Muàyt emigrated and her brothers, Ùmarah and Al-Walid, went after her. They came to

Allah‘s Messenger and talked to him about Umm Kulthum and asked that she be returned to

them. ALLAH ABOLISHED THE PART OF THE TREATY BETWEEN THE PROPHETAND THE IDOLATORS ABOUT THE WOMEN PARTICULARLY. So He forbade

returning Muslim women to the idolators and revealed the Ayah about testing them" …

<Likewise do not keep disbelieving women,>

Then Ùmar bin Al-Khattab divorced two of his wives, who were idolatresses, and one of

them got married to Muàwiyah bin Abi Sufyan, while the other got married to Safwan bin

Umayyah.

Ibn Thawr narrated that Ma`mar said that Az-Zuhri said, "This Ayah was revealed to Allah's

Messenger while he was in the area of Al-Hudaybiyyah, after making peace. He agreed that

WHOEVER COMES from the Quraysh to his side, WILL BE RETURNED TO MAKKAH.

When some women came, this Ayah was revealed. Allah commanded that the dowery that

was paid to these women be returned to their husbands. Allah also ordered that if some

Muslim women revert to the side of the idolators, the idolators should return their dowery to

their Muslim husbands ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) (Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat

Al-Munafiqun), Volume 9, pp. 599-600, 602; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Al-Tabari, another renowned Muslim expositor, also admitted that Muhammad broke the

treaty by refusing to return the Meccan women who had defected:

… So the Messenger of God said, "Write: This is that whereon Muhammad b. ‗Abdallah hasmade peace with Suhayl b. ‗Amr. The two have agreed on these terms: that warfare shall be

laid aside by the people for ten years, during which the people shall be safe and refrain from

[attacking] each other; that, WHOEVER shall come to the Messenger of God from Quraysh

WITHOUT THE PERMISSION of his guardian, [Muhammad] shall return him to them; that

WHOEVER shall come to Quraysh from those who are with the Messenger of God, they

shall not return him to [Muhammad] …‖ (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam,

translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, 1997],

Volume VIII, p. 86)

And:







Ibn Ishaq added in his account: Umm Kulthum bt. ‗Uqbah b. Abi Mu‗ayt emigrated to theMessenger of God during that period. Her brothers, ‗Umarah and al-Walid b. ‗Uqbah, went to

the Messenger of God to ask him to return her to them ACCORDING TO THE TREATY

BETWEEN HIM AND QURAYSH AT AL-HUDAYBIYAH, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO:

GOD HAD REJECTED IT. (Ibid., p. 92; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

A more recent Muslim writer, the late Muhammad Asad, in his notes to Q. 60:10, confirms

that women were included within the agreement between Muhammad and the pagans:

11 Under the terms of the Truce of Hudaybiyyah, concluded in the year 6 H. between the

Prophet and the pagan Quraysh of Mecca, any Meccan minor or other person under

guardianship who went over to the Muslims without the permission of his or HER guardian

was to be returned to the Quraysh (see introductory note to surah 48). The Quraysh took

this stipulation to include ALSO MARRIED WOMEN, whom they considered to be

under the "guardianship" of their husbands. Accordingly, when several Meccan women

embraced Islam against the will of their husbands and fled to Medina, the Quraysh

demanded their forcible return to Mecca. This the Prophet refused on the grounds thatmarried women did not fall within the category of "persons under guardianship".

However, since there was always the possibility that some of these women had gone over to

the Muslims not for reasons of faith but out of purely worldly considerations, the believers

were enjoined to make sure of their sincerity; and so, the Prophet asked each of them: "Swear

before God that thou didst not leave because of hatred of thy husband, or out of desire to go

to another country, or in the hope of attaining to worldly advantages: swear before God that

thou didst not leave for any reason save the love of God and His Apostle" (Tabari). Since

God alone knows what is in the heart of a human being, a positive response of the woman

concerned was to be regarded as the only humanly attainable - and, therefore, legally

sufficient - proof of her sincerity. The fact that God alone is really aware of what is in a

human being's heart is incorporated in the shar‘i principle that any adult person's declaration

of faith, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, makes it mandatory upon the

community to accept that person - whether man or woman - as a Muslim on the basis of this

declaration alone. (The Message of the Qur‘an, translated and explained by Muhammad

