Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
loosescrews

Taliban Murders Moderate Cleric

Recommended Posts

Taliban Claim Responsibility for Slaying Cleric

 

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Associated Press

 

ISLAMABAD — Supporters of a popular moderate cleric mourned his assassination in one of several suicide bombings for which the Taliban claimed responsibility Saturday to retaliate for a Pakistani military offensive against extremists.

 

But instead of sowing fear and dissension, the attacks appear to be contributing to a growing wave of anti-Taliban sentiment, particularly the bombing at a seminary Friday that killed Sarfraz Naeemi. The cleric had called the militants murderers, condemned suicide attacks as un-Islamic and backed the ongoing operations in the Swat Valley region.

 

His death sparked a general strike that virtually shut down Karachi, the country's commerical center. About 200 activists of Jamat Ahle Sunnat, a moderate Muslim sect, staged a mock funeral procession for the Taliban, burning one in effigy as they chanted "Down with the Taliban; Taliban, the enemy of Islam; death for the killers of Sarfraz Naeemi."

 

In Lahore, where the bombing killed Naeemi and six other people, thousands gathered under tight security for his funeral, surging forward to try to touch his casket as pall bearers carried it to a crypt where it was sealed and covered with rose petals. The protesters demanded death for the Taliban and their leader, Baitullah Mehsud.

 

"We have no doubts that Taliban have killed our leader," said Mohammad Arif, 35, a former Naeemi student who now works as a prayer leader in a Masjid in a middle-class neighborhood.

 

"Our demand to the government is that they should kill each and every Taliban. We demand that their chief Baitullah Mehsud should be arrested and hanged in public. This is the only option to save this country."

 

The protest carried a distinct anti-American flavor, with some demonstrators carrying placards claiming the Taliban are U.S. agents aiming to disrupt Pakistan — a claim that Naeemi had made.

 

President Asif Ali Zardari earlier addressed the nation and vowed to continue fighting the Taliban "until the end," calling it a battle for Pakistan's survival.

 

Later, Parliament approved the budget for the new fiscal year, with a 16 percent increase in the military's allocation.

 

"The war on terror has already cost us over $35 billion since 2001-02," said Hina Rabbani Khar, the junior finance minister. "We now face the prospect of incurring huge costs on account of counterinsurgency expenditures."

 

The government also allocated $620 million to help almost 2.5 million people who Khar said have been displaced as a result of the insurgency. Helping the refugees is a critical issue to avoid anti-government anger.

 

Taliban militants have unleashed a battery of suicide attacks since Pakistan launched the Swat offensive in the volatile northwest.

 

The bombing that killed Naeemi happened within minutes of a similar attack at a Masjid used by troops in the northwestern city of Nowshera that killed at least four and wounded 100. Those took the count of suicide bombings to five in eight days, including a huge blast at the luxury Pearl Continental Hotel in nearby Peshawar that killed nine people, including U.N. workers.

 

Taliban commander Saeed Hafiz claimed responsibility for the blasts at the seminary, hotel and in Nowshera on behalf of Tehrik-i-Taliban, the group headed by Mehsud, local media reported.

 

Naeemi's son, Raghib, filed a criminal complaint Saturday accusing Mehsud of murder, conspiracy and terrorism, saying his father had received threats for his outspoken views.

 

"Baitullah Mehsud is responsible for planning and motivating the attack that killed my father," police official Sohail Sukhera quoted the complaint as saying.

 

In his address early Saturday, Zardari said Pakistan was "fighting a war with those who want to impose their agenda on this nation with force and power."

 

"These people murdered thousands of innocent people. By spreading terror in Pakistan and by scaring people, they want to take over the institutions of Pakistan. They do everything in the name of Islam, but they do not have anything to do with Islam. They are terrorists."

 

In Washington, U.S. defense officials said Friday that Pakistan was planning a new assault into the lawless tribal district of South Waziristan, where senior al-Qaida and Taliban leaders are believed to have strongholds.

 

Pakistan has announced no such offensive but has shelled and dropped bombs on suspected militant strongholds in the region in recent days, saying it is responding to militant attacks.

 

The U.S. officials said the initial phases of the offensive had already begun, but offered no timeframe. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the operation has not been announced.

