Usama Hasan of the UK’s Quilliam Foundation gives the impression in this article that Ibn Taymiyya was a moderate. Hasan fails to mention that Ibn Taymiyya also said: “Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.” And: “To fight in defence of religion and belief is a collective duty; there is no other duty after belief than fighting the enemy who is corrupting the life and the religion. There are no preconditions for this duty and the enemy should be fought with one’s best abilities.”
Ibn Taymiyya was one of Osama bin Laden’s favorite Islamic scholars; Osama quoted him repeatedly in his 1996 fatwa declaring jihad against the United States. And here is Usama Hasan invoking him to explain how he has supposedly “deradicalized” several jihadis and would “deradicalize” Shamima Begum. But what if your pupils start reading more Ibn Taymiyya, Mr. Hasan? Have you read Ibn Taymiyya, Mr. Hasan? It is hard to believe that you haven’t, given your work to “deradicalize” jihadis: it would only make sense for you to be familiar with how they become “radicalized” in the first place, and that process has not infrequently involved Ibn Taymiyya’s writings. So don’t you think that invoking Ibn Taymiyya to explain how you would turn a jihadi away from jihad is a bit…cynical and deceptive?
“How would I deradicalise Shamima Begum? With Islamic scholarship,” by Usama Hasan, Guardian, February 19, 2019:
How do we deradicalise young, indoctrinated people like Shamima Begum? As part of their ideology, takfiri terrorist groups such as Islamic State and al-Qaida justify their aggression towards the west by creating a divide between Muslims and non-Muslims….
During my work in 2018, I attempted to help several young radicalised men, including a terrorism convict and a terrorism suspect, to deradicalise and accept and appreciate their British citizenship after seeing how it is supported by Islamic values. My work involved discussing various concepts for them to study.
According to ninth-century Islamic jurisprudence, the world was divided into two – the lands of Islam (dar al-islam) for Muslims, and the lands of disbelief (dar al-kufr) for non-Muslims. Within dar al-kufr, lands were distinguished between lands of war (dar al-harb), and lands of peace-treaty (dar al-sulh).
However, this binary worldview is medieval and no longer a fit for a modern world. While terrorist theologians believe the default state of international relations is based on warfare with the non-Muslim world, modern Islamic international relations are based on peace. Even in the 14th century, the Salafi scholar Ibn Taymiyya issued the Mardin fatwa. Mardin, in modern-day Turkey, was a Muslim-majority town that had been conquered by the pagan Mongols. When asked whether this land – a Muslim population with non-Muslim rulers – constituted dar al-Islam or dar al-kufr, Taymiyya reasoned that it was neither. He introduced the concept of dar murakkab: compound or composite land, of different religions. This fatwa is crucial as it opened the door to Muslims accepting the complex social fabric of our modern, multicultural nation-states.
According to leading 20th-century jurists such as Muhammad Abu Zahra, Wahba al-Zuhayli and Abdullah bin Bayyah, all Muslim-majority countries have subscribed to the United Nations, and according to the Qur’an (5:1) all Muslims are obliged to honour their agreements. All Muslims must therefore honour agreements made to international bodies such as the UN. All modern societies are regarded as belonging to dar al-muwatanah (lands of citizenship).
In my deradicalisation efforts over the past year, a key step was to help those young men understand that, even according to medieval formulations, Britain is not a “land of war” but a land of peace-treaty or covenant, or at least a “compound” or “composite” land of different religions. Some of the young men initially thought that Britain was a “land of war”, with terrorist attacks here being justified by British wars abroad….
christianblood says
UK resettles hundreds of Al-Qaeda “White Helmets” in the UK. More below:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47243867
Antiislamicman says
Islam is evil and false
mortimer says
Here’s the dilemma: Islam claims to be eternal, perfect and complete. Usama Hasan claims that a medieval Islam is no longer valid.
If medieval Islam is not valid, then Islam is not eternal or complete. Thus, Islam seriously contradicts itself and is false.
mortimer says
If 21st-century Muslims know more than Mohammed and his companions, then they don’t need Islam.
Michael Copeland says
“Britain has always been Dar-al-Harb [the Realm of War]”
Anjem Choudary
mortimer says
Good quote from MC which sums up this matter perfectly.
I am glad that the sheikh mentioned Ibn Taymiyya’s comment on the town of Mardin. Ibn Taymiyya went on at length and his comment is part of the larger context of his other writings. Ibn Taymiyya was not adverse to jihad to overthrow kafir rulers and to establish Sharia law and a caliphate.