Asad, pp. 1097-1098; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

Another more recent Muslim translator, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, did as well:

Under the treaty of Hudaibiya [see Introduction to S. lxviii, paragraph 4, condition (3)],

women under guardianship (INCLUDING MARRIED WOMEN), who fled from the Quraish

in Makkah to the Prophet‘s protection at Madinah WERE TO BE SENT BACK. But beforethis Ayat was issued, the Quraysh had already broken the treaty, and some instruction was

necessary as to what the Madinah Muslims should do in those circumstances… (Ali, The

Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary, p. 1534, fn. 5422 on Sura 60:10; bold, capital

and underline emphasis ours)

And here is what Ali wrote regarding the conditions of the treaty:

4. A peaceful Treaty was therefore concluded, known as the Treaty of Hudaibiya. It

stipulated: (1) that there was to be peace between the parties for ten years; (2) that any tribe

or person was free to join either party or make an alliance with it; (3) that if a Quraish person

from Mecca, under guardianship, should join the prophet without the guardian‘s permission,he (OR SHE) should be sent back to the guardian, but in the contrary case, they should not

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16593956/Quran-Muhammad-Asad-With-Commentary






be sent back; and (4) that the Prophet and his party were not to enter Mecca that year, but that

they could enter unarmed the following year. (Ibid., introduction to Sura XLVIII (Fat-h), p.

1389; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

In light of this Muhammad stands condemned by his own words since he is reported to have

said the following:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:

The Prophet said, "Whoever has the following four (characteristics) will be a pure hypocrite

and whoever has ONE OF the following four characteristics will have one characteristic

of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up.

1. Whenever he is entrusted, he betrays.

2. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie.

3. Whenever he makes a covenant, he proves treacherous.

4. Whenever he quarrels, he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner." ( Sahih

al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 33)

Hence, according to the Islamic sources Muhammad was a treacherous hypocrite for breaking

the covenant he had made with the pagans!

Since the Quran sets forth Muhammad as model for the believers to emulate,

Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him

who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much. S.

33:21 Hilali-Khan

And verily, you (O Muhammad) are on an exalted standard of character. S. 68:4 Hilali-Khan

It is not surprising that Major Hasan broke the ―covenant‖ he had with the disbelievers in

order to do that which was in the best interests of Islam and Muslims.

It is now time to move on to part 2.

Endnotes

(1) Muslim dawagandist Bassam Zawadi writes:

Nidal Malik Hasan clearly committed treachery because:

1) He was under a covenant with the US government and military.

2) He broke that covenant without informing the other side.

It is apparent that Zawadi hasn‘t bothered to study Major Hasan‘s power point presentation.In that presentation which was given two years before Nidal Hasan went on his murder spree




http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/hasan_islam2.html







A Faithful Muslim Who Proved That He Wasn’t Treacherous

A Look At Nidal Malik Hasan's Actions In Light Of Islamic Teachings Pt. 2

Sam Shamoun

We continue with our discussion.

Islam on the permissibility of a Muslim plunging himself into battle against the infidels

knowing that he might be killed in the process

Imam Zaid Shakir wrote that,

Ibn Juzayy mentions in Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar‘iyya:

If the Muslims know that they will be slaughtered in wholesale fashion it is fitting that they

abandon fighting. If they know that they will be slaughtered and that their losses will do little

to alter the strategic balance vis-à-vis the enemy forces, it is absolutely obligatory that they

abandon any encounter. [8]

Any Muslim who thinks that an unsanctioned act of violence he may undertake in this

country is going to alter the strategic balance is grandly deluded or inexcusably ignorant. His

undertaking any violent act in this country is additionally forbidden because he is likely going

to be killed, gravely injured, or captured in the encounter. Imam al-Shawkani mentions in al-

Sayl al-Jarrar , ―It is well-known legal reasoning that one who strikes out [against an enemy]

knowing beforehand that he will be killed, captured or vanquished, has hurled himself todestruction.‖ [9] Imam al-Shawkani goes on to explain that such an act is forbidden based on

the Qur‘anic verse, Do not hurl yourself to destruction with your own hands. (2:195) [10] The

discouragement of foolhardy acts of desperation based on this verse, is also made by Ibn

