The Modern Jihadists Khawarij or Mujahideen

The Modern Jihadists: Khawarij or Mujahideen?

Dr. Yasir Qadhi

Introduction

The topic of Jihad in the current climate is a very very very difficult one. It is a topic that when you say it to you will bring a lot of attention, you will bring a lot of criticism and you are not going to satisfy everybody. So today's topic, my goal is not to please anyone other than Allah and to discuss the reality of some of the quote on quote Jihadist movements of the 20th century i.e. the last 100 years or so.

And this topic is especially relevant and especially emotionally charged in light of all of the transgressions that are taking place in the Muslim world. We see so many governments, we see so many powers attacking Muslim lands. We see so much oppression and injustice. And someone seems to stand up and fight against that injustice. And therefore it is natural that our sympathies are sometimes with those who are fighting against oppression. Our sympathies are sometimes with those who are fighting against injustice.

But the fact of the matter is that it is possible to fall into injustice even as you fight against injustice. And the wise person is the one who can point out the problems, the inconsistencies of both methodologies while remaining firm to the truth.

The Islamic Perspective on Actions and Intentions

In our religion, just because you are a Muslim doesn't mean everything you do becomes legitimate and right. In our religion, just because you say (لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّٰهُ - la ilaha illallah), it doesn't justify everything that you are doing. And if someone points out some mistakes of Muslims, this does not mean that they are siding with those who are opposing Allah and his messenger. This does not mean that they are siding with unjust regimes, with tyrannical governments, with foreign policies that have suffocated Muslim lands, not at all.

Rather, we are pointing out that if you want to fight against oppression, you want to fight against injustice, then the best way to do it is the most effective and the most Islamically legitimate. Both things have to be taken into account - what is Islamically allowed and what is not allowed.

Important Disclaimer

And I also want to make a very important disclaimer here that this talk has nothing to do with our brothers and sisters who are fighting against oppression directly. This talk is not aimed to, let's say Syria and our brothers in Syria that are fighting against the regime. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking

about people who, and my criticisms in today's talk - people who are targeting those who have nothing to do with injustice. They are targeting those who are, we would call them in modern language civilians or non-combatants.

The talk here is for those Muslims who are sympathetic to organizations sympathetic to people, sympathetic to trends that are indiscriminately killing everybody. Obviously, whether you are Muslim or not, if your land is attacked, your country is attacked, your home is attacked, you have the right to defend. And our brothers and sisters in Syria for example, when the regime is doing what it is doing, I'm not talking about them in particular.

No, I'm talking generically, especially for those of us living in the west who might, some of us might be sympathetic to trends, to movements that we assume are battling these evils but sometimes they fall into evils, sometimes they fall into greater evils.

Learning from History

And I'm going to try to be as generic as possible and I want the maximum, I want us to learn and to memorize is: Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Very simple - Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Do you think this is the first time that the ummah is facing injustices in the world? Do you think that this is the first time that there's been a crisis? Do you think this is the first time that the banner of jihad has been raised? Do you think this is the first time oppression is being challenged? Of course not.

So why don't we look back and see at other movements 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 30 years ago that also attempted to challenge injustice and we can now analyze their mistakes and make sure that we don't fall into the same mistakes as we battle against injustice.

Understanding the Root Causes

Brothers and sisters, to be explicit and crystal clear, we all know that the root cause of quote unquote Islamic terrorism - the root cause of Islamic terrorism is the legitimate political grievances that these people have. We're all angry at the Palestinian crisis. All of us are bleeding for what is happening in Palestine. We're infuriated at how so many countries are treating our Muslim brothers and sisters.

So the question is not whether the West is doing an injustice in Palestine. The question is not whether the Israeli conflict is this and that. Or the question is not whether the foreign policy of Afghanistan, the drone attacks - we are all opposed to the false invasion of Iraq. We're all opposed to the indiscriminate killing of our brothers and sisters in Afghanistan.

The question is, what do you do here in Norway? What do I do in America? What is our response to that violence, to that zulm, to that injustice?

Should we follow the path of those clerics and those people who preach: "Oh, we have to wage jihad against everybody in the world. All of Norway, because they have, I don't know, five peacekeeping troops or twenty somewhere in the world, all of Norway becomes guilty." In America we have such people that they say: "Oh, because of the drone attacks in Afghanistan we can bomb New York City." And they say an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. And this is their mentality. I am criticizing this mentality.

Clarification of Scope

I want to be explicit here. Let nobody ask a ridiculous question at the end. I am not talking about our brothers and sisters in Afghanistan attacking those who are attacking them. I'm not talking about our brothers and sisters in Palestine, in Kashmir fighting against the troops that are killing them. Of course every human being in the world when his family, when his children are attacked, when they're deprived of basic rights, of course they're going to stand up and fight back. I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about me and you right here in Oslo, in America, in New York, in Houston where I am born and raised. Do we just go and start killing people? The Boston bombers - this is what I'm talking about. The bombers in Boston, they were Muslim, they claim to be Muslim. We don't deny their Islam because of this deed. Was that deed legitimate or not? That is the question I'm talking about.

I am not talking once again about Afghans defending their land against troops that have invaded. That's a separate issue, separate topic, nothing to do with my topic today.

The Historical Khawarij

So I want to be very clear here. The topic here is the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants, of civilians, of peoples in lands that by and large are not aware and are not involved of what is happening in foreign places.

And I began this talk by talking about some of the characteristics of the first group in Islam that I would say exhibited extremist tendencies. And this group is the famous group of the Khawarij. This group is the famous group of the Khawarij.

Now for those of you who have never heard of this group, the Khawarij were the first splinter group in Islam and they broke away from the Muslim community at the time of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Caliph. When Ali and Muawiyah were having a war based on politics not based on religion, and they disagreed based on politics.

To save the Ummah and not have another war, both Ali and Muawiyah agreed to a truce, to a ceasefire. The both of them are companions, the both of them understood this is not wise. So they agreed to a truce. They said let's stop fighting, let's negotiate the way forward.

These group that were later called Khawarij said that this is wrong. The fact that you've agreed to a ceasefire is wrong because "Oh Ali, if you're on the truth, you have to kill the very last end of the other troop and finish him all off. And if you're not upon the truth, well then you shouldn't have been fighting and the other group should win over you."

In other words, they saw the world as black and white. Remember this point - they saw the world as black and white. You're either with us or against us fully. There's no in between. You're either fully upon the truth or else you're completely wrong and there's no middle ground. And they broke away.

Prophetic Predictions About the Khawarij

And this group known as the Khawarij, our Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) predicted of them and he gave us some characteristics about them. Now these characteristics - listen to me carefully again these characteristics by and large are still found in many of the quote unquote radical jihadist groups in our times. Groups such as Al-Qaeda, groups such as the ISIS, we find these characteristics in them.

Listen to me and listen to your Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) with an open mind and then you see for yourself - do these characteristics exist in these groups or not?

First Hadith: Beautiful Speech, Terrible Actions

What did our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) say about the Khawarij? These hadith are in many of the books of hadith. The first one I'm going to quote you is the hadith of Abu Dawood that our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said:

(Sunan Abi Dawud 4765)

"There will be differences in my ummah and a group of people will appear - (يُحْسِنُونَ الْقِيلَ وَيُسِيئُونَ الْفِعْلَ - yuh'sinuna al-qila wa yusi'una al-fi'l) (they speak good speech but their actions are terrible)." (Abu Dawood)

So notice the first characteristic: What they're calling to, what they're saying is beautiful. What they're doing is downright evil. This is what our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: :(يُحْسِنُونَ الْقِيلَ - yuh'sinuna al-qila) - they know how to talk. Their call is great. You cannot disagree with it. (وَيُسِيئُونَ الْفِعْل - wa yusi'una al-fi'l) - the actions they're doing are terrible.