Ibn Taymiyyah soundly denounced those who do not follow ALL of Islam and say, “‘We believe in some (verses), but disbelieve in others’ and wish to make a between that a way … these are the disbelievers (kafirun) in very truth, and We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment.” (from K.4.150,151)
Another scholar, Ibn Kathir, states that whoever prefers human laws to the ‘Rule of Allah’ in Sharia “must be fought to the death (yajib qitaluhu) until he returns to the Rule of Allah, and until he rules by no other law than Allah’s law.” (Koran commentary of Ibn Kathir, vol.2.p.67)
The only way to stop jihadism is to deprogram Muslims RIGHT OUT OF ISLAM through showing them the textual studies, archeological studies and historical revisionist theory that make sense of a mass of total contradictions in the traditional accounts of the foundation of Islam.
Once Muslims see Islam is manmade, they cannot go back to jihad or even practice the rituals of Islam with conviction.
mortimer says
Ibn Taymiyya continued his discussion of the occupied town of Mardin: “Someone who lives there (in Mardin) must emigrate (hijrah) from it, if he is unable to carry out his religious obligations … to support an enemy of the Muslims with personal military service or with money is forbidden.”
Ibn Taymiyya continues concerning how to respond to the Monguls: “When part of the religion is Allah’s, and another part of it is not, the fighting is OBLIGATORY until the whole religion is Allah’s…” !!!
Ibn Taymiyya thus prescribes 1) EMIGRATION FROM NON-MUSLIM TERRITORIES or 2) JIHAD AGAINST THE RULERS.
Ibn Taymiyya DOES NOT suggest Muslims in KAFIR TERRITORY should just simple go along with the kafirs in everything. Ibn Taymiyya obviously commands resistance to the kafirs until Islam is strong enough to take over.
Michael Copeland says
It helps to know how people become “radicalised” in the first place.
The UK government defines “radicalisation” as the
“process by which a person comes to support terrorism…..”
This process can be instructed.
See “Instructing Radicalisation”:
https://gatesofvienna.net/2018/01/instructing-radicalisation/
mortimer says
They become radicalized through the sermons of Anwar Awlaki and the books of Qutb, Faraj and Maulana Maududi, amongst others.
Michael Copeland says
If it didn’t so state
In the Great Book of Hate
It would not be there to preach
medforth says
Madhouse Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD): Radical Islamists to look after IS returnees+++
The letter “S” in the party name of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) seems to stand for “Stockholm syndrome” (sympathy with the aggressor). Those who turned a blind eye to the radicalization of Islamists for years and who literally didn’t care about the victims of IS terrorism now want IS returnees to be cared for by other Islamists. As part of the debate about IS returnees, Berlin’s Interior Senator Andreas Geisel (SPD) is relying on the help of radical Muslims, according to a report in the daily Tagesspiegel. “These could at least dissuade them from violence, Geisel believes. The SPD Senator of the Interior said he had been a member of the communist SED party since his earliest youth before the fall of communism in the GDR.In the debate among the interior ministers about the return of German IS fighters and their followers, Geisel actually made the suggestion that the radical Islamists observed by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution – he tenderly calls them ” Legalists ” -, the Arab Muslim Brotherhood and Milli Görüs movement, could take over something like a sponsorship for their jihadist fellow believers. The reason: According to the daily “Tagesspiegel” they are considered “non-violent and humane”. The authority in Berlin certifies ” Legalists ” to desire a social system in which the Sharia applies. Geisel’s crude idea: “Moderate Islamists could address militant Islamists better and at least dissuade them from violence”. Experts, among them Burkhard Freier, head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution in North Rhine-Westphalia, now consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be more dangerous than Al Qaeda and IS.”It is not to be expected that a radicalised person will ‘become an upright member of the Young Union’ after the deradicalisation, the senator said – and made Congress laugh,” the Tagesspiegel continues. This proposal, which has failed time and again in the past and has not reduced the number of Salafists, was made by politicians from the stronghold of jihadists in North Rhine-Westphalia.Its Interior Minister Herbert Reul ( Christian Democratic Union ,CDU), who cannot even cope with the Arab clans in his own country, “is counting on an expansion of the dropout programmes when it comes to returnees”. They have already failed miserably at the time before the IS, otherwise the number of Salafists would not have increased so rapidly.In North Rhine-Westphalia alone there are more than 3,000 Islamists known to the authorities to be willing to use violence – in the meantime the number has risen to 11,500 throughout Germany, as became known at the beginning of February.The only halfway sensible proposal was made by Bavaria’s Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann ( Christian Social Union ). He insisted on denying German citizenship to the dual state jihadists. According to the Tagesspiegel, he refers to the coalition agreement between CDU/CSU and SPD. Federal Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) is also in favour of a tough approach to war criminals. He told the newspaper “Süddeutsche Zeitung” that Germany would only take back IS fighters and their families under certain conditions.A jihadist should only be resettled if an arrest warrant awaits him here.