‗Abideen in his commentary on al-Durr al-Mukhtar. [11] …

[8] Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi, Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar‘iyya (Beirut:Dar al-‗Ilm li‘l Malayin, 1374/1974), p. 165

[9] Imam Muhammad ibn ‗Ali al-Shawkani, al-Sayl al-Jarrar (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-

‗Ilmiyya, 1405/1985), 4:519

[10] There are those who argue that the correct interpretation of this verse is the opposite of

what is implied here. Namely, it was encouraging those who stayed away from a battle inorder to mind their crops and cattle to go forth to the fray lest they be destroyed by the

advancing enemy forces. However, Imam al-Shawkani and others argue that the meaning is

contingent on the situation. While that meaning may be the one applicable to the occasion of

the verse‘s revelation, to argue that the verse is discouraging involvement in foolhardy acts of

desperation is also operative. This is so based on the interpretive principle, العبرة لعمومla س ا ص خ ظ ف ا -‗Ibra li ‗Umum al-Lafdh, la li Khusus al-Sabab (The

applicability of a verse is based on the generality of its wording not the specificity of its

revelation).

[11] See Imam Ibn ‗Abideen, Radd al-Muhtar ‗ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar (Cairo: Matba‘Khidaywi Isma‘il, 1286), 3:337 ( Responding to the Fort Hood Tragedy (Nidal Hasan);















Shakir is quite selective in his citations from Islamic scholarship since there are many

Muslim theologians who assert that it is permitted for a mujahid (a jihadist) to thrust himself

into the enemy even if this results in death:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

On the day of the battle of Uhud, a man came to the Prophet and said, ―Can you tell mewhere I will be if I should get martyred?‖ The Prophet replied, ―In Paradise.‖ The man threw

away some dates he was carrying in his hand, and fought till he was martyred . (Sahih al-

Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 377)

Chapter 41: IN PROOF OF THE MARTYR'S ATTAINING PARADISE

It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: Messenger of Allah, where shall

I be if I am killed? He replied: In Paradise . The man threw away the dates he had in his

hand and fought until he was killed (i. e., he did not wait until he could finish the dates)…(Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4678)

… So the Messenger of Allah and his Companions proceeded towards Badr and reached thereforestalling the polytheists (of Mecca). When the polytheists (also) reached there, the

Messenger of Allah said: None of you should step forward to (do) anything unless I am ahead

of him. The polytheists (now) advanced (towards us), and the Messenger of Allah said. Get

up to enter Paradise which is equal in width to the heavens and the earth. 'Umair b. al-

Humam al-Ansari said: Messenger of Allah, is Paradise equal in extent to the heavens and the

earth? He said: Yes. 'Umair said: My goodness! The Messenger of Allah asked him: What

prompted you to utter these words (i. e., ‗my goodness!‘)? He said: Messenger of Allah,nothing but the desire that I be among its residents. He said: Thou art (surely) among its

residents. He took out dates from his bag and began to eat them. Then he said: If I were to

live until I have eaten all these dates of mine, it would be a long life. (The narrator said): He

threw away all the dates he had with him. Then he fought the enemies until he was killed .

(Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4680)

The tradition has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Qais. He heard it from his

father who, while facing the enemy, reported that the Messenger of Allah said: Surely, the

gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords. A man in a shabby condition got up

and said; Abu Musa, did you hear the Messenger of Allah say this? He said: Yes. (The

narrator said): He returned to his friends and said: I greet you (a farewell greeting). Then he

broke the sheath of his sword, threw it away, advanced with his (naked) sword towards theenemy and fought (them) with it until he was slain. (Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number

4681)

The following is taken from the writings of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization:

B. Verdicts of the Learned Ulema Regarding the Legitimacy for a Single Man to Attack a

Large Number [of Enemies] Even If It Is Certain That He Will Die Muhammad bin al-

Hassan al-Shebani said: ―There is no wrong for a man to carry out a campaign single-

handedly against the enemy – even if he thinks he will be killed – as long as he perceives that he

will accomplish something by way of killing, scarring, or defeating [them]. However, if he

believes that he will not be able to harm them, then it is not permissible for him to launch




http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/020.smt.html#020.4678
















[himself] against them. The condition, then, is that his endeavor against them must cause

them clear damage.