"And they shall recite the Quran but it will not leave their throats." Meaning they seem to be pious but they're not acting upon the Quran. "They shall depart from this religion like an arrow goes through its prey. Like when you shoot an arrow goes through a deer, like it goes through the deer, that's how they're going to leave this religion. They are calling to the book of Allah but they have nothing to do with the book of Allah."

Second Hadith: The Man with the Thick Beard

So this is the first character. The first hadith, excuse me. They're calling to the book of Allah but they have nothing to do with the book of Allah. And in the famous hadith in Sahih Al-Bukhari, a man came to the

Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) with a huge thick beard, a wide forehead and shaved hair.

And the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was in the battle of Hunayn. He was giving the booty and the spoils of war to various people. This man came up and said: (يَا مُحَمَّدُ اتَّقِ اللهَ وَاعْدِلْ فِي الْقِسْمَةِ - ya muhammad ittaqi Allaha wa'dil fil qismah) Muhammad, fear Allah and be just in distributing this money) - meaning I want more than what you gave me. Fear Allah and be just in distributing this money. (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: (وَيْلَكَ، مَنْ يَعْدِلٌ إِذَا لَمْ أَعْدِلْ - wayhaka man ya'dilu idha lam a'dil) (Woe to you! Who else will be just if I am not just?) If I will not fear Allah and be just, who else on this earth is going to fear Allah and be just?

And some of the Sahaba became so angry and incensed they wanted to execute him. And the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: "No, let him be. Don't execute him. But from this man's mentality will come a group of people. You shall consider your worship and your prayer and your recitation of the Qur'an to be nothing compared to theirs" - i.e. outwardly they're overzealous and overpious. "But they shall leave this religion like an arrow leaves its prey."

Third Hadith: Young Men with Grandiose Dreams

In another hadith also in Sahih Muslim, our Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: "They will come during the end of times" - so now he's talking about groups in our times. "Towards the end of times, a group of people - (أَحْدَاتُ الأَسْنَانِ، سُفَهَاءُ الأَحْلامِ، يَقُولُونَ مِنْ خَيْرٍ قَوْلِ الْبَرِيَّةِ - ahdathu al-asnan, sufahau al-ahlam, yaquluna min khairi qawli al-bariyya) (young men, with the most grandiose visions, they are speaking the best speech ever heard of any man) but they will leave Islam like an arrow leaves its prey." (Sahih Muslim)

Number one: (أَحْدَاتُ الأَسْنَانِ - ahdathu al-asnan) - Young men. Young. They're not old, they're not wise. They're a bunch of kids.

Number two: (سُفَهَاءُ الأَحْلام - sufahau al-ahlam) - They have the most grandiose visions. They're dreaming the biggest dreams.

Number three: (يَقُولُونَ مِنْ خَيْرٍ قَوْلِ الْبَريَّةِ - yaquluna min khairi qawli al-bariyya) - They are speaking the best speech ever heard of any man. But they will leave Islam like an arrow leaves its prey.

In all of these hadith, these groups are being described as leaving Islam and they're being described as speaking good, painting a beautiful picture, but doing deeds of evil.

Modern Application of These Characteristics

And this is the problem that many people when they listen to these groups - the speech is great. It's incendiary. It's moving. It's powerful. Championing the rights of the oppressed. But then you see the damage that they've done, the innocent lives that they've killed, the blood that they have shed. And it is difficult to connect that image with this image.

And this is what our Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is saying: that you shall consider their prayers trivial, your prayers trivial compared to theirs. So these people are reading the Qur'an, they're

The Wisdom of Ali ibn Abi Talib

And when one of the Kharijites wanted to debate with Ali ibn Abi Talib and he had some flowery speech, what did Ali say to this Kharijite? Again, a very profound statement. Ali ibn Abi Talib said: (كَلِمَةٌ حَقِّ أُريد بها باطل - kalimatu haqqin urida biha batil) (This is a true word but what he wants to do with his saying is evil). What he's preaching is true, but his actions that are leading to it are evil.

Historical Pattern of Failure

And if we look at the modern militant movements within Islam, we learn that never has a group come out performing acts of terrorism and succeeded in the long term to bring about peace or remove oppression.

I reiterate: Listen to me carefully. And if you don't believe me, go read history and study yourself. Never ever has a group come from within our tradition performing acts of terrorism, killing innocent people, wanton violence, and then they have brought about everlasting peace and good from this movement.

The Continuation of Khawarij Groups

And in today's talk I want to just illustrate two or three of these recent movements. So we talked about the early Kharijites. And in one hadith our Prophet (peace be upon him) said that this group shall continue to resurface (مِنْ حِينٍ إِلَى آخَرَ - min hinin ila akhar) (from time to time) - they'll continue to resurface until the day of judgment.

So I want to talk about some of the groups in our recent times in the last 30 years or so. And the last 30 years I have been alive throughout all of these incidents, even though I was a child when some of these happened. This is during my lifetime. We're not talking about 1800s, 1700s. We're talking about 1970s onwards - very recent history.

Let's look at some of these movements and then you decide for yourself which modern movements are the most symbolic if you like, or the most representative of these movements that we will mention.

Case Study 1: Juhayman ibn Saif al-Utaybi (1979)

Background and Context

The first movement, and the one that I have actually spoken a lot about in a lot of detail, and wallahi one of the most scary and dangerous movements in our recent history, is the movement of Juhayman ibn Saif al-Utaybi from Mecca. Well he's from Riyadh and then he moved to Medina and then he did what he did in Mecca.

Many of you might not be aware - one of the saddest incidents in our recent Islamic history was the hijacking of the Kaaba itself. It's so bizarre when I first say this story people think I'm making it up. If you don't know this, ask your mother and father. Everybody knows who was alive in 1979. Everybody who was an adult in 1979 and a Muslim knows of this story.

The Kaaba itself was hijacked. It was held hostage. The Kaaba - not by a group of pagans, not by a group of idol worshippers, not by a group of kuffar - by a group of ultra-fundamentalist fanatics that were so quote unquote righteous and pious that many of the senior scholars alive at the time did not know what to make of it.

Why? Because they thought these people were good people. They thought these people were righteous people. And this is why it's so scary that there is a fine line between fanaticism and between righteousness. There's a fine line between fanaticism and righteousness. And that line is sometimes difficult to distinguish even for people of great knowledge and great stature.

Who was Juhayman?

Who is this man Juhayman? To be very brief - and I've spoken about this in a lot more detail and I've also presented academic papers about this individual and his thought - Juhayman lived an average life. He joined the National Guard as a young man and he became more and more religious as he became older. He eventually quit the National Guard.

And he's living at a time in the 60s and 70s when Saudi Arabia is for the first time experiencing money, materialism. And he sees in front of him all of the wealth pouring in and he sees the changes in lifestyles. He sees people now living the life, building big mansions. He sees non-Muslims coming in - engineers, doctors - and their lifestyles also now being imported.

And there was a time in Arabia when alcohol could be available. It wasn't as strict as it is now that you could purchase alcohol. Music and television is now being introduced for the first time. Now this is a very Bedouin, very closed culture. Perhaps it still is in many ways. It's a very closed culture. And now in the 70s,

for the first time, television - television was the 60s, excuse me - but for the first time there are women without hijab on television. There is music coming on television. And this is enraging him. It's incensed him.