 

On Saturday, Pakistani jet fighters dropped bombs on suspected Taliban hide-outs in three villages in South Waziristan, killing at least 15 insurgents and wounding many others, two local intelligence officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

 

Military analysts say any fight in the Waziristan regions would be much tougher than the Swat operation because the Taliban are more entrenched and battle-hardened from fighting in Afghanistan. They also say Pakistan may want to deal with more than 2 million internal refugees from the Swat offensive before opening a new front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

If people knew that Islam opposes nationalism and orders the protection of the deen in its full, it might help to understand who is really fighting for Islam and who is fighting out of foolish patriotism. May Allah guide them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proper Islamic opinion with evidence that rebellion against Waleyy Al-Amr is forbidden even if corrupt or does not rule by Sunnah:

 

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The best among your rulers are those whom you love and they love you in turn, those who pray (make supplication) for you and you pray for them. The worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and they hate you in turn, and you curse them and they curse you.”

Someone asked: “O Messenger of Allah! Shall we confront them with swords?”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “No, as long as they hold prayers among you. If you see from your rulers what you hate, hate the action they do but do not rebel against them.” [sahîh Muslim]

 

and

 

On the authority of Huthaifa ibn Al Yaman, the prophet -pbuh- said: “Rulers after me will come who do not abide by my guidance and do not rule by my Sunnah. Some of their men will have Satan’s heart in a human’s body.”

 

Hudhayfah said: “What should I do, O Messenger of Allah, if I live to see that time?”

 

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “You should listen and obey them even if the ruler smites your back and takes your wealth.” [sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

 

and

 

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “There will be rulers over you. You will agree with some of what they come with and reject some of it. Whoever rejects what must be rejected will maintain his innocence and whoever hates it will maintain his innocence. However, those who accept (what should be denied) and follow the ruler will be sinners.”

 

The Companions said: “O Messenger of Allah, shall we fight these rulers?” He said: “No, as long as they pray.” [sunan al-Tirmidhî]

 

 

The majority of proper established scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamâ`ah have adopted these hadîth and use them as evidence in their ruling that is unlawful to rebel against the ruler, no matter how oppressive he might be, unless he exhibits outright unbelief.

 

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said: “Obedience to the ruler who is agreed upon by people is obligatory.”

 

Imam al-Tahâwî said: “We do not support rebellion against our rulers even if they are unjust. We do not make supplications against them and do not set any revolution against them. We believe our obedience to them is obedience to Allah unless they order something unlawful. We make supplication for their guidance and their safety.”

 

Ibn Abî al-`Izz al-Hanafî writes in Sharh al-`Aqîdah al-Tahâwiyyah: "It is much better to stick to obeying the rulers even if they are oppressors, because rebellion against them will cause even greater strife. Being patient with them will be an expiation for misdeeds and increase rewards.”

 

Ibn Battâl said: “Scholars have agreed that it is better to obey the oppressive rulers and participate in jihâd alongside them than to rebel against them. This will prevent bloodshed and prevent strife. The only exception is when the oppressive rulers show clear unbelief.”

 

Ibn Taymiyah writes: “The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah are agreed that is obligatory to refrain from fighting in civil strife. This is an application of the authentic hadîth in this regard. Many scholars used to write that down in their statements of creed - that they believed in and they called others to believe in - to be patient and not to fight the rulers.”

 

 

It is established by the scholars of practically all Islamic institutions around the World that what Taliban is doing is technically and for all intents and purposes, the illegal act of breaking out on the ruler with weapons, and should be dealt with under the ruling of "Corruptors in the Land". The underlined part of the prophet's hadith also shows that such rulers that cannot be rebelled against include not only bad ones but also those who do not rule by Sunnah or Shariah.

 

The statement by Ibn Taymiyah is the REAL ACTUAL opinion of this great scholar, not what some people quote out of his books out of context, sometimes out of a paragraph where he is showing the wrong ideas and concepts that he intends to disprove, yet gets plastered in many places as his own fatwas and boldly attributing them to him.

 

This murdered scholar -god rest his soul- has died in the path of telling the truth, and may God punish the murderers for their crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Bro thats referring to rulers of the Islamic State who rule by Sharaih. Not the nation states of today beacuse we are suppose to live as one under shariah law. Not live under kufr laws and rulers who kill Muslims and ally with the disbelievers! Especially that these rulers rule with kafir laws.

 

Why dont u tell us what Ibn Taymiyyah(ra) said about those who dont rule with Shariah and those that side with teh disbelievers against the believers.

 

P.S. Please get ur facts right. It was the Pakistani army who attacked the Muslims near the Afghan border first. The Muslims there had no interest in fighting the Pak army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×