Connect with us

Civil Rights

Elibiary: It’s a Mistake to Assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki (with Foreword by Yasir Qadhi)


Foreword (Shaykh Yasir Qadhi):

The decision to legitimize the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki is wrong on all counts. Simply put, this is a license to murder, no doubt about it. Whatever happened to the rule of law? Whatever happened to the Constitution, which was meant to protect our citizens from the unchecked power of its own government? Even Bush did not stoop to this level.

What is more worrisome to me than the blatant disregard for the Constitution is the lack of any major outcry from the mainstream press regarding such a drastic and draconian measure. Apart from a few vocal left-wing voices, mainstream political commentators and most op-eds of the primary news agencies of this country responded to this call with a deafening silence. It is scary to see that the ‘War on Terror’ appears to have completely blinded America to the very ideals that it used to stand for.

Keep supporting MuslimMatters for the sake of Allah

Alhamdulillah, we're at over 850 supporters. Help us get to 900 supporters this month. All it takes is a small gift from a reader like you to keep us going, for just $2 / month.

The Prophet (SAW) has taught us the best of deeds are those that done consistently, even if they are small. Click here to support MuslimMatters with a monthly donation of $2 per month. Set it and collect blessings from Allah (swt) for the khayr you're supporting without thinking about it.

The decision to assassinate al-Awlaki will only give more fuel to the more radical voices. Rather than silencing al-Awlaki, it will popularize him. This cowardly verdict has boosted Al-Awlaki’s image and prestige beyond anything he himself could have possibly done. It has given him a symbolic ‘badge of honor’ by making him appear so dangerous to the American government that it wants to kill him. It has authenticated him amongst the militants in a way that no Muslim preacher possibly could.

If America actually succeeds in this vile endeavor, al-Awlaki will become the symbolic visionary and poster-boy for all future Western militant movements. By assassinating him, his words and message will become immortal. Such a dastardly decision makes our own voice of trying to refute his rhetoric even more difficult, as it appears that we are then ‘siding with the other‘.

If I could reach out to al-Awlaki, I would remind him of the years that he spent in America, and of the good that he saw in the American Muslim community and in the cities and neighborhoods that he lived in. He himself realized this while he lived here, and his interview with the National Geographic in the aftermath of 9/11 clearly shows this attitude. How I wish we could get that al-Awlaki back!

We all know that our foreign policy is in shambles (and while we’re at it, we might as well point out the status of our health care as well!). Something needs to be done about it, but al-Awlaki’s way is not the way forward. One might question whether, for example, Egyptian Muslims should also follow al-Awlaki’s vision and apply his rhetoric to Egypt, in view of its recent stances? And what if we begin to compile a list of grievances that other Muslim nations have done to the Ummah, should we then follow suit in those lands as well? In fact, it can be twisted around to state that Muslim governments who harm other Muslims deserve harsher treatment than non-Muslims, because they are ‘closer to home’ and have betrayed their own faith. So should we start waging physical jihad against all of them as well?

Al-Awlaki’s rhetoric is simply preaching to the choir. If, for some reason, al-Awlaki were to reverse his stances tomorrow, all those who are championing his name today and claiming to be his die-hard followers would unceremoniously ditch him and look for another voice. These youngsters have already made up their minds (or, to be more precise, they have allowed their emotions to make judgments for them and have not availed themselves to wisdom, experience or the lessons of history). Al-Awlaki is not the source of the problem, nor is he the brains of any movement – he is simply a mouthpiece preaching what his angry audience wants to hear.

Al-Awlaki needs to be dealt with academically, not militarily. And while I also disagree with some of Mohammed Elibiary’s harsh characterizations of al-Awlaki in his article below (for example, characterizing him as ‘disingenuous’ – this is simply not correct, as only Allah knows intentions), he hits the nail on the head when he points out the illegality and danger of assassinating him.

There is much good that Muslims can do in America, and if America has some major issues that need to be fixed, we need to be a part of the solution rather than exacerbating the problem. For myself as a Muslim American, waging ‘war’ on the country that I call home is not only unethical and treacherous, it is also completely foolish. What good would possibly come out of it? Such actions would only harm me as a person, and us as an Ummah, in the short and long term. The Shariah does not ask us to behave in a foolish manner, but rather in the wisest of manners.

Much more can be said, but I will leave that to other articles.

I pray that Allah guides me, al-Awlaki, and all Muslims to that which He loves.

Yasir Qadhi


Recently policy makers in Washington, D.C. let it be publicly known that our government is trying to assassinate an American-born cleric now supporting the other team in the War on Terror. Anwar Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico, studied in Colorado, preached in San Diego and Virginia before going overseas. He was briefly detained in Yemen and then resumed his preaching online with a new political theme, stressing that “America is at war with Islam.” The United States, according to Al-Awlaki, is at war with Islam due to its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan must should be fought on its homeland by any militant means necessary. The news of Al-Awlaki’s pending assassination circled the globe and included long discussions in the media about whether or not such a murder is “constitutional,” if it even constitutes “murder” and on Al-Jazeera it was dissected as a possible window into the Obama administration’s decision making process.

All of this was preceded by news in late January that our government had not only made the decision to assassinate Anwar Al-Awlaki but that it had already attempted once and failed. News reports since then have also revealed that the decision to assassinate an American citizen was came from the White House’s National Security Council after a simple consensus-building discussion process initiated by the NSC.

Intelligence analysts watching this unfold from outside the administration can detect a unique, systemic decision-making pattern regarding covert operations. While our enemies have built up a good deal of operational experience, culminating in the assassination of several CIA agents last year, we now run the risk of helping them capitalize even more effectively on their propaganda and recruitment efforts with the revelation of this assassination policy.

A simple committee of unelected individuals from one branch of government, no matter their subject matter expertise, should not have the power to assassinate an American citizen. The Founding Fathers set up a system of checks and balances, because they recognized that when a king has such powers it is only a matter of time before such power will be turned on political dissenters at home to suppress freedoms. We are a nation that upholds the rule of law in our federal court system and have a Military Commissions system as a backup for terror cases; so why weaken America’s hand by using this extra-judicial assassination policy on American citizens?