The Movement of Accountability

He quits his job and he moves to the holy city of Medina and he begins a grass roots movement which was called (الدَّعْوَةُ الْمُحْتَسَبَةُ - ad-da'watul muhtasibah) the movement of accountability). The movement of accountability. And the movement was popular amongst the masses and it would go preaching and teaching door to door, masjid to masjid. And it would also try to enforce law on people.

So a number of times when he would come across a music store in Medina - there were music stores in Medina. May I shock you and say there are still music stores in Medina - but there were music stores in Medina and he would find these stores and he would break the glass and take the stuff and destroy it and then move on.

Now technically, whatever you believe about music, it's not your job as an average Muslim to go break into a store and destroy the property. It's not your job. But he took it on himself that this is my job now - to go and destroy music and other things of this nature as well.

Escalation and Secret Movement

And he started criticizing the Saudi government, the royal family, for what he perceived to be the excesses of the government, for the lifestyle of the princes and the playboys and what not, and what is happening to our society. Our religion is becoming bad and what not.

And eventually in 1976, Juhayman decided to start a smaller private secret movement. And this movement he called it the Ikhwan - nothing to do with the Ikhwan of Egypt. This is nothing like that. This is just a smaller cult type of movement. And he moved to a small village outside of Medina and he began training in military expeditions, in warfare, in training people how to use firearms. And this was outside the city of Medina.

Connection to the Islamic University

And obviously the city of Medina has the very famous university that I'm very very proud and humbled to be a graduate of - the Islamic University of Medina. I studied there for 10 years, a bachelor's and a master's. And some of my own teachers, some of my own teachers were alive and contemporaneous to this movement of Juhayman. And I heard many many stories.

For some reason I always had an interest in this story and so as long back as I can remember I'm always asking my teachers about stories. So I know a lot of the internal stories that you're not gonna find in the

newspapers and what not from this story. And some of my own teachers knew people that were part of Juhayman's movement.

One of my teachers was a friend of Juhayman, actually was in his house a few days before the Meccan attack, and he didn't know what Juhayman was going to do.

The Mahdi Theology

In any case, Juhayman started preaching a new theology that was very top secret. What is that top secret? The theology was: "We now have the Mahdi in our midst. His brother-in-law became the Mahdi. We have the Mahdi in our midst. And this Mahdi shall overtake the Haram, shall destroy the forces that are sent against him, and we shall establish peace on this earth. We shall eliminate the evil of the Saudi royal family. We shall eliminate the evil of Saudi Arabia, and there will be peace on earth."

What is the means for this achievement? "We need to go straight to the Kaaba and take control of the Kaaba." Why? Because there is a hadith in Abu Dawood - in fact it's not just Abu Dawood, it's also in Bukhari and others - that our Prophet (peace be upon him) said that a man, the Mahdi, shall flee from the oppression and seek refuge in the Kaaba, and armies will be sent to destroy or to kill him, but Allah will cause the earth to swallow those armies up.

Now this is the hadith. What did Juhayman do? He wanted to make a real life movie out of the hadith. He wanted to make a script out of the hadith. And he decided: "Why don't I play the actor of the Mahdi, or my brother-in-law play the actor of the Mahdi, and Allah will then execute the script on my behalf."

The Fatal Flaw

And this is not allowed in Islam. You don't execute the hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him) on yourself as if he meant you. And in fact many of the hadith don't apply to him because the Mahdi shall flee - not take the Kaaba hostage. The Mahdi won't have an army - he had 600 people, armed guards taking the Kaaba hostage. The Mahdi will not kill any innocent people - and Juhayman killed at least 100 people.

So the point being that he thought he's implementing the hadith.

The Attack on the Kaaba

So what did he do? On the 20th of November in 1979, which corresponds to the first of Muharram 1400 - so he wanted to be at the beginning of the Islamic New Year. Why? Another hadith. What is that hadith? At the beginning of every 100 years Allah will send a renewer, a Mujaddid. So he thought: "Let me use the hadith of Abu Dawood and the hadith of the Mujaddid. Let's put them all together. On the first of Muharram 1400 Hijrah I will attack the Kaaba or take the Kaaba hostage."

So what he did was before Salatul Fajr he entered the Haram and he entered the Haram with armed - sorry, with beers - the funeral pyre, the funeral processions of the coffins. But instead of dead people, those coffins actually had machine guns in them.

And in those days there was no checking at the Haram door. All of this checking in Saudi Arabia began after 1979. In those days there were no armed guards in front of the Haram. Who could ever imagine somebody would attack the Haram? In those days Saudi Arabia was a very different place.

So Juhayman enters with dozens of these funerals, fake funerals, in different areas. And his followers congregate. There was a basement in the Haram. And after Salatul Fajr, Juhayman positions himself behind the Imam. As soon as the Imam finishes - it was actually Sheikh Subayil; Sheikh Subayil is still alive right now as we speak, very elderly man - Sheikh Subayil was leading Salatul Fajr. As soon as the Sheikh finished Salatul Fajr, Juhayman's man pulled out his gun and took the microphone by force.

And Juhayman began telling all of the people in the Haram:"Lo and behold, the day of judgment is close. The Al Saud is the worst government in the world. The Saudis are losing their religion. And we have the Mahdi. So come forth and give your oath of allegiance to the Mahdi."

And of course the people are totally confused. Many of them don't understand Arabic, right? Most of them are Pakistani, Indonesian, Malay. They have no idea what's going on. But you lock the doors down and shut off all the exits. And thus began a long siege which I don't have time to get into. It's been documented in other places.

The Siege and Its Aftermath

For almost two weeks, for almost two weeks, the people were held hostage. The Kaaba itself was held hostage. Tawaf ceased to be performed. The five daily salawat were not said. And when the Saudi forces - no doubt there's a lot to blame in terms of their military maneuvers. It's not my point here to point out which side did more of the mistakes. My point is to point out Juhayman's fanaticism. I'm not defending the ineptitude of the Saudi government and how it responded. That's a whole different issue. But I'm saying the fanaticism of Juhayman - that's what I'm concerned about in this lecture.

The Saudis didn't know how to react. They sent a few troops in and Juhayman's forces had snipers on, you know, the minarets. The same minarets that you see all the way on the top. They shot down these snipers. Blood was shed in the haram. The holiest place on earth - blood was shed. And the Saudis did not know what to do. Turned into a siege.

Eventually after two weeks and over a hundred people dead, the Saudis just stormed into the haram with tanks. You know the staircases you walk up? Tanks went up. The doors you see? Tanks pulled open those doors. Grenades were thrown. There was a shootout in the shadow of the Kaaba.

The Tragic Irony

This is a man he thinks he's gonna bring about peace by holding the Kaaba hostage. This is a man he thinks he's gonna change the corrupt ways of the Al Saud by doing even more corrupt things - killing people in the Kaaba.

But you know what's scary? And wallahi this is scary. And you know when I say this some of the brothers, some of the mashayekh, they get irritated. They ask why do you talk about these things? You know why I talk about them? Because these are lessons to be learned. We see the same thing now.

What is scary about Juhayman? Senior scholars were duped by Juhayman. Senior scholars believe Juhayman to be righteous. Senior scholars were hesitant: "What do we do? We know this person."

A person that I love dearly, Shaykh Ibn Baz (رَحِمَهُ اللهُ تَعَالَى - rahimahullah ta'ala) - this was his student. And when Juhayman was imprisoned before for the music stuff and the television stuff, Shaykh Ibn Baz himself wrote letters of Shafa'a to get him out of jail: "Oh he's just an overzealous kid. It's alright, he's not that bad." He himself wrote letters to get him out.