There is no harm if a single man attacks a thousand men alone, as long as he hopes to escape

or cause harm [to his enemies]; otherwise, it is disliked, for he exposes himself to destruction

without any benefit to the Muslims. However, if he does not expect to escape or harm [hisenemies] but instead seeks to embolden the Muslims so they may emulate his [courageous]

deed, then there is no objection to his doing so. Likewise, if he does not expect escape or

damage [to the enemies], and yet he does this to terrify the foe, then it is permissible – for this

is even more preferable to destruction and benefits the Muslims.‖

Al-Jassas said, regarding the above: ―What Muhammad [al-Shebani] said is true and

legitimate. If his own destruction produces a benefit for the religion, then this undertaking [of

his] is noble. Allah praised the Companions of the Prophet for this in His Wor d: ‗For Allahhas purchased from the believers their lives and worldly goods in exchange for Paradise.

They fight on behalf of Allah, killing and being killed‘ [9:111]. And He said: ‗Do not think

that those who were slain fighting in the path of Allah are dead – nay! They live in the presence of their Lord and are well provided for‘ [3:169]. And he said: ‗Among men is hewho sells himself to seek the pleasure of Allah‘ [2:207].‘‖

The Sheikh of Islam, Ibn Taymiyya, said: ‗Muslim narrated in his authentic account the storyof the people of the ditch [see hadith on P. 146]. The youth ordered his own death in order to

help empower the faith. Therefore, all four schools of jurisprudence have made it permissible

for a Muslim to immerse himself in the ranks of the infidels, even if his better judgment tells

him that they will kill him – if by so doing the Muslims gain an advantage.

Ibn Hajar said: ―Regarding the question of one man taking on many foes, it is collectively

agreed that if he undertakes such an initiative in order to magnify his courage, thinking that

by so doing he will terrify his enemies, or that he will embolden the Muslims against them, or

something to that effect – then it is good. But if it is done merely out of rashness, then it is

forbidden.‖

Al-Qurtubi said: ―There is no wrong for a man to single -handedly attack a mighty army – if he

seeks martyrdom – provided he has the fortitude. If, however, he is not strong enough, this is

[self-]destruction. When the Muslim soldiers encountered the Persians, the Muslims‘ horsesfled from the [Persians‘] elephants. So one of the men undertook the making of a clayelephant and accustomed his horse to its presence, till his horse no longer feared elephants.

Thereafter the man drove his horse straight into the elephants. The men cried out: They [theelephants] will kill you! The man replied: There is no harm if I die while opening the way for

the Muslims. Likewise at the battle of Yamama, the Hanifa tribe made their forts

impregnable. So a Muslim man said: Place me in a sling and hurl me into them. They did so.

He fought them alone and opened the gates.‖

―Sahih Muslim narrates that the Messenger of Allah along with seven of the Ansar faced theQuraish at the battle of Uhud. When the Quraish approached, he [Muhammad] said:

‗Whoever repels them from us gains Paradise; he will be my companion in the Garden.‘ Soone of the Ansar advanced and fought till he was slain. This continued till all seven were

slain. Thus whoever sacrifices his life in order to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil

attains the highest level of martyrdom. Allah Most High said: ‗[E]njoin the good and forbidthe evil, and bear patiently that which befalls you‘ [3:17].‖ (The Al Qaeda Reader , edited and



translated by Raymond Ibrahim, introduction by Victor Davis Hanson [Broadway Books,

NY, 2007, First Paperback Edition],Part I: Theology, 4. ― Jihad , Martyrdom, and the Killing

of Innocents,‖ Part One: The Sharia’s Perspective on Martyrdom, 2. Permission For A

Solitary Fighter To Attack A Great Number Of Enemies In The Jihad , pp. 154-156)

The copious referencing of Islamic sources demonstrates that al-Qaeda‘s actions arethoroughly Islamic and that these terrorists know their religion better than what the media and

so-called Western Islamic scholars would have non-Muslims believe.