Anwar Al-Awlaki is a disingenuous cheerleader in the global jihad who’s preying on largely naive or troubled Western-educated youth attempting to form their identities in a global world. Al-Awlaki built his reputation by retelling the stories of the ancient companions of Prophet Muhammad and their roles in reforming the tyrannical state of affairs in pre-Islamic Arabia. His public rhetoric, including his sermon inside the U.S. Capitol, was largely benign and non-political until his detention in Yemen a few years ago.

Al-Awlaki is a one trick pony whose messaging capability was beginning to be cornered by various American and Western Muslim community efforts until this administration overreacted after the Christmas Day bomber tried to blow up a plane over Detroit and inflamed Anwar’s stature many fold. Alawaki’s message is largely one of righteous self-sacrifice to defend one’s religion, so the proper way of countering it is not to assassinate the messenger so that he achieves “martyr” status. That would only turn him into a ghost who is much more difficult to counter. Instead the more effective method would have been to have mainstream clerics from Anwar’s same Salafi version of Islam expose his disingenuousness and unsound Islamic logic to the youth in the population currently sitting on the sidelines watching geo-political struggles unfold around the globe and wondering what their role in it ought to be.

In field experience where research meets reality, I’ve witnessed first-hand what happens when a Western Muslim youth is properly engaged to separate Islamic jurisprudence from geo-politics; the youth picks Islam over the political activism Al-Awlaki pitches every time. Today Al-Awlaki is not celebrated by the core of Al Qaeda members, nor even trusted to be in direct communications with them. Second, due to his ambitious usurping of jihadi credentials he has earned disdain in numerous jihad-oriented Islamist circles including from Yemen’s top Islamist figure, Sheikh Abdul-Majeed Al-Zaindani, himself counter-productively placed on the Designated Terror List. Al-Zaindani ironically found it easier to condemn Al-Awlaki on Al Jazeera a couple of months ago than to condemn Usama Bin Laden.

Previous experience shows us where this assassination policy leads. In 1966 the Nasser Regime in Egypt decided to execute Syed Qutb, a noted Islamist ideologue who by that point had spent a decade and a half critiquing government policies in regards to church-state issues, Middle Eastern geo-politics and internal sociological schisms about civilizational affiliation amongst the Egyptian elite and middle class. The public perceived injustice, witnessing a military execution without any recognized due process inflicted upon a man for simply speaking and writing his mind. It led to the violent radicalization of tens of thousands in a generation that later gave us the leadership of Al Qaeda and the takfiri (excommunication) movements across the Middle East usurping Qutb’s legacy to this day.

We must ask ourselves whether our public chest thumping in calling for Anwar’s head ‘dead or alive’ is worth the ramifications of having to chase his ghost as a martyr for the next half century, having Al Qaeda’s propaganda department embrace Anwar in death to capitalize on his martyrdom, and encourage more Muslim youth to join Al Qaeda’s disingenuous jihad to hit the “tyrannical Americans.”

President Obama should rescind this assassination order and clarify publicly our national position. We should support, if requested by the Yemeni government, the “capture” of Anwar Al-Awlaki and his prosecution under Yemeni law since there is no extradition treaty between our two nations.

We should also shift some of our counter-terrorism resources to efforts built up over the past few years to counter the online radicalization efforts of Al-Awlaki and others by civic groups and to remove government hurdles hampering their work. We’re Americans and we know that the solution to bad speech is not to shut it down but to counter it with more speech. Al-Awlaki knows this and has cornered the U.S. government so that if it assassinates him, he achieves immortality and proves that American foreign policy is disingenuous and does not see “Muslims” as deserving the political rights it says it professes. Our country deserves a strategic reassessment of this assassination policy, not a group think mentality satisfied with the short-term “tactical” achievement of killing one man.

This article by M. Elibiary first appeared here

Keep supporting MuslimMatters for the sake of Allah

Alhamdulillah, we're at over 850 supporters. Help us get to 900 supporters this month. All it takes is a small gift from a reader like you to keep us going, for just $2 / month.

The Prophet (SAW) has taught us the best of deeds are those that done consistently, even if they are small. Click here to support MuslimMatters with a monthly donation of $2 per month. Set it and collect blessings from Allah (swt) for the khayr you're supporting without thinking about it.

Mohamed Elibiary co-founded the Freedom and Justice Foundation (F&J) in November 2002 to promote a Centrist Public Policy environment in Texas by coordinating the state level government and interfaith community relations for the organized Texas Muslim community. In 2005, Mohamed spearheaded the launching of the Texas Islamic Council (T.I.C.) as an F&J program for Muslim congregations, which has quickly grown to become the state's largest Muslim network encompasing 100,000 Texans. As Coordinator of the T.I.C., Mohamed developed working relationships with similar faith-based entities around Texas including the Texas Conference of Churches, Texas Catholic Conference and the Baptist General Convention of Texas. In 2006, the 16 largest Muslim congregations and civic organizations in the Dallas-Fort Worth area followed this example by creating a collective representative body called the North Texas Islamic Council (NTIC) and Mohamed was elected to its 7 member executive governing body. Since 2005, Mohamed, as a National Security Policy Analyst, has been advising intelligence and law enforcement agencies (ex. FBI, DHS, NCTC, ODNI, etc.) on various Counter-Terrorism (CT) issues (ex. Domestic Intelligence, Strategic Intelligence Analysis, Information Sharing and Radicalization).



  1. MR

    April 21, 2010 at 2:00 AM

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich is one of the few true American politicians to really speak out against this.

    Keith Olbermann on MSNBC did a good job as well.

  2. mofw

    April 21, 2010 at 2:19 AM

    Michael Sheuer, the hawkish US terrorism expert, once said that the greatest ally of Osama bin Laden is the United States. It gives him credibility and prestige by singling him out and making him an explicit target.

    It looks like they haven’t learned their lesson.