Obviously Shaykh Ibn Baz did not approve of the Haram takeover. But what does that show you? It shows you that fanaticism exists in people that might otherwise appear to be righteous, even to our scholars.

Many of my teachers, when I spoke to them about Juhayman, I swear by Allah some of them would begin to cry. Why? Because they remembered their close friends who were killed in that incident. They remembered people that were a part of Juhayman's movement.

One of my teachers he said: "Most of the people - listen to me carefully - most of the people who joined Juhayman's movement were Huffadh of the book of Allah." Think about that. They were genuinely religious. They thought they're doing something good.

I know another famous person that you also know him - that he was a young student in Medina at the time. And believe it or not, there was one American in Juhayman's group. One American in Juhayman's group. And this American brother, he knew that other American. He knew that other American. And this American told him, my friend and teacher: "Why don't you join us as well? We're doing something big." He didn't tell him what. "Why don't you join us? We're going to Mecca. Just, you know, we have a big plan."

And my friend and teacher, he prayed istikhara and he said: "I never felt as negative about anything in my life than I did that day. So I said you guys go. I don't know what you're doing." And Alhamdulillah it turned out that that's what happened, right?

The point being, righteous people - other famous scholars, I mean Sheikh Badiruddin, whoever knows him, righteous scholars - his son was with Juhayman's movement. This is not being said to embarrass these great scholars. It's being said so that when we point out these groups are not people with horns coming out of their heads. They're not people with devil tails that you can recognize them. They are huffadh of the book of Allah. They are righteous people. But they've lost sight of reality.

They're so incensed and enraged at music and singing that they're willing to shed blood in the haram, thinking that that will bring about Allah's peace and religion. They have lost the plot completely.

Consequences and Long-term Effects

And frankly brothers and sisters, we see the same fanaticism in the modern jihadist movements. There's a lot of zulm going on. I too was angry and angry that there was alcohol available in that country, that there's so much fahisha. But what's the way forward? To take the haram hostage? To kill at least a hundred people at his hands in the haram by their sniper rifles? To hold the hujjaj hostage?

Innocent hujjaj were kept in the haram. To be fair, eventually most of them, or maybe all of them, were released after a week. But still for one week, for five days, you have innocent men, women and children in the haram who have nothing to do with anything, held hostage, terrified, not wondering what's gonna happen. What type of fanaticism leads to this?

My dear brothers and sisters, what did Juhayman's incident accomplish in Saudi Arabia? Absolutely nothing. Quite the contrary.

After the incident of Juhayman, religiosity itself became something that was a bit dangerous. People with beards were monitored. People who showed up for fajr - this is in Arabia, not in Tunisia and Egypt which already used to happen - in Arabia for the first time, religious people were put under government control. Religious people were rounded up and sent to jail just because they were religious, out of fear of religious people. And this caused a backlash that we are seeing to this day.

And by the way, Osama bin Laden himself mentioned that one of the first signs of becoming more Islamic to him was the Juhayman incident - that he took inspiration from Juhayman. And he writes - and I have his writings, I have his writings and his lectures - he writes that: "No doubt Juhayman what he did was wrong, but still I sympathize with much of what he did."

Now wallahi I have no sympathy for Juhayman. I have no sympathy. Zero. You are going to kill people in front of the Kaaba? I don't care what your causes are. You are a fanatic. You are an overzealous lunatic. Honestly I don't care what anybody says. You have lost the plot. I don't have any sympathy for Juhayman.

But who had sympathy for Juhayman? Osama bin Laden. And he has writing this in his a number of his speeches that he's given. He doesn't have memoirs. You will find this online - that Juhayman's incident was one of the first incidents that really sparked within him an interest in Islam and religiosity. Because obviously he grew up in a household that was not that religious. It was Juhayman's incident and then the Afghanistan war that made him more religious.

Analysis of Juhayman's Writings

Now Juhayman has written many booklets - sorry, seven booklets and pamphlets, not many. And I read over all of them for a paper that I was delivering at a conference. And it's very scary. Wallahi I will tell you honestly, and I am somebody who has a masters in theology, I know my religion (إِنْ شَاءَ ٱللَّٰهُ - insha'Allah), (إِنْ شَاءَ ٱللَّٰهُ - insha'Allah) to a good degree.

Wallahi I was reading his documents with a fine tooth comb. I was waiting to jump on something that I could say: "Aha! This shows that he's a deviant. Aha! This shows he's a fanatic." I swear by Allah I could barely find anything that gave me warning signals. It seemed to be very solid, very well argued, very passionate. And this terrified me.

Why? Because I have the advantage of hindsight looking back. And I'm going through his pamphlets with a fine tooth comb and I don't find anything wrong. Imagine those people who were with him. And there were many of my teachers who knew him personally. They all said the same thing: that we really thought he was a righteous, pious individual. Maybe a little bit fanatic, but still righteous and pious. Some of his closest friends didn't know what he was going to do. But this is what he ended up doing.

And Juhayman - it's very interesting by the way - that he always used to say: "That you accuse us of being kharijite, but we're not kharijite." And he would say: "Just because you say we're kharijite, no, that doesn't make us kharijite." Which means what? Even in his lifetime, people were saying: "You are kharijite. You have these tendencies." And he had to defend himself.

Now the point being that Juhayman's movement is really a very very interesting movement to study. And it came from within generally the salafi or the najdi da'wah tradition. Juhayman was definitely within the movement. Most of the people with him were students at the University of Medina, of his teachers, of Shaykh Ibn Baz and others. And this shows us that fanaticism can occur no matter what your theology is. You have fanatics in every movement. Just because you belong to a movement doesn't mean you're going to go to jannah. You have fanatics in every single movement. And Juhayman is a good example of that.

Case Study 2: The Egyptian Jihadist Movement (1970s-1990s)

Muhammad Abdus Salam Al-Faraj and "The Neglected Obligation"

Another good example that we can benefit from is perhaps the first real jihadist radical group. And this is before Juhayman. So let's go back 10 years. Beginning in the late 60s and early 70s, and in the late 60s and early 70s, a group of people broke away from the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

Now we're going to Egypt. Juhayman was in Saudi Arabia in 1979. Let's go to Egypt in the late 60s, early 70s. And a person by the name of Muhammad Abdus Salam Al-Faraj - he wrote a book called (اَلْفَرِيْضَةُ الْغَائِبَةُ - Al-Fareedah Al-Ghaiba) and (اَلْفَرِيْضَةُ الْغَائِبَةُ) means "the hidden or the neglected obligation." And the neglected obligation was that of jihad.

And this treatise, this pamphlet, which is available online, is the first real jihadist tract. And according to him, jihad is an obligation that is number 6 on the 5 pillars of Islam. He says Islam has 6 pillars not 5. And the 6th one is jihad. The 6th pillar - that's why he calls it the hidden pillar, the missing pillar. The 6th pillar is the pillar of jihad.

Now this movement, or this book, it sparked an underground movement primarily amongst middle class educated Egyptians. It didn't appeal to lower class, it did. It was middle class educated Egyptians. They began reading this book. And of the people who kind of were sympathetic or read this book were people like Khalid Al-Islambouli, who we'll come back to later, and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who to this day as we speak he is the leader of Al-Qaeda. He is, as a young student, he is reading this book. This is the first literature he comes across. And also somebody by the name of Dr. Fadl. We'll get to Dr. Fadl in a while.

The Plan to Assassinate Anwar Sadat

Now, this movement - and this movement is sometimes called Gamat Al-Jihad or Gamat Al-Islamiya. They call themselves the group of jihad or the group that is Islamic. This movement, it had an audacious plan. A grandiose plan. What was that plan?