Al-Qaeda even quotes some of the very hadiths that we cited above to further confirm that

their actions are in complete compliance with the teachings of Islam. Here is one that we

didn‘t include:

4. Aslam bin Usman said: ―We were at Constantinople, when a mighty phalanx of Romans[Byzantines] came forth. A Muslim man launched into the Roman phalanx until he penetrated

their center. The people screamed, Allah Almighty! ‗With his own hand he has cast himself

into destruction!‘ [4:29]. So Abu Ayub responded: O you people, you apply this versewrongfully. This verse was revealed because of us, the Ansar [the ―helpers‖ of Medina].When Islam was dignified by Allah and had received many other supporters, we said secretly

among ourselves that our money was lost and that we should attempt to replenish it. At that

time, Allah revealed this verse –thus ‗destruction‘ is in response to what we purposed [i.e.,forfeiting jihad in order to prosper materially].‖ There is also an authentic hadith from

Mudrik bin Awaf, who said to Omar: ―I have a neighbor who hurled himself into battle andwas killed. In response, the people said: ‗With his own hand he has cast himself into

destruction!‘ Omar replied: They lie! Instead, he has purchased the Hereafter with this life.‖And at [the battle of] Yarmuk, Akruma bin Abu Jahl was behaving manly. So Khalid [bin al-Walid] said to him: ―Don‘t do it; for your death would hit the Muslims hard. He said: Leave

me be, O Khalid; for you were with [i.e., supported] the Messenger of Allah in the past, while

I and my father were among the most critical toward him.‖ So he quit him and he was killed.(Ibid., pp. 153-154)

This leads us to our final section.

Taqiyyist’s Finest

Surely Muslims like Zaid Shakir know all this since they have spent much of their lives

studying what Islam teaches concerning all of these various issues. Why, then, would theyclaim that Islam forbids violent acts such as what occurred at Fort Hood?

The simple answer is that Muslims such as imam Shakir are engaging in outright lies and

blatant deceptions in order to mislead non-Muslims until they reach a point in which they can

attack and subdue the disbelievers.

Lest we be accused of slander or misrepresenting the beliefs of these Muslims notice what

imam Shakir himself said concerning the permissibility of Muslims attacking U.S. soldiers:

In his lectures, Shakir preaches treachery against the United States. He once told a Muslim

audience that hijacking U.S. military aircraft is fair game in jihad, as a forthcoming chapterwill detail.



Shakir, who recently confided to the New York Times that he ―would like to see America become a Muslim country‖ ruled by Islamic law, is a regular speaker at CAIR and ISNAevents. Recently, he helped host workshops or delivered the keynote speech at banquets held

at CAIR chapters in Chicago, Orlando, and San Diego, among others.

Perhaps the cleric has tempered his jihadist views? Not a chance: ―I don‘t regret anythingI‘ve done or said,‖ Shakir says. (P. David Gaubatz & Paul Sperry, Muslim Mafia: Inside the

Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America [WND Books, October 15, 2009],

Part I, Introduction, Chapter Four: Terror Suspect Group, pp. 55-56)

If Shakir thinks its fair game to hijack military aircrafts then surely he must believe that what

Major Hasan did was thoroughly acceptable and justified according to the precepts of Islam!

There‘s more:

But Saleh, whose policy portfolio under Meeks includes homeland security, is a fan of pan-

Islamist, prop-jihadist imam Zaid Shakir, according to Saleh‘s post on Twitter.com, where he

tweets under the name ―blackjihad.‖ Shakir has declared the 82nd Airborne and other U.S.military fair game in jihad, and has urged followers to t ransform the U.S. into a ―Muslimcountry‖ ruled by Islamic law. (Ibid., Chapter Eleven: Co-Opting Congress, p. 185)

And:

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD PROPAGANDISTS like imam Zaid Shakir preach to the

Muslim community in America about waging a cultural jihad now, and a violent jihad later – once the proper ―infrastructure‖ is in place.

―The work we should be doing is laying an infrastructure– the administrative, logistical

infrastructure – putting that into place, so that if Allah put us in a situation where we did have

to fight, physically, we could translate that fighting into tangible political gains,‖ Shakir advised Muslims during a lecture in the San Francisco bay area, the contents of which are

being revealed publicly here for the first time. (Ibid., Part II, Chapter Sixteen: The Plan, p.