Read more:
https://searchlight-germany.blogspot.com/2019/02/madhouse-social-democratic-party-of.html
mortimer says
Germany knows the name of the enemy (‘Salafists’), but they do not know how to deal with them.
gravenimage says
Mortimer–with all respect–you are mistaken in believing that it is only Salafists who are a threat. All pious Muslims are. Salafism is just orthodox Islam.
Ren says
UK “Moderate” imam Usama Hasan claims he would “deradicalize” ISIS bride by using work of jihadist scholar
Could anyone be more stupid than a moderate muslim?
mortimer says
Disagree that ‘moderate’ Muslims are stupid. They are very clever at reasoning, but their reasoning turns out to be fallacious when closely examined. They twist Koranic verses and hadiths to suit their modern interpretations and claim to know more about Islam than Mohammed.
Jayell says
In other words, they have the same ‘talents’ as devious, unprincipled lawyers who would get the likes of Al Capone off the hook by reducing his crimes to a parking offence – because that’s the only way to accommodate islam into civilised society. By the way, it’s interesting to see the insolent way in which Hasan presumes the right to invent realities to suit his agenda. The UK has NEVER been a ‘composite land of many religions’ – it’s had an established church for centuries headed by the Head of State – or hadn’t the ignorant idiot noticed? And getting an imam to organise a deradicalisation programme is about as appropriate as employing a sewage farm operative in a hospital sterilisation unit.
Terry Gain says
Ren
Yes. People who don’t realize that moderate Muslims are the most dangerous Muslims. The goal of world domination hasn’t changed. What has changed are the tactics now being used. Moderate Muslims understand that conquest is more effectively accomplished through migration and propaganda that through Jihad.
Yes, Jihad will still be used but more sparingly and just often enough to remind us how much we need the “moderates” to quell the Jihadists.
mortimer says
Muslims, if you today in 2019 know Islam better Mohammed and do not agree with Mohammed on many points … factually, philosophically, scientifically and ethically … then you can learn nothing from Mohammed and you do not need Mohammed, because he is misinformed.
Thus, ‘moderate’ Muslims today such as the mullah Usama Hasan have admitted Mohammed was wrong about many things. If Mohammed was wrong about so many important matters, and Mohammed’s Islam cannot be practiced by a reasonable person in the 21st century, then ‘moderate’ Muslims may leave Islam with confidence.
Terry Gain says
Muslims know very well the importance of deceit. They don’t disagree with Muhammad or they would leave Islam.
Niemoller says
Muslims demand that uppity infidels know their place, which is to keep muslims comfortable and to accept their jihad travel for the sacred act of murdering in the name of Allah, then return to the west like it was from a religious work-study tour. These preposterous demands are about Islamic supremacy. Learn to recognize it.
mortimer says
Every Muslim is IN PART a Salafist and a jihadist. If not, that Muslim is no longer a real Muslim, but a ‘pretend’ Muslim.
Or Else! says
So we have a vegetarian fox trying to convince a carnivorous fox that the “perfect prophet” fox was wrong about storming henhouses and eating chickens–using the writings of a deceptively omnivorous fox?
Nice try.
Can’t have it both ways, folks.
Another diversionary tactic to fool the Left.
Terry Gain says
The Left is already onside. This taqiyya is for the muddled middle.
Krishna says
Only way to deradicalize jihadi is either jihadi should let go his interest towards Islam or leave Islam
gravenimage says
UK: “Moderate” imam Usama Hasan claims he would “deradicalize” ISIS bride by using work of jihadist scholar
…………………….
Yeah–what could go wrong? sarc/off
Warrenraymond99@gmail.com says
Usama Hasan claims that, “according to the Qur’an (5:1) all Muslims are obliged to honour their agreements. All Muslims must therefore honour agreements made to international bodies such as the UN.”
The quran doesn’t say that at all. 5:1 is about livestock and what animals are lawful (halal). All agreements with infidels are worthless when Mohammedans have the upper hand.