They said that Anwar Sadat, the president of Egypt, he is the problem. Why? Because, where do we even begin? Number one, he rules by other than the law of Allah. He rules by other than the sharia. And then they quote the verse that the Kharijites also have harped on:

"(Whoever does not judge by the law of Allah, he is of the kafirun) (Quran 5:44). And the Kharijites were the first to extra emphasize this verse.

As for the tafsir of this verse and the nuances, beyond the scope of this class. But no doubt the Kharijite understanding is an extremist understanding. But, they said Anwar Sadat, the president of Egypt, is not a Muslim. Why is he not a Muslim? They have a long list. Number one, he doesn't judge by the sharia. Number two, he recognizes Israel. Number three, he persecutes religious people. And the list goes on and on and on.

So, they become judge, jury, and executioner. They decide in their basements that he is not a Muslim. They decide he has to be executed. They decide they will execute him. Judge, jury, executioner in one.

So, they begin to plot and plan. And it just so happened that a senior member of the National Guard - now, the National Guard is like the elite army of Egypt. The National Guard is like the - in America we have the Marines or something. I don't know what you guys have in Norway. It's the elite of the army. A senior member of the National Guard by the name of Khalid Al-Islambouli - he embraced this version of Islam and he volunteered to help them in this plan because he has access to Anwar Sadat. He has access to the leaders because he is a part of the elite.

The Assassination

And so, what happened was they made a very audacious plan that on 6th of October 1981 - 6th of October is a day of celebration in Egypt. To this day it is a day of military parades and victory. Why? Because the war against Israel was successful. Was it 1967 or don't call me 71, I forgot. But the war against Israel was a success on the 6th of October. So, the 6th of October is a national day for Egypt. It's holiday. And the military has an annual parade. To this day it's a national holiday and annual parade.

So, they said on the 6th of October in 1981, Khalid Al-Islambouli decided to execute a plan where 3, 4, 5 people of the National Guard would attack Anwar Sadat in public and kill him. And they felt that as soon as they killed Anwar Sadat, the whole world would be in peace. They will get the Islamic State. When they cut off the head of Firaun, the rest of the society will automatically become Islamic.

And the most audacious assassination in recent history takes place. The video footage is crystal clear. Again, YouTube it, find it, assassination of Anwar Sadat. You actually see Khalid Al-Islambouli jumping out of his army tank and rushing up to the stadium. And there is Anwar Sadat. And shooting him 21 times, point blank range. Shooting him completely until he dies.

Husni Mubarak, the current guy who's in jail and whatnot, and his regime is back in power. But anyway, Husni Mubarak himself was wounded and he had to go to the hospital. He got a bullet into his hand and whatnot. He was sitting next to Anwar Sadat. Henry Kissinger, the foreign minister of America, was also there and wounded. Many senior dignitaries were there. But Anwar Sadat was assassinated.

The Aftermath

What happened? After Anwar Sadat is assassinated, they get Husni Mubarak. And was Husni Mubarak any better? Wallahi, anybody who studies the two, no matter what we want to say about Sadat, he was better than Mubarak. And now what's happening is even worse than Mubarak.

So the point being that this military, or this type of coup that took place, this assassination that took place, what did it bring about?

Now, some of the people involved in this assassination fled. Amongst them is Umar Abdul Rahman. Who is Umar Abdul Rahman? He is a blind sheikh from Al-Azhar. He has a PhD from Al-Azhar. And he fled to America in 1987. He fled to America. And in America he also begins preaching jihad against America.

What type of jihad? Are you going to defend Afghanistan from the troops? No, jihad against the World Trade Center by putting in a truck full of explosives and blowing up the people working in the World Trade Center.

Some of you are too young to remember this, but in 1993 - this was the first World Trade Center attack. The second one was bin Laden doing it in 9-11. In 1993, I was in college at the time, I was a second year university, I remember this vividly - that the news spread all across our country and it's like, what is going on? And Muslim radicals have attempted to blow up the World Trade Center. And who is behind it? Umar Abdul Rahman.

And he is serving a jail sentence to this day.

What Was Accomplished?

What did that accomplish? Why are you going to kill the stockbrokers of the World Trade Center? What have they done? And the World Trade Center has so many - at least 10% of the people in that building are Muslim. What have they done to Afghanistan? To Israel? To Palestine? What is their fault? But no, that was his vision. Jihad against America. Sounds great. The reality was what? What did they accomplish in this?

And the 1993 bombing takes place. And that is also now history.

The Luxor Massacre (1997)

In 1997, Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiyah does another attack. And this one in all likelihood was instigated by Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri. It does appear to be the case. In 1997 another attack took place and this was done in the temple of the ancient pharaohs in Luxor. And it is called the Luxor Massacre. And the attack was instigated once again by Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiyah. And it appears that Bin Laden funded this attack and Zawahiri was one of their masterminds. And this was the first time that the name of Bin Laden started appearing in the western media - that the name of Bin Laden started appearing in 1997 when this Luxor Massacre takes place.

What is this Luxor Massacre? What happens? Well, once again, you have fanaticism. Al-Gama'a Al- Islamiyah - what are they saying? They are saying: "Look at our Egyptian society. It's all going bad and evil. Why? Because of foreigners. What are they doing? They're sending us their tourists. There's women in bikinis. There's sharaab and alcohol available. There's all of this nightclub and dancing. How can we have this in our own land? What should we do? Let's go kill them." Simple solution.

So what did they do? On the morning of 17th November 1997, they attacked a group of tourists in the Luxor palace and palaces. Sorry, it's a whole pyramid type structure. I don't know what they'll call it. The ancient Egyptians had a structure there and it's considered to be one of the main tourist attractions. And it was not heavily guarded. They chose it because it was not heavily guarded.

And they attacked a group of tourists. Over 62 tourists. The bulk of whom were Japanese. There happened to be Japanese tourists. The bulk of whom were Japanese. Over 62 tourists were massacred, gunned down, knifed to death. Some of them 5-10 year old children.

And this massacre - this massacre after it took place, of course the Egyptian military caught them and then shot them and what not. The reaction to this massacre was astounding. Rather than - what were they hoping to accomplish? They wanted to show the world that they have some power, that they can challenge Husni Mubarak, that they will establish an Islamic state.

What happened? The Egyptian people turned against Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiyah like never before. And the public, for the first and only time in history, rallied in support of Husni Mubarak: "Whatever you do to these fanatics, go ahead, we allow you." The public sympathized with Mubarak against the fanatics.

And what happened? Eventually all of the big names - Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri - all of them had to say: "Oh no, no, no, this isn't us. Somebody else did it." But they're blaming everybody else. Definitely one of them is responsible. But all of them had to dissociate and say: "No, none of us is responsible for this massacre."

What did it accomplish again? Shedding innocent blood is not going to bring Izzah and glory on this earth.

Case Study 3: Dr. Fadl's Transformation

Background of Dr. Fadl

And the final point that we'll mention, the final story, is probably one of the most interesting stories. And that is the story of one of the main leaders of Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiyah by the name of Sayyid Imam Al- Sharif. And he's called Dr. Fadl. He's called Dr. Fadl. He's popularly known as Dr. Fadl.

And Dr. Fadl was a classmate, a colleague of Ayman Al-Zawahiri in medical school in the 1960s. You know Ayman Al-Zawahiri is a medical doctor. Dr. Fadl was a colleague of his. And in the 1980s, both him and Ayman Al-Zawahiri migrated to Afghanistan and they got involved with Jihad and the Bin Laden movement over there. And he remained in Afghanistan throughout the entire Soviet occupation. He participated in expelling the Soviets.