259)

Shakir is not the only Muslim employing lies and deceits in order to cover up what Islam

truly teaches concerning the treacherous and murderous actions of Muslims like Nidal Hasan:

CAIR-endorsed imam Zaid Shakir also contradicts what CAIR is saying publicly. Shakir, a

frequent guest speaker at CAIR events, tells his Muslim audience: ―Jihad is physicallyfighting the enemies of Islam to protect and advance the religion of Islam. This is jihad.‖

Acceptable targets of jihad, he says, include U.S. military aircraft.

―Islam doesn‘t permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people,‖ Shakir says.However, ―if you hijack an airplane filled with the 82nd

Airborne, that‘s something else.‖ The82

nd Airborne Division‘s elite paratroopers fly out of Fort Braggs, North Carolina, which is

part of North Carolina state senator Larry Shaw‘s district. Shaw happens to be CAIR‘s newchairman.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VJj8voB723YC&dq=Muslim+Mafia:+Inside+the+Secret+Underworld+that%27s+Conspiring+to+Islamize+America&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=Ju2CxJnGKU&sig=hGHsYVgrzgKOg2omPyliraOd9T0&hl=en&ei=uqENS9jBHY-UnQez4IjQAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CB0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false






Shakir also givers his blessing to the use of bombs as a weapon of jihad, as long as the

explosives hit ―select‖ targets and are not indiscriminate in their destruction. Civilians can belegitimate targets, he says, if ―there‘s a benefit in that.‖

Even ―old elderly men‖ and ―women who are conscripted‖– including Israeli and American

women in uniform –are eligible enemy combatants in jihad. ―This is Shariah,‖ Shakir assertsin a CD recording of one of his lectures, which the authors obtained from a mosque bookstore

in Brooklyn.

Shakir, a black convert, has been portrayed as a moderate in the mainstream media, including

the New York Times, which recently ran a positive profile of him. His pro-jihad statements

revealed here have not been previously reported.

Then there‘s CAIR advisor and fundraiser [Siraj] Wahhaj, who also completely contradictswhat CAIR is telling the media about the meaning of jihad.

―If we go to war, brothers and sisters– and one day we will, believe me – that‘s why you‘recommanded [to fight in] jihad,‖ the imam has told his flock in New York. ―When Allah tellsus to fight we‘re not stopping and nobody‘s stopping us.‖

Sheikh Qaradawi has ruled that jihad can be offensive means of expanding the Muslim state

as well as a defensive response to attack:

In the jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of jihad

takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the

word of Islam and remove obstacles standing in its way. The repulsing jihad takes place when

your land is being invaded and conquered…. [In that case you must] repulse [the invader] tothe best of your ability. If you kill him he will end up in Hell, and if he kills you, you become

a martyr.

So not only does CAIR‘s guru believe that jihad is warfare, but he refutes those who believethat only defensive jihad is permissible in Islam.

This makes a mockery of CAIR‘s additional claim that ―the Quran teaches peace‖ and notviolence.

In fact, the only real peace that the Quran teaches is peace for Muslims – which it says will

come when all non-Muslims are converted or ―subdued.‖

When no fewer than twenty-six chapters of the Quran deal with military fighting and

violence, and when it repeatedly states that fighting is ―prescribed‖ upon believers, it‘s risiblyfalse to claim it promotes no violence.

But don‘t take our word for it. Listen to Wahhaj, who preaches that Islam sanctions violentinsurrection in infidel lands – including America.

But he cautions Muslims that their violence has to be ―selective.‖ Wait, train, be patient; thenstrike when the time is right.



―Believe me, brothers and sisters, Muslims in America are the most strategic Muslims onEarth,‖ Wahhaj says, because our government cannot drop bombs on Muslims in America

without causing collateral damage to U.S. cities and Americans who aren‘t Muslims.

Muslims in America also have an army of potential recruits in inner the city, he says,

especially among minority gangs. Once they are converted to Islam, he says, they will befearless in the jihad.

The U.S. government‘s ―worst nightmare is that one day the Muslims wake these people up‖in South Central Los Angeles and other inner-city areas, Wahhaj fumes in a videotape of a

sermon obtained by the authors.