  3. Kaminari Ninjah

    April 21, 2010 at 6:37 AM

    Salam wa alaikum

    here is somthn really interesting from tariq ramadan , and also he is talking about anwar al-awlaki

    • Amad

      April 21, 2010 at 8:46 AM

      Issue raised @ 7:20

  4. joe

    April 21, 2010 at 8:08 AM

    Asalamualykum, bismillah:

    Whatever happened to the shaykh’s who speak the haqq. Shaykh Yasir, as a naseehah, please please, fe sabeelillah, teach more classes on tawheed, fiqh of food, etc. I am sincerely advising you, as per our religion, to stop getting involved in the politics of jihad and related events. I have met you numerous times ( not recently) and I ask Allah to guide you and stay away from the doors of the rulers. In demonizing some, you are leaning too far towards the other side. As much as you think Awlaki has changed, wallahi you have changed much more than him in the last few years.

    As for mr. Elibiary, your lack of respect for imam awlaki is appaling. ”Al-Awlaki is a one trick pony”??? Excuse me? Where were you in the throughout the 1990’s when Awlaki and Ali Tamimi were probably the most popular daees in all of America and probably the UK. Who are you to denounce an imam, when he was giving dawah, you were working for banks and corporate america.
    ”Alawaki’s message is largely one of righteous self-sacrifice”. – At least he has sacrificed for something. He could have been living the good life here like yourself. What have you sacrificed lately? Buying a two piece suit instead of a 3 piece suit? debating which norelco trimmer gives you the 5 o clock beard without looking too terroristy? Sorry to sound harsh, but it is due when it is due, and beatiful speech is due when it is due.

    I do not support any killing of civilians and IF someone supports that I will reject that. But you are going over board and rejecting all of Jihad, throwing dirt on a person who has spent his life learning and teaching.

    In any case, you sir, do not need refuting. If you just compare Awlaki’s Ijazas from various shaykhs to your ijazas from the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc, the TRUTH become clear from (your) FALSEHOOD.
    May allah guide you to the haqq, away from the alphabet soup of agencies you work with.
    May allah send his blessings and peace on Muhammad, habibona, maulana, sayiidina, ibn abdillah

    • suhail

      April 21, 2010 at 2:01 PM

      I agree Elibary’s personal remark against Imam Anwar is repugnant. You may differ with him or even totally disagree with his recent stances. I do not agree with his stance of killing whoever american you can get hold off or his support for the Umar Farook.

      But still Imam Anwar is a muslim and our brother. His honor should be protected from our tongues. We are muslims not nationalist that we backbite our brother and call him names just because he has said some things we do not agree on.

      “One Trick Pony” i mean come on are you so affected by this americanness that you have forgotten that Imam Anwar still has a right over you as a muslim that he is protected from your tongue or does American identity has taken over your Islamic identity that you can call him anything that you would like.

      I am not criticizing your right to disagree with him or refuting him with evidences but i find your personal attacks on Imam Anwar repugnant and extremely childish.

    • Yasir Qadhi

      April 21, 2010 at 2:46 PM

      Salam Alaikum

      I appreciate the sentiments, but I am no less qualified to speak about current events that al-Awlaki, you, or most others. I am not speaking to impress anyone or to earn favor from specific sectors. I am speaking what I believe is the truth. To remain silent in these issues is to betray my responsibility as an Islamic activist. You have the right to disagree with what I say, but I’m afraid I cannot remain silent on this issue.

      I am very specific in what I write. And while many others make a living popularizing themselves by reading into other’s statements, I care little to defend against blatantly false accusations. I have not demonized anyone, neither do I make it a habit to visit the rulers.

      As for the charge that I have changed, if I hadn’t changed I believe that would indicate that I haven’t benefitted from all those years. I do not expect to be the same person in ten years that I am now. However, I would venture that my ‘change’ is more of a maturation than a radical dissociation from my past. I have developed and matured over the last decade, and I pray to Allah that I continue to do so as the years go on.


      • Andrew Purcell

        April 21, 2010 at 6:16 PM




    • Hassan

      April 22, 2010 at 8:38 AM

      I couldn’t agree with you more joe!

      • Hassan

        April 22, 2010 at 8:49 AM

        This Hassan is not me.

  5. amidi

    April 21, 2010 at 11:50 AM

    I think it would be foolish for anyone to think that we can have an honest, objective discourse on the issue of Awlaki, and for that reason I think anything anyone says, whether it be Sh. Yasir, Dr. Ramadan, Steve Emerson, Irshad Manjii should be taken with a grain of salt. The positions on this issue have been determine by the greater hegemonic discourse created by those who actually wield power.

    There is no way to carve out space for an argument that defends Awlaki’s position in the US without being boxed up and completely marginalized and effectively excommunicated, and those who desire to invest themselves into the social fabric of this country certainly cannot hold this position.

    Likewise there is no way to carve out space for an argument that criticizes Awlaki’s position without being appropriated into the larger hegemonic discourse that buttresses the projection of Western power in the Muslim world.

    At this time, the most honest thing we can do, in my opinion, is acknowledge these confines and forces, and say the discourse is rigged. For me this may be easier to do since I am not a social personality, but for those that are, the current is irresistable.

    • Amad

      April 21, 2010 at 1:08 PM

      I am sorry but which hegemonic discourse constraints are stopping you and me from saying that a position which defends attempted murder is flawed and openly proclaimed as such? We are not talking about some nuanced position of Awlaki that the conspiratorial boundaries do not allow us to speak the truth. He defended Farouq “underwear bomber”‘s attempt (agreed that the less than stellar attempt had no chance to succeed) to murder. As a Muslim who believes in justice in all things, we don’t need a fatwa from the government or from the scholars to know it’s wrong.

      The system may be rigged for us in certain situations, but many times, we are so in “awe” of the system (“Arrivals” anyone) that we so enslaved to the fear of this rigging, that we are afraid to recognize the sun on a clear, bright day, afraid that the sun may have been planted by “them”.

      So, sorry brother, I acknowledge constraints to “free” speech… but I will not let these constraints make me defeatist and fatalistic. Fear Allah as much as you can.