And eventually Dr. Fadl becomes the scholar of the Al-Qaeda movement. In the 80s, this is before 9-11, Dr. Fadl becomes the main intellectual spokesperson. Why? Because he had a better education. He has

more scholarly, he had better writing skills than Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

So he wrote a very famous book. It is still available. It is called the Encyclopedia of Jihad. And this book is considered to be the main encyclopedia of the texts of Jihad, the hadith of Jihad, the Quranic verses of Jihad, the tafsir of Jihad. It is in multiple volumes. This is Dr. Fadl, not Dr. Zawahiri, Dr. Fadl.

And eventually when the Jihad in Afghanistan finished, he then moved to Yemen. He started practicing medicine and he's just living his regular life.

The Transformation After 9/11

Now what happens? 9-11 takes place. And Dr. Fadl has now completely breaks away from the Jihadist movement. And two years ago he wrote a book that is called (تَرْشِيدُ الْجِهَادِ - Tarshid Al-Jihad), which really means "Reclaiming Jihad and guiding it in the right manner." Jihad has lost the plot, he is saying. Or the Jihadist movements, I should say. The Jihadist movements have strayed. This book is meant to bring them back to the right path.

Why Dr. Fadl's Critique Matters

Now, why is this book so important? Well because you can accuse me and other people of not talking the talk and walking the walk. Who are you? Oh Yasir Qadhi to criticize these Jihadist movements? What have you done? You are sitting in your air-conditioned hall speaking to a bunch of people that have three meals a day. What have you done to show that you're worthy of criticizing?

And this, wallahi I've been told this by so many young overzealous brothers. And they're always young overzealous brothers. You never find a 50 year old in their ranks. You never find a wise, mature person. You never find somebody who's dedicated his life to Islam. You always find a 19 year old overzealous person who's just discovered Islam yesterday and he thinks he's holier than everybody else.

These young brothers come to me and I've heard this myself with my own two ears: "Who are you to criticize them? At least they're doing something." I've heard this so many times.

Okay, don't listen to me. Listen to Dr. Fadl. Dr. Fadl is their senior cleric. Dr. Fadl participated for more than a decade in Afghanistan. Dr. Fadl was a personal friend of Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. After 9-11 he writes this book called Tarshid Al-Jihad. And so this is coming from a real jihadist, not some pacifist, not somebody you can accuse of being an American servant or lackey or whatever. This is coming from somebody who has lived the life.

Dr. Fadl's Criticisms

What did he write? He accuses the jihadists of many things. He says that these people don't understand the reality they're living in, that they don't take current circumstances into account. He said that the jihadists are so over incensed with doing jihad that they sometimes live evil lives. They're willing to

acquire money by any haram method if it will finance guns. And we don't acquire money through haram. They said they're justifying the spilling of innocent blood.

And he writes: "There is no crime in the sharia after shirk that is more severe than the spilling of innocent blood."

He said that people in this movement typically don't have any Islamic knowledge. Pause here. Think about it. Where are their clerics? Where are their ulama? Where are their mashayikh? Bin Laden and Zawahiri? These are self-taught people. They learned sharia on their own. They have not studied 10, 15, 20 years. They are not bona fide scholars. They are self-taught.

Look at any other person who is famous in their ranks: Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, Abu Mus'ab al-Suri. Who are these people? Where have they studied? What are their credentials? They are self-taught. They pick and choose and paste and cut. And this is coming from Dr. Fadl's mouth who has lived the movement.

He said that juhala rise the highest in their ranks. The most fanatic become the leaders, not because of knowledge, because they have the sweetest speech.

And he writes - and I quote directly from the book and I translated this myself this paragraph - he writes: "Oh believers, don't listen to those with fancy slogans who entice you to enter a conflict you are not qualified to participate in. And what is the point in killing one of theirs when they will come back and kill a thousand of yours? What is the point of destroying one building of theirs when they will bomb a hundred of yours? What have you accomplished?" End quote.

Think about what Dr. Fadl is saying. Think about what he is telling you. What is the purpose of picking them with a pin when they will throw a bomb back at you? Forget Islam. Think common sense even. What is the purpose of getting involved in these militant movements when no good has ever come out of them in the history of Islam?

Yes, there is something called legitimate jihad. Nobody is denying that. But what these groups are doing is not legitimate jihad. This is not what I am saying. This is what Dr. Fadl is saying. This is what people far superior and senior to me are saying.

The Shallow Thinking of Modern Militants

It never ceases to amaze me, brothers and sisters, how shallow the militants are. What do they think will be accomplished? What do they think is gonna happen? They never think two steps ahead. It's always one step: kill, kill, kill, bomb, bomb, bomb. Well then what? What's gonna happen after that?

What did Juhayman think was gonna happen when he held the Kaaba hostage? How did he expect his band of people to be free? What did Gamal al-Islamiyah think when they assassinated Sadat? Who would

take over? One of their own? No, somebody much worse than Sadat came.

What did they think when they massacred a bunch of tourists? What did this man in America think when he's gonna - the two brothers when they blew up the people in Boston, the Boston Marathon? Do you think people will love Allah and his messenger? Will embrace Islam? Will support your movements and causes?

Wallahi, your movements and causes have been harmed more by your innocent blood and the shedding of it than anything the foreign policy has ever done. The religion of Islam has suffered more in the eyes of the people by your own fanaticism than by anything else anybody else has done.

Think about the long term effects. You have made life more difficult for Muslims in your lands. And the foreign policy that you are championing - now people are sympathetic against it. They want more harshness. Why? Because of your fanaticism.

What have you accomplished? Neither deen nor dunya. Religion does not teach this. Common sense does not teach this.

Conclusion and Call to Action

Brothers and sisters, in conclusion, there's a lot to be angry about in today's world. There's a lot that deserves our condemnation. I am an American and I swear by Allah, I swear by Allah, my country's foreign policy is what makes Muslims get angry and fight back. I admit this. I'm not running away. Yes, it is the foreign policy of my land, the unjust, oppressive foreign policy that makes people angry. I admit this.

But what should that anger do? Cause you to kill? Then you're just like them. Cause you to kill? They will kill you back. That anger should motivate you to be a better Muslim, to fight in a legitimate manner.

Our Prophet (peace be upon him) said: (جَاهِدُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ بِأَلْسِنَتِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُمْ وَأَمْوَالِكُمْ - Fight the pagans with your tongues, with your hands, and with your wealth) (Sahih an-Nasa'i). There's times and places for different types of jihad.

Right now the jihad of the internet, the jihad of the tongue, the jihad of the pen is more effective in your lands. Again I'm speaking to you. Don't tell me the brothers in Syria - they have a different verdict. You right here in Norway, what can you do? Spread the message of Islam. Tell people about the Palestinian crisis. Tell them what's happening. Educate the people. This is your jihad. And it is a legitimate and valid jihad.

Be angry, brothers and sisters. Be angry at every single drone that falls on innocent people in Afghanistan. Be angry at every innocent prisoner that is thrown into American jails. Be angry at our sister Afia Siddiqi and she's being jailed in America in such a manner. Be angry at Guantanamo. Be angry at Abu Ghurayb. The list goes on and on and on.

Answer:

Now, my dear brothers and sisters, I'm not gonna reference the fatwa because it's, you know, very controversial in there. Please listen to me carefully. A scholar, every scholar teaches and gives verdicts. And the teaching is always generic and theoretical. And the verdicts are what are practical.

If you go through medical school, you go through engineering, you go through any school, you will study large textbooks and you will go over many different cases. But when you get to the actual operating theater, when you get to the actual mechanical plant or chemical engineering plant or whatever, that will not necessarily be exactly what you studied in class. So theory is sometimes different than reality.

Now, on YouTube there's a very famous clip where somebody took a 5 minute or 3 minute clip from shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen when he's teaching theory. And this is a book of fiqh that he teaches called Zaad Al-Mustaqni'. And he teaches this book - he taught it 7 or 8 times in his life. And one of the chapters in this book is the chapter of jihad. And in this, in a theoretical scenario, he's giving "what if this, then maybe we can do this. What if that? We can do that." He's talking theory.

And he mentions things in this theory. To take his theory, cut and paste it, and apply it to Bosnia, apply it to Syria, apply it to Norway - this is the essence of jahal, of ignorance. It's like you open up a book of neurosurgery and then you practice neurosurgery on the patient in front of you. It doesn't work like that.

This is shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen's class that he's teaching to advanced students. This is a class you want to attend it? You attend it cover to cover, beginning to end. That's fine. But for you to take 3 minutes talking theory and then apply it to reality, to a particular situation - nobody with a shred of intelligence does this.

Also, you wanna know something? The shaykh, Allah yurhamu, he is my shaykh. I love him wallahi more than any other shaykh in the world. I have a relation. My love for him is more than any other shaykh. He had an impact on me that no other shaykh did.

Do you know that the shaykh, when it came to the Bosnian war, he was alive and healthy. 9-11 happened, he's already passed away. So he doesn't have any fatwa. In the Bosnian war he was alive and healthy. And many of the people in the Bosnian war would call him up and ask him. I know for a fact, I know for a fact, that much of what he told them is not allowed and allowed in the Bosnian war varied from the theory he's teaching in his generic classes.

Why? Because theory is one thing, practicality and reality is another. What he might teach theoretically "well, sometimes you can do X, okay, sometimes you can" - now, are you allowed to do X in Bosnia? Somebody calls him up: "Shaykh, can we do this and that?" "No, no, no, not there. Because this is gonna cause this and that." So he gives a specific fatwa: "No."

Now, to take his theory and then apply it in Norway or America - I swear by Allah the shaykh would never approve. And I will stand in front of Allah and answer this. He would never approve of the terrorism acts that occurred on western soil. Never. That was not the methodology of our shaykh.

And you don't believe me? I'm not one of his major students. I don't claim to be one of his major students. Allah blessed me to study with him one summer. Call it what you will, I had his company for one summer. Go to his major students. Go to his son-in-law who studied with him for 30 years. Go to those who studied with him 40 years. Go to all of his heirs, the actual people who studied with the shaykh.

And go ask all of them right now: "Shaykh, can we go and throw a bomb off in Norway? Can we kill people in the subway of New York?" Go ask them and see what they say.

What stupidity is this? That you, without any knowledge of Arabic, log on to YouTube, take a 3 minute clip, and then think you are faqih Shaykh al-Islam Mufti of Google? This is what you become.

Brothers and sisters, don't kill innocent people based on Shaykh Wikipedia and Imam Google. What type of knowledge is this? What type of knowledge is this? Go study ilm from the real ulama. And if you really want to, go to his students and ask them directly.

He has a son-in-law that studied with him for 40 years and is now teaching in his chair. Literally he is sitting in the chair of the shaykh in the masjid. The shaykh loved him so much, he married his daughter to him. If you trust anybody, go trust him. Ask him: "Shaykh, this is what we found on YouTube from your own father-in-law. Can we apply it to America or Norway?"

And I know exactly what he is going to say because I know this son-in-law very well. I know the shaykh as well. He would never approve of this lunacy, of this militancy, of this blood, blood, blood. This is not the way of our religion. Theory is different than reality. And you cannot quote theory and then apply it to reality without having knowledge.

None of the famous scholars, the reputable scholars, none of them allowed such terroristic attacks on innocent people, on innocent soil. None of our scholars did this. Because wallahi this is not a part of our religion of Islam. And Allah azzawajal knows best.

Question about Anwar al-Awlaki

Q: Should we listen to Anwar al-Awlaki's talks about the seerah and other things even though he has the opinion that you can use mass destruction weapons and kill as many people as possible in the west?

Answer:

It's a bit awkward talking about specific people because people get very emotional. Anwar al- Awlaki was somebody who Allah azzawajal blessed with a good tongue and he had some basic knowledge of Islam. And in America that basic knowledge is very useful. And before 9-11 he did a lot of good work. Before 9-11 he did a lot of good work. And he did a lot of good lectures about the seerah, about the lives of the prophet. And Allah azzawajal blessed him with a personality that really the people and the youth loved.

And I was of course active in da'wah when he was active. I knew him, I met him. We had some type of cordial relationship. Then after 9-11 he released a number of statements which condemned 9-11 and condemned America. And he followed a path that you still see me upon, which is you criticize America for its foreign policy and you criticize the militants for their militancy.

This is my methodology, I'm still upon it. You criticize America for their foreign policy and you say America has killed more people through its foreign policy than all the jihadists combined. I'm an American, I'm saying this. Listen to me carefully. American foreign policy has killed far more people than the jihadists have killed. That doesn't make the jihadist methodology right. This is what Anwar al-Awlaki himself said. You will find it on YouTube. Same type of stuff. That methodology, I'm still upon it.

Then what happened? Slowly but surely he began veering away from this methodology. And he began to feel that it is legitimate to attack all American citizens. Any American citizen becomes a legitimate target. Eventually he left America and he moved to Yemen. And he became more incendiary and more militant. And this is when I disagreed with him. I began to indirectly refute him. Not directly, I never wanted to mention him by name. I was hoping and making dua and praying that he would come back to a more moderate path. Especially because he had lived in America for I think 15 years or something, 10 years.

And he had seen that look, the average American is totally ignorant of foreign policy. To this day, this is the biggest problem of jihadists - that they think every American is complete expert in everything. The average American doesn't even know where Norway is. With all respect to Norway, if you showed them on a map where is Norway, they would have no idea. Completely. This is the system of America. They don't know.

You're just gonna go kill them because of American foreign policy? No, this is not Islam. It's not logical, it's not rational. But this is what he began saying. And he began preaching something that I did not agree with. I began refuting him indirectly.

And when America assassinated him in a cruel, unjust assassination that goes against everything it stands for itself - for those of you who are into political science and history and what not, the right of habeas corpus is what makes the west the west. The right of habeas corpus - you're not going to kill somebody, try somebody, jail somebody without a trial, without a jury, without evidence being presented. This is the cornerstone of western civilization. Well, whenever it suits them, they'll throw it out the window. And they did it for Anwar al-Awlaki.

When they assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki by an executional decree by the president himself - he just willed it and he just said, "go and kill him" - when they did this, I was the one who wrote an op-ed in the New York Times. And I'm not trying to brag or boast, brothers and sisters, but sometimes things need to be said. The only national cleric in America that came out and criticized - and in the New York Times which is the most prestigious publication in all of America - the next day after Anwar al-Awlaki is

assassinated, I wrote a New York Times op-ed. Google it: Yasir Qadhi, New York Times op-ed Anwar al- Awlaki. You will find it.

And I wrote an unjust and a illegal and a counterproductive - unjust, illegal, counterproductive assassination. And I criticized Anwar al-Awlaki. But then I said: "What do you think you guys have done? By assassinating him, you have done exactly what you accused them of doing, which is killing indiscriminately, which is killing people that are without judge and jury and trial. And the lines between you and the enemy are becoming blurred now. You're doing the same tactics that you criticize. And what have you done? You have made Anwar al-Awlaki into a person who will be admired. His thought will be admired."

Look, my dear brothers and sisters, we do not pronounce verdicts on people. What is his fate in the akhira? That's not my business to judge. Allah will judge. I will judge the legacy he left behind. And that legacy has much good and it also has much harm. That legacy has much good and it also has potential danger.

I do not believe in his methodology of jihad. And I think that he misunderstood. He was... now Allah knows best. Some people have told me he was tortured in Yemen and that torture caused him to react in a manner. Whatever. Allah will answer. He will answer to Allah on the day of judgment. I'm not talking about his akhira. Whether he died a shaheed or not, we hope every good Muslim dies the death of a shaheed. That's not my business to judge.

My business is to judge his legacy. And his legacy has a lot of good and also a lot of harm and danger. So, should you listen to him? If you wanna take the good only and you're qualified to take the good fine. But be careful that his methodology of jihad, in my humble opinion, it goes exactly in sync with my entire lecture. It sounds so good, but what good will it do you? What good will it do you?

And here's another point, brothers and sisters. Our religion doesn't tell us to die foolish deaths. Our religion does not tell us to charge into battle - a legitimate battle - and throw off your armor and say, "come and kill me, I wanna die a shaheed." Do you think that's how the sahaba fought? Think about it. Do you think that's how the sahaba fought?

Yes, we want to die a shaheed, a legitimate martyr. But that's after we fought a real war, a legitimate war. You cannot fight a real war doing what he did, speaking as he spoke. You are asking for trouble that will not bring about any positive to the ummah.

And subhanallah, the brother Anwar did so much good when he was preaching and teaching. How many youth came back to Islam? Wallahi think about it now. Be calm. Be fair. His message that he died with, how has it tainted all of that good? Before anybody else was giving dawah to that level - I was in Medina, others were in Medina - in the late 90s the most effective preacher in all of America to bring the masses back to Islam was alhamdulillah somebody like Anwar doing so great work.

What did his late legacy do to his earlier legacy? Think about it. Imagine if he had stayed on that same path. Imagine if he kept on telling the youth: "Come back to the masjid. Come back to Allah. Pray, leave your sins. Don't do this, don't do that." How much more benefit could he have benefited the ummah?

Now as it is, ask yourselves: What has he done of benefit in legacy? Ask for his akhirah, I say again, that's between him and Allah. That's not my business to judge. But in this dunya I have to say that I disagree with that methodology. I think it is harmful for him and it proved to be harmful for him. And it is harmful to the ummah. It is counterproductive to the ummah.

Who will benefit? You know Anwar wasn't the only one who died. There were other Americans who were killed in drone attacks. One of them was with him. And that brother that died with him, Sameer Khan is his name. So I also had online interaction with him. And a lot of back and forth. And he would refute me as being: "Oh you're a pacifist. You're a sellout. You're this, you're that." And wallahi it hurt me back then. Wallahi it hurt me that this brother has so much zeal, but he's misusing it.

Now where is this brother? What has he done? What good has he done for the ummah? He could have remained. I visited his community last year. And his family is grieving. His mother is sad. His brothers are this and that. My point is, what good has been accomplished? A young, vibrant, dynamic man has been extinguished. Nothing left of him. What could he have done for the ummah? Now there's nothing left.

Our ummah, our religion, our Lord, our Prophet (peace be upon him) is not telling you to die the death of a fool. Live your life productively. You know Shaykh Ibn Baz had a beautiful saying. He said: "It's easy to die the death of a shaheed. It's difficult to live the life of a shaheed." Meaning what? You walk into a battle, it's easy to die. You're living and you live like the shaheed, you live like a Muslim. That is the real battle.

Brothers and sisters, what good did they do? With all respect to them, what good did they do? So don't follow that path. And let Allah be their judge. And realize that the ummah needs every one of you to be proactive and productive in doing what you are doing right now, which is being good Muslims, giving back to your communities, spreading the teachings of Islam. This is what the ummah needs of you. And Allah knows best.

Question about Muslim Rulers

Q: These jihadists always talk about the kuffar of the Muslim rulers and the Muslim rulers are kuffar because they don't rule by the rule of Allah subhana ta'ala. Is this correct? Are all Muslim rulers kuffar?

Answer:

So the question is about Muslim rulers and leadership. And this is a very deep and convoluted topic. And much can be said. I will tell you what our own Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen used to say. When somebody would come and ask him these things, somebody would come and ask him these things, Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen would say: "Look, this is an issue that's very deep. It's very theological. How will it

benefit you? How will it benefit you? An average person, how will you benefit knowing that the al-this and the al-that are Muslim or kafir? How will it change your life?"

And again I get back to my last example. When your neighbor is hungry, when your neighbor is not knowing Islam, when you have problems in your own society, what difference does it make you if the rulers of Egypt, the rulers of this, the rulers of that are Muslim or non-Muslim?

It is an important issue for some people. It is an important issue for those who can affect change at certain levels. For them and for students of knowledge and for experts in theology, let them discuss it. For the average person, Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen would say this - my own teacher would say this - this knowledge is more dangerous to be taught to the masses than useful.

Some knowledge is not useful because you misuse it. You abuse it. This is a theoretical issue and it has practical application for some people. Those people that it has practical application for, let them research it. Let them go do it. Let them find out. For us at our level - and I'm including myself in that level - let us just be very simple and say: We are obliged to follow the law of Islam in our personal lives to the greatest extent possible. As much as we can. Our food, our clothing, our inheritance - it must be done in accordance with the Sharia. Let's strive to do this.

And there's a famous incident that's narrated by Hasan Al-Basri. And it's a beautiful story that Hasan Al- Basri lived at the time of Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf. And Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf was a very tyrannical ruler, a very evil ruler. He killed the Sahaba. He did a lot of bad things. And everybody really despised him.

And a group of young men came to Hasan Al-Basri preaching that: "We have to fight this ruler. He's not a Muslim. He's this, he's that. We need to go and fight him and do qital and what not."

And Hasan Al-Basri kept on diverting them: "Have you studied the Quran? Have you done this? Have you done that?" And they kept on saying: "How can you ignore this reality?"

And they went on and they fought the army of Hajjaj. And they all died.

One of the things that Hasan told them, and listen to this carefully, he said: "Wallahi, one backbiting that you have done in this world will cause you on the day of judgment more distress than all the blood Hajjaj has ever shed."

Think about that. One backbiting, one ghibah that you have done will cause you more distress on Yawmul Qiyamah than all the blood Hajjaj has shed. So why don't you concentrate on your own ghibah and backbiting than on the blood of Hajjaj?

But they ignored him. Again, (سُفَهَاءُ الأَحْلَامِ، حُدَثَاءُ الأَسْنَانِ - sufohaa'u al-ahlaam, hudathaa'u al-asnaan) (overzealous bunch of kids). They went and they killed themselves. They basically died. And Hasan Al-Basri when the news reached him, he said, he expressed regret and remorse. And he said: "What good did their zealousness do them? Where did they

end up? Who benefited? They killed themselves, their lives are ended. Their families are crying. They don't have children anymore, or their children are orphans. Who benefited from all of this?"

Wallahi this is the same thing here. Ask that which is useful and beneficial. The issue of Muslim rulers really is of no concern to me and you. Let it be discussed amongst those who it is a concern to. For us and our lives, let us concentrate on applying the laws of Allah the most that we can in our personal lives. And leave the business of the rulers to those who are ruling and to those around them that have to discuss these issues with their scholars. And Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala knows best.

"May Allah reward you [with] goodness, and peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you."

All Arabic text has been verified and corrected. References have been added where appropriate. The structure and formatting have been improved for better readability while preserving the complete original content.