He exhorts the faithful to go into the ‗hood‘ and the prisons and convert disenfranchisedminorities, and then arm and train them to carry out an Uzi jihad in the inner cities.

―We don‘t need to arm the people with 9mms and Uzis,‖ he says. ―You need to arm them

with righteousness first. And once you arm them with righteousness first, then you can armthem [with Uzis and other weapons].‖

He says inner-city gang members will make formidable fighters because they are not afraid of

death. All they lack is discipline, Wahhaj says, and Islam can provide that.

―They need to get out of the street and get into the masjid [mosque], learn Islam and then get

[back] in the street,‖ he preaches, ―because these people have guts and courage that a lot of Muslims don‘t have. Some of these people are ready to stand in front of anyone and fight.‖

In contrast, ―some Muslims have lost the desire to fight,‖ Wahhaj adds. ―Muslims havebecome soft. And they love the soft life. And they hate death. And this is why all over the

world Muslims are getting their butts kicked – except those Muslims who fight back like in

Afghanistan.‖ (Ibid., Chapter Eight: CAIR‘S Ten Biggest Whoppers, pp. 135-137)

There you have it folks. Islam‘s finest scholars and apologists speaking with a forked tongue

in order to deceive non-Muslims into thinking that Islam does not condone violent and

murderous acts such as those committed by Major Hasan.

Conclusion

Our examination has proven that what Major Hasan did is completely in line with the

teachings of the Quran, the so-called authentic sunna of Muhammad, and the teachings of

Muslim scholars across the board.

In our analysis we discovered that:

1. Islam forbids aiding and abetting non-Muslims, especially when the latter are seeking

to ―invade‖ and ―attack‖ Muslim countries.2. Islam commands Muslims to resist and fight those who seek to wage ―war‖ against

Allah and his ―messenger,‖ as well as those whose purpose is to spread ―mischief‖ in

the lands of Muslims.



3. Islam permits Muslims to plunge themselves into the ―enemies‖ of Allah, even if itresults in death, since such an action may embolden fellow Muslims and/or strike fear

in the hearts of the disbelievers.

4. Islam encourages the dissolution of vows and agreements, especially when doing so is

in the best interests of the religion and Muslims.

Thus, Major Hasan was being a very good Muslim and any Muslim who says otherwise is

either ignorant of the teachings of Islam or is simply using taqiyya in order to deceive non-

Muslims from knowing what Islam truly teaches concerning such actions.

Related Articles

http://answering-islam.org/Index/J/jihad.html

http://answering-islam.org/Index/T/taqiyya.html

http://answering-islam.org/Index/L/lying.html

http://answering-islam.org/Index/D/deception.html http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/mhd_amin.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/hudaybiyya.html

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_hudaybiyya.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_hudaybiyya2.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_holy_war.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_tolerance.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_greetings.htm

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/raymond-ibrahim-on-the-fort-howhile-the-media-

wonders-in-exasperation-why-he-did-it-offering-the-sam.html

http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/why-i-murdered-13-american-soldiers-at-fort-hood-

nidal-hassan-explains-it-all-to-you.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/it-may-be-advantageous-for-muslims-to-work-in-

these-infidel-armies-so-as-to-learn-their-secrets.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/american-convert-to-islam-says-it-is-not-

permissible-for-muslims-to-join-an-infidel-army.html

© Answering Islam, 1999 - 2010. All rights reserved.







http://answering-islam.org/Index/D/deception.html


http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/mhd_amin.htm














http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/raymond-ibrahim-on-the-fort-howhile-the-media-wonders-in-exasperation-why-he-did-it-offering-the-sam.html





http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/why-i-murdered-13-american-soldiers-at-fort-hood-nidal-hassan-explains-it-all-to-you.html



http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/it-may-be-advantageous-for-muslims-to-work-in-these-infidel-armies-so-as-to-learn-their-secrets.html



http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/american-convert-to-islam-says-it-is-not-permissible-for-muslims-to-join-an-infidel-army.html























A Faithful Muslim Who Proved That He Wasn’t Treacherous - By Sam Shamoun

Documents

Transcript of A Faithful Muslim Who Proved That He Wasn’t Treacherous - By Sam Shamoun