Wa `alaykum salam wa rahmat-Ullahi wa barakatuH.
Dear Brother J Khan,
There is absolutely nothing in common between the noble and heroic behavior
of Sayyid as-Shuhada' , radi Allah `anh, and what today is referred as
"martyrdom operations" by PLO, Hamas and other similar criminal gangs.
Sayyiduna wa Maulana al-Imam Hussein, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, never
attacked innocent civilians, women and children, and never killed himself
by his own hands. He refused to give ba`yah to Yazid, and for this reason
was not under any obligation of obedience toward him and toward his army.
Even so, he never attached even Yazid's army (not to speak of targeting
women and children, as al-mufsidun of our time do!) but marched along his
way and ordered his men not to use their weapons until they were attacked.
As soon as they were attacked, self defense became an immediate need, and
they went on defending themselves until the enemy killed them.
What al-mufsidun do in totally different. They kill themselves with their
own hands (and this by itself is enough to make them people of hellfire),
and do so in order to injure civilian passers-by. Their cowardice is such
that they do not target the soldiers, but people who pass in the streets
which are crowded, who are eating at restaurants so assassinating children,
woman, and even Muslims. Their behavior is such that the one who supposes
it to be permissible is surely exposing his Iman to a serious risk.
As the case of Shaykh Ramadan al-Buti, things are not as Brother Kamal
claims. Surely he is one of the eminent Ulema sultaniyyah of a mushrik
regime (the Alawi dictatorship of Syria) whose enmity toward Islam is not a
mystery for anyone, and that same regime makes support of suicide terrorism
and fitnah in Middle East a central point in its wicked policy. No `alim,
while living under the oppression of that barbarian regime, could be free
to proclaim those Islamic truths which are against the policy of the regime
Shaykh al-Buti is in a very difficult position: from one side he must
protect his position in dunya by pleasing the mushrik regime he is a civil
servant of, and from another he must avoid exposing his Iman to risk.
Thanks to his learning, he tries not to oppose the regime on this sensitive
issue, but in the same time he is extremely careful not to utter a
kuffriyyah by openly approving suicide terrorism and terrorism against
civilians. This is the reason why his fatwa of that point is a masterpiece
of ambiguity, which increases doubts in those who abide by it, instead of
To make a comparison, the muttaqi Ulema of old, out of taqwah, were even
refusing to cooperate with the governments of pious Muslims sultans, while
some Ulema of our time accept to serve a regime where a 2 % of Alawi
mushrikun oppresses a 98 % of Sunni Muslims. That is the reason why we
accurately select the Ulema from whom we take knowledge, and prefer those
who are not subservient to any tyrannical regime, but can proclaim the
truth of Islam with ambiguity and without political compromises, without
risks for themselves, for their honor and for the lives of their families.
Wa-s-salamu `alaykum wa rahmat-Ullahi wa barakatuH.
Abu Ibrahim Kalim
Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community
At 19.36 Saturday 12/01/02 +0200, J Khan @ Jayz! wrote:
>Regarding martyrdom operations, I would like to ask: did Imam Hussein (RA)
>not know he was going to die at Kerbala? Even his grandfather, our most
>beloved Muhammad Mustapha (SAAW) said that he will die at Kerbala.
>Are we prepared to say that Imam Hussein (RA) committed suicide?