      • amidi

        April 21, 2010 at 2:09 PM

        Amad, your argument is nothing more than sensationalism. You invoke the incident involving Farouk (in which you regurgitate the sensationalized “underwear bomber” epithet) which was purportedly defended by Awlaki against him. I say purportedly becase anyone with a basic knowledge of intellegence operations and strategic intelligence knows that once you’re a marked man, disinformation is your only companion (whether you’re viewed as a real threat or whether they want to make a martyr/icon of you so your ideas continue to live a lot longer than you), even an intro class on strat intel would give you countless historical examples of this. Don’t mince my words, I’m not saying he did not say this, he may very well have, but to construct an argument on this position is disengenous and myopic.

        Secondly, it’s all too easy to publically deconstruct the argument of a person by showing the absurdity of one position, but Awalaki has many arguments, and I’m sure even you would find some of them to be valid, neither Sh. yasir nor anyone else has been able to address these arguments line item by line item, this is a very complex procedure. I think it would be best for Muslims to understand that the discourse on this issue is problematic, and demonstrate the problems, than actually taking sides at this point. This position is neither defeatist nor fatalistic, contrarily I think your argument is reactive and myopic, you’re looking at this as an issue of simple justice not of real politik, and there’s no doubt this belongs in the latter. Btw, your argument does nothing but fan the fires of arguments like the ones Joe has made.

        • naeem

          April 22, 2010 at 12:42 AM


          Truer words have not been spoken. Amidi, you have vocalized sentiments that I have been feeling ever since the Awlaki drama began.

          “it’s all too easy to publically deconstruct the argument of a person by showing the absurdity of one position, but Awalaki has many arguments, and I’m sure even you would find some of them to be valid”

          While denouncing his stance on killing civilians, Muslims have thrown out the Awlaki baby with the bathwater. And if ever Western Muslims were to defend those legitimate opinions of Awlaki, they would be immediately spun as defenders of global terror.

          Indeed the system is rigged.

          And sorry bro Amad, saying so doesn’t make me an Arrivals fanboy, which btw I found very childish.

          • naeem

            April 22, 2010 at 4:53 AM

            clarification: I found the Arrival series childish, not br. Amad. Amad is very much an Uncle. ;-)

          • amad

            April 22, 2010 at 6:48 AM

            Ah Naeem… until you mentioned uncle, it was all good…

            I bet our age difference is less than you might think ;) 5 years at most?

        • Amad

          April 22, 2010 at 12:42 AM

          Which part of my comment did you find so sensational? I am not really interested in arguing the point, simply stating that we cannot let this conspiratorial mind-frame dictate every word we say. If someone thought that a plane carrying my parents was okay to be bombed out of the sky, I would not need much more information to construct an argument against this person. Think of those people in that plane in personal terms and I think you’ll get over your hesitation as well.

          I fully believe that the words were uttered by Awlaki, I fully believe that his blog was indeed his. I also know that any reasonable person following his message over the last few years, has seen his evolution on this issue of jihad, and his stance on Farouq should have come as no surprise. If he didn’t utter those words or if this was some far-reaching conspiracy, it does not take much to issue a statement denying responsibility. I am surprised that people are surprised.

          The problem Muslims have is that we don’t want to believe when other Muslims say or do wrong. I don’t know how many times I have repeated the essence of this comment on other posts. It is always this angle or that angle. Ultimately, as Muslims, we are expected to disbelieve everything and stay silent when our brethren engage in horrific acts or speak horrific words, because “we can’t believe the messenger”. We believe the messenger for everything else in our life, but in this issue, are we are all being totally deceived??

          I am sorry but this sort of attitude in naive, deconstructive and debilitating to real action. We need to admit we have wackos among our midst, we need to admit that people change and that there are indeed people who do support murder because of a perverted understanding of jihad.

          My comments may be “reactive”, but reaction is better than denial and inaction.

          P.S. I agree that there has to be a more scholarly and detailed discussion on the issue of jihad, radicalization, etc. and inshallah we are working towards something along those lines.

          • huzaifa

            April 22, 2010 at 7:39 AM


            I agree with the sentiments of Naeem…your words speak the truth… I think our brother Amad is missing the point…may Allah swt guide one and all

            Until your comment I was finding it difficult to combine all of these different viewpoints.. Jazak Allah for making it simpler..

            I want someone to address line item by line item as well… until then simply categorically rejecting all of the greivances due to one ‘possibly’ far fetched stance doesn’t make sense to me personally.. and I would think not many others

  6. Mumin

    April 21, 2010 at 1:19 PM

    See, the sisters are smart in that they dont get involved in these idiotic discourses. So yes, I am one of the idiots.

  7. Jannah

    April 21, 2010 at 3:43 PM

    As salamu aalaykum

    I agree with Sheikh Yasir Qadhi. There are no need for personal attacks on anyone, especially those who have sought and struggled for islamic knowledge and our much more qualified to speak than any of us on here or will ever be. THe truth of the matter concerning Sheikh Anwar is that we don’t know the truth of the matter. The U.S. had found this person guilty of what exactly, we still haven’t been told and without providing any legitimate or authorized evidence, the U.S. target of assassination is simply unfounded and immoral. The Yemeni government have also admitted that the U.S. has failed to provide them with any evidence or concrete information connecting Sheikh Anwar to any violence or terror groups. We hear about emails yet we don’t see them. According to the Yemeni gov’t, he is more of preacher who according to them has radicalized views that they don’t agree with. No ties to any terrorist groups have been established. Just because you disagree with a person’s point of view, doesn’t give you a right to target them for murder. Until, the evidence is layed out in plain view for all to see, only God can judge the situation clearly. Like Sheikh Yasir Qadhi said, only Allah knows a person’s intentions, so drop the personal attacks and stop creating fitnah on our already fragile and fragmented ummah. So far the U.S. hasn’t made it’s case and many voices both muslim and non-muslim are rightfully concerned that the assassination of an American citizen without due process or law makes this country go against the very freedoms and rights it claims to have. Due process of the law no matter who they are or what they done, guilty or innocent takes precedent over anything else. Even Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, and Charles Manson were tried under the court of law. That is the concern here. Hopefully, justice will prevail and those who believe in the Constitution being upheld will take precedent over those who don’t.

  8. B

    April 21, 2010 at 9:26 PM

    [quote]The decision to legitimize the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki is wrong on all counts. Simply put, this is a license to murder, no doubt about it. Whatever happened to the rule of law? Whatever happened to the Constitution, which was meant to protect our citizens from the unchecked power of its own government? Even Bush did not stoop to this level.[/quote]

    Everyone is reacting as if the call to assassinate an American citizen is unprecedented. The government (read: CIA) has always placed American citizens on the capture-or-kill list. It’s done all the time. Only difference here is that Anwar’s addition made it to the news.

    • Amad

      April 22, 2010 at 12:45 AM

      “It’s done all the time”
      Care to list other names and other times this has happened?

  9. CMIYC

    April 22, 2010 at 12:36 AM

    Our kaffir government does not care about Muslims…our blood is less then water to them.
    How stupid does one haft to be to not have realized that our government has been killing millions of Muslims for decades? This incident is no different!

    The rule of crime and punishment only apply when Muslims do something “wrong” not the other way around. If American Muslims don’t begin to get more serious about protecting our brothers and sisters overseas the American Empire will pretty soon start killing American Muslims.

  10. Zeeshan Ahmed

    April 22, 2010 at 7:50 AM

    Salam Sheikh
    Excellent article. I got a question. I hear many scholars condemning the likes of awlaki for there aberrant stances. And majority of the refutation are basically normal muslims compiling the views of the scholars without actually answering the claims directly. For example the issue of voting, there are many articles out there supporting the cause and the evidence being scholars names with a brief quote saying ‘lesser of two evils’. But when talking to some of the groups, who have fallen into ghuloo and declare apostasy on anyone who votes, they start going into usul ulfiqh and hadith which is really hard to answer because there is not enough materiel discussing all these issues directly in a academic fashion. The question is do you know of any concise work regarding these matters either in english or arabic or are you writing or written anything concise because i think your work is sharia based and are realistic?

  11. Sulaiman

    April 22, 2010 at 12:07 PM


    Assalamu Alaykum,

    It is beyond me that why do we have do many MM postings regarding Imam Anwar al-‘Awlaki حفظه الله but very little compared (in recent times) to oppression done against Muslims? It’s perfectly alright to disagree with any shaykh but as we all know that there are ways to disagree. It doesn’t mean I would go around bashing the shuyukh I disagree with. It should be respectful all the time.

    On top of that, why are we no defending IImam Anwar al-‘Awlaki حفظه الله by saying he is our brother (and has erred if people disagree) ? Why do we need to say that the law doesn’t permit this or that before this important knot of brotherhood?

    WAllahu Ta’ala A’lam

    • Amad

      April 22, 2010 at 2:51 PM

      It is beyond me that why do we have do many MM postings regarding Imam Anwar al-’Awlaki حفظه الله but very little compared

        (in recent times)

      Interesting little disclaimer in parenthesis, because obviously you could not charge MM with being negligent about oppression against Muslims. The proof is in the pudding. We have said FAR MORE about Muslim sufferings (in and outside America) than we have said about the opposite. But your charge is a typical one, intended not to focus on the issue, but plant a red herring.

      Difference of opinion is one thing, but in matters of life and death, where someone defends a potential murderer, all bets are off. We have difference of opinions with the tablighi jamaah for instance, but that didn’t stop us from praising them, or defending them. However, we will NEVER defend a person who defends murder. If that isn’t clear, then you are on the wrong forum.

      Read this, that’s our position on Awlaki: A Message to Muslim Youth: In Response to Anwar Al Awlaki

      As far as this post, just because an issue is addressed with a certain angle doesn’t preclude other angles. Remember, this site caters to a Western audience, both Muslims and non-Muslims, and we will take the opportunity to address issues in the language of local law and at other times in the language of religion. One is not mutually exclusive to the other. It is unjust to take a life, which of course includes Awlaki’s as well, and we know the Islamic position on this. But even the law that the President of this nation is supposed to adhere to, doesn’t permit such an act and that is a more powerful argument. Hope this makes sense.

  12. abu abdAllah Tariq Ahmed

    April 22, 2010 at 2:26 PM

    As salamu alaykum. It is human nature to lose patience, but Allah encourages us to better than that. One truth that should urge patience upon us is that our understanding of any situation is often limited.

    Do we not read every week about the story of Musa alayhis salam and Khidr in Surah al Kahf? Granted, we know from the Qur’an that Khidr acted at the command and with knowledge provided to him by Allah. So consider this germane hadith from Bukhari:

    Volume 2, Book 22, Number 302:
    Narrated Al-Azraq bin Qais:

    We were at Al-Ahwaz fighting the AlHaruriya (tribe). While I was at the bank of a river a man was praying and the reins of his animal were in his hands and the animal was struggling and he was following the animal. (Shu’ba, a sub-narrator, said that man was Abu Barza al-Aslaml). A man from the Khawarij said, “O Allah! Be harsh to this sheik.” And when the sheik (Abu Barza) finished his prayer, he said, “I heard your remark. No doubt, I participated with Allah’s Apostle in six or seven or eight holy battles and saw his leniency, and no doubt, I would rather retain my animal than let it return to its stable, as it would cause me much trouble.” (Retrieved from USC database)

    Note that the man from the Khawarij was an eyewitness to the treatment of the animal, not a person relying on secondhand information nor on information from persons known to lie for their own purposes. But the hadith indicates that he was no more aware of what he was observing than was Musa alayhis salam in the company of Khidr.

    Tellingly the one who was impatient and rushing to judgment was a Khawarij. Whereas Al-Azraq bin Qais witnessed the same treatment of the animal and did not pronounce judgment.

    The text I quoted did not indicate explicitly whether the men who were not praying should have assisted their brother by taking the reins while he prayed. But in this text the sahabah Abu Barza did not reprove them for that, he only reproved the one who had cursed him.

    I do not know what Anwar al Awlaki has done that might deserve a death sentence pronounced outside of any court of law, pronounced by the executioner’s writ instead of by a judge. And given the shooting of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui by US troops while she was in their custody, I doubt that I would ever believe a claim of self-defense were it asserted against him.

    And I would rather be like the one who was silent at al-Ahwaz than like the one who rushed to judgment.

  13. Sirat

    April 22, 2010 at 2:31 PM

    I agree with the points made by Joe and Amidi.

    It is wrong to assassinate an american citizen, but since when did american govt care about its own people. They’ll do what they want to achieve their goals. What I don’t understand is why muslims look at these issues from their lens (ie they need to follow due course of law, constitution, etc). In this case it is unconstitutional, but tomorow if it becomes constitutional, would we have the strength to stand up?

    It seems to me that muslims in the west, esp the famous speakers, associate themselves more with their adopted land than with their co-muslims.

    Reminds me of the stories of those Japanese in WW2 who, even after being dumped into a concentration camp and going through constant abuse, still wanted their kids to join the army, to prove that they were truly patriotic americans. They had built a good life for themselves in their adopted land and they didn’t want anything to change the status quo.

    As for those who say Al-Awlaki has changed, I ask them to listen to his lectures from the past. He’s spoken out against oppression committed by muslim & non muslim govts in almost all his lectures, from stories of anbiyaa, to prophet’s seerah, to akhira series, to lives of abubakr and umar. He’s always propagated the message of freeing yourselves from the system by fighting against oppression.

    People loved him as long as it didn’t harm them in anyway. When it became dangerous to do so, people changed. He didn’t. He’s merely practicing what he preached all along.

    – Sirat

    • Amad

      April 22, 2010 at 3:00 PM

      As for your post point about why this article chose to look at the issue through a particular lens, pls see this comment.

      As for “he’s merely practicing what he preached all along”, I think even Awlaki would disagree with you! Listen to his last audio where he declares jihad against America. He clearly states a change in position. “Fighting against oppression” is far different from becoming part of the oppression yourself. Until the defense of Farouq, I remained cautious in my criticism of Awlaki’s evolving views, but his defense was the straw that broke the camel’s back (for me).

  14. suhail

    April 22, 2010 at 4:16 PM

    May be you guys at MM should look at how South Park is trying to insult the Prophet(SAW) and try to create a consiousness around that issue. Today we have become desensitized about how the Kuffar insult Prophet(SAW) that we do not see any outrage when they insult the Prophet(SAW) by showing him in bear form . May curse of Allah be on the creators of that series.

    The defense of the Prophet(SAW) is much much bigger than endrosement of Imam Anwar for Umar Farook.

    • Idrees

      April 22, 2010 at 5:17 PM

      Assalaamu alaikum Br. Suhail … I do not see how this is relevant to this discussion … there are many issues that are important … doesn’t mean that one cannot discuss one issue because there may be other issues that are of importance. Allah ‘azza wa jall is most High (al-a’laa) and most Great (al-‘adheem), so perhaps nothing should be posted except articles defending His existence against those who disbelieve?!?!

      Also, speaking out against misrepresentations of Islam is great defense of our beloved Prophet’s merciful example.

    • Amal

      April 23, 2010 at 7:29 AM

      South Park, if you’re familiar, has aired episodes that insult EVERY religion, and people have protested. However, they’ve censored the recent one because misguided Muslims have threatened violence against the show’s creators. Do we not know how to write letters? Every time something like this happens, we behave like cavemen and make people hate and fear Islam even more (can’t blame *that* on Western media).
      In short, whether Muslims like it or not, the U.S. protects political speech and the mocking of religion, even OUR religion. We do not get a special pass, or special protection from disrespect, just as Christians and Jews in this country don’t get a pass. So if we object, we have to do so in a way that facilitates dialogue, not become hysterical and violent.
      Also, beware of asking Allah to curse ANYONE, lest you bring disaster on your own self.

      • CMIYC

        April 23, 2010 at 8:12 AM


        It seems as if you are misguided…..

        As for the Islamic ruling on the situation, there is no difference of opinion the punishment is death for insulting Muhammad (pbuh).

        Ibn Taymiyyah a great scholar of Islam says, “Whoever curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) -a Muslim or a non Muslim- then he must be killed…and this is the opinion of the general body of Islamic scholars.”

        Likewise Ibn Mundhir, another classical scholar, said, “It is the consensus (ijma’) of our scholars that the one who curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) should be executed!”

        This is also the opinion of Imams Malik, al-Laith, Ahmed, Ishaq, Shafi’i, and Numan Abu Haneefah.

        We as Muslims are comanded to tell the truth and let others know what our religion says about thoses who mock our prophet (pbuh). The 1st Amendment does not change the commandments of God (swt).

        • Amal

          April 23, 2010 at 8:53 AM

          It seems *you* are misguided.
          The scholars you quote lived many centuries ago and it is no longer possible for Muslims to emulate the behavior of their barbarous times.
          By raging about and making death threats when we perceive an insult, we miss opportunities for dawah. And which is more beloved of Allah–the calling of people to Islam, or the murder of someone who’s annoyed us?
          And finally, if the First Amendment offends you, then perhaps you’d do well to “make hijrah” and go live somewhere it won’t be a problem to you. This episode is not airing in a state under shariah, as such, what you describe (killing the ones who made it, nauzabillah, Allah yahdich) is not enforceable. The Muslims who come to non-Muslim lands have to exist with the laws of the land, not enforce their own wishes by murder and violence. If this is too much to ask, then those who can’t tolerate living here should leave.

          • suhail

            April 23, 2010 at 9:16 AM

            So for you the time of the earlier scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah , Imam Malik were all living in barbaric times. So according to that logic Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was living in a much more barbaric times. Thus if we extend your logic more than all the was said by Prophet(SAW) i.e. the ahadith and his seerah, the words of Allah(SWT) that was revealed to him at that time i.e. The Quran should not be used now as per your logic since they are all the from barbaric times.

            For people like you i have to say few things. First of all those times were much better times than what we are living right now. The destruction and killing that has happened in recent time i.e. last 100 years has surpassed all the numbers that was done before that. More than a million have died in Iraq during last 20 years that alone is a staggering figure, now include in that World War 1, World War 2. Let me tell you were the muslims have suffered Afghanistan (first under russians now under US), Iraq, Chechneya, Bosnia, Somalia, Palestine. Add up all the deaths and chaos.

            After you have done all this look into the mirror and see who is barbaric. You will get your answers.

          • CMIYC

            April 23, 2010 at 10:58 AM

            So what you are saying is that we should pick and choose what we should follow and change Islam? LOL! Apparently you don’t know your deen.

            I never said that we should kill people however as Muslims we should make the kuffar aware of the Shariah and its rulings… Suhch as what Revoltion Muslim has done.

          • Amal

            April 23, 2010 at 11:16 AM

            @Suhail–Of course the Prophet (asws) lived in barbaric times! Did he not say as much himself?

            For “people like you” I have some things to say as well. You’re wrong. Absolutely wrong if you think modern times are more violent than previous ages. Have a look at history.
            And don’t ever try to talk to me about Chechnya or Russians unless you’ve lived the conflict.

          • suhail

            April 23, 2010 at 11:58 AM

            Ah so may be i touched a soft spot there. If i should not talk about Chechnya and russians than i think you also have no right to talk about other muslims living in other places. What kind of twisted logic is that? Everybody on this damn earth knows how much Chechniyan muslims have suffered at the hands of those filthy russians. Dont give me that crap do not talk about it if you do not live it. Chechniyan muslims are my brothers and sisters and i have every right to comment on it. If you do not like my comments stop reading it. By the way what happened to my right of freedom of speech eh.

            Also you need to look at history more and read it. You have no idea what you are talking about. Last century and this century has seen so much violence and killing that it has surpassed all the killing before. Before people used to fight for there tribes today they fight for secular republics and nations. No difference to me. People are people and there barbaric nature comes off as can be seen even these days.

            You may think you are somehow enlightened living in this age but the truth of the matter is that the last century and this one has given us more monsters than Roman or persian empire could even think off.

          • suhail

            April 23, 2010 at 12:20 PM

            By the way where did Prophet(SAW) say that my time is the barbaric time but the time to come will not be barbaric or less barbaric. Can you give me any evidence please?

            I do remember one thing from Prophet(SAW) and he said that the best of generations is the one who are with him i.e. his companions after that the next generation (Tabii) and then the next (Tabe-Tabii) and so forth.

            Prophet(SAW) also said that first you will have Khilafah Rashidun, than kings, then dictators and then Khilafah again. So we are living in the times of the dictators whom Prophet(SAW) described as barbaric towards there people.

            May be i am reading it wrong but it seems Prophet(SAW) said that this time we are living in is worse than his time.

        • Amad

          April 23, 2010 at 10:47 AM

          You follow the rules of the nation you live in, as per your contract with them. The opinions of the scholars have to be applied in context, time and place. No scholar today (of any repute and mainstream following) allows for a Muslim to take the matter into his own hand and murder someone. All hadd punishments are the responsibility of the state, not the individual.

          I have no idea what relevance South Park has to the discussion at hand… but we plan to tackle it and why Muslims can be their worst enemies when dealing with such issues. With the help of the actions of some wackos in our community (think “revolution”muslim– whose only revolution is sprouting nonsense– if he is so motivated, why is he still in America??) we are basically enriching the creators of such nonsense, helping them, instead of doing anything noble.

          Move on pls, because as Idrees said, one topic at a time.

          • CMIYC

            April 23, 2010 at 11:03 AM

            It is true you should follw the rules of the nation you live in with in reason. If America told you to let someone rape your mother would you follow that rule?

            Revolution Muslim at least speak on evidences from sound hadith and the Quran. You speak on emotion and self desires.

            If you want to change America you stay here and change it, leaving the country won’t solve anything.

          • Amad

            April 23, 2010 at 2:57 PM

            Wow, it’s tough to find a revolutionmuslim supporter… seems MM is reaching into the fringes of our populace! But of course anonymity is a nice cover for all sorts of macho talk.

          • CMIYC

            April 23, 2010 at 11:06 AM

            Futhermore as Muslims we should make kaffirs aware of the Shariah. And how the scholors feel about insulting the problem ie death.

            Making people aware of the Islamic school of thought is not the same as making a death threat.

          • Amal

            April 23, 2010 at 11:17 AM

            Good on you, Amad, the voice of reason. I’ll shut about South Park.

          • Siraaj

            April 23, 2010 at 11:34 AM


            There’s a difference between them coercing you to do something vs you preventing them from saying something which, while it is insulting and deserving of retribution in a Muslim state, is someone else’s business, and you aren’t coerced to watch it, or accept it.

            We’re all free to disagree about it within the law. If you choose to live here, then you choose to live with the consequences of the law, whether you agree with them or not. We do not agree with many things which occur, but we don’t respond with vigilante execution of hadd punishments.


          • suhail

            April 23, 2010 at 12:10 PM

            We live here within the contract or law that is of the land but if the law contradict the law of Allah(SWT) than as a muslim we are obliged to not follow the law of land as our first submission is to Allah(SWT).

            Secondly you have every right to disagree with the approach RevolutionMuslim has towards these incidents. But telling them to leave US because they do not like the policies here is not within reasonable discourse. Why should they leave? For what reason? Because they do not like it here or they do not like the policies. Many muslim’s do not like it here but they are forced for one reason or another to stay.

            Also according to your own thought process or the shaykh you follow it may that what they are doing is a Wacko job, or idiots but on the other hand according to them you are cowards, spineless.and mordernists. You see the two way street of name calling.

            I would rather see a discourse which do not involve all these name callings. Whether we agree or not on something we are still muslims and Allah has told us in the Quran not to call names to each other which we do not like. So why lower your standards and call each other names.

          • Amad

            April 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM

            I mean wacko in the sense of having strange and extremist, “wacky” ideas.

            “revolutionmuslim” doesn’t represent except a few wackos… At least in America, he is a fringe element who has no role in the mainstream Muslim discourse. If he calls us cowards, etc., no skin of our back as he is basically a 1 or 2-men show, and so your moral equivalency is misplaced here.

            And by the way, “cowards, spineless. and modernists” is the an underestimation of what these extremists call mainstream Muslims… how about takfeer, which is commonly applied in many different variations.

          • suhail

            April 23, 2010 at 3:14 PM

            I do not think revolutionmuslim is on that angle of Takfeer. I never saw them making takfeer of any other brothers. You can say that MillatIbrahim or DarulTawheed are on that verge.

            Secondly not everybody who disagrees with you are wrong. Accepting criticism and thinking about it is as important as criticising some one. Truth does not have a monopoly. It may originate from MM or IA or anybody else. The problem for people to accept there own criticisms is that they value there own ideas as better or consider them better than the other muslims. It has more to do with Ego than to do with the truth to be honest.

            Just this article from Elibary is quite condescending and does not represent the truth about Imam Anwar. Imam Anwar worked quite hard when he was in US in the dawah scene. There were handful of people who have inspired muslim youth in US as Imam Anwar did. But Elibary threw everything out of the window and the same can be said about you too. May be you guys differ with him strongly on his recent stances but it does not mean that he can be called anything and his honor thrown to dust bin just to please our own ego and the kuffar. If you want to refute Imam Anwar recent stances than there is way to do it. Calling him “One Trick Pony”, “Disingenious” etc is below the belt and quite repugnant.

            As per my opinion I disagree with tons of the things especially in political matters which is posted on MM. But still i consider them to be my brothers and I may be wrong in many of the issues Allah knows but when i disagree it is because of my conviction that what i follow is the truth. I presume the same for the MM authors.May Allah guide us all to what pleases him.

  15. Mostafa

    April 22, 2010 at 7:08 PM

    As Salaamu Alykum,

    Shykh Yasir!!! Your the man!!

  16. joe

    April 23, 2010 at 7:46 AM


    I just had a random obervation. NO, this is not a litmus test to become a scholar. NO, I do not make allegiances based on it. BUT… if one were to study Islamic history, we can see every scholar on the Haqq has been tried; tortured, imprisoned, persecuted, and sometimes killed.
    I could make a list but it would probably include everyone we ever looked up to ( the prophet sallalalhu aleyhi wasallam himself)Many sahaba, Imam ahmad (whipped, imprisoned), Abu hanifah (same),imam bukhari(banished from homeland) Ibn taymiyyah (all of the above), , Abdullah Azzam (killed), etc etc.. Some like Imam Ahmad , at least in public, basically had not even one ally in the whole world.

    Like I said, this is not a litmus test or hujjah… just something i Noticed. ( though this is also proven in the sunnah in the hadith of the people who are tried the most)

    I think some scholars, in general, need to evaluate thier situation. Are they living a relatively easy life? Do they have a 4 bedroom house on Main street with 3 kids and a nice shiny minivan with no problems? what are thier main worries? Are they being tried to thier fullest extent?

    PS.. im not a scholar ( even though every muslim should ask themselves this, myself first) and may allah save us all from the severe fitnahs experienced by the true scholars and aid them in thier fitan to become victorious

    • mystrugglewithin

      April 23, 2010 at 9:32 AM

      “a nice shiny minivan with no problems?”

      apologies akhi, but that sounds funny :)

    • naeem

      April 23, 2010 at 9:55 AM


      While what you say may be true, getting “tortured, imprisoned, persecuted, and sometimes killed” doesn’t necessitate that one is on the Haqq. Many charlatans have also been dealt with similarly.

    • Amad

      April 23, 2010 at 10:38 AM

      Moreover, the fitnah for the scholars doesn’t have to be only physical… it could be refusing wealth or a host of other “new” trials that happen in our times.

  17. Sirat

    April 23, 2010 at 9:06 AM

    Add to that, many of them became popular after their deaths.

    Which is what some people are worried about:

    The decision to assassinate al-Awlaki will only give more fuel to the more radical voices. Rather than silencing al-Awlaki, it will popularize him. …..
    If America actually succeeds in this vile endeavor, al-Awlaki will become the symbolic visionary and poster-boy for all future Western militant movements. By assassinating him, his words and message will become immortal.

  18. Mumin

    April 23, 2010 at 12:59 PM

    ahh its onnnn now

  19. bobby

    April 23, 2010 at 1:14 PM

    To Sh Yasir Qadhi
    Please don’t delete and edit my post again I am a Muslim I promise

    Sheik your lectures on kitab tawheed is excellent your book dua weapon of a believer is a work of art, I have distributed it to my family and friends im just a bit puzzled when ever a Muslim (anwar alawlaki) speaks in defense of muslim ie jihad or figh alwaqiyah current affairs you rush to give a refutation but when muslims are slaughted you write no academic article about it. Why the open double standards I know al maghrib and al kuathar and al Rand!!!! will never have a course on jihad MAYBE REFUTATION OF MUJAHIDEEN. Please tell me what is all wrong with Anwar address to America sh Uthaymeen said if they kill our innocent we do the same based on the verse ch2 v194 whoever transgresses upon you then do the same against them. In his fatwa he goes on to say this is justice. So my questions are to you great sheik and may Allah reward you in this life and the next for your excellent work.
    1. What is wrong with the rhetoric in his speech (Anwar)
    2. Was bin Bas fatwa correct to let America into Arabia to kill Muslims.
    3. Can we join the American ARMY
    So please answer yes or no because of ABC and leave the academic wizardry

  20. Ummezaynub

    April 23, 2010 at 1:33 PM

    When we are not sure of what is real or the truth we ask Allah Al Aleem Al Baseer:
    Allahumma arinal-haqqa haqqan warzuqnat-tiba’ah, wa arinal-batila batilan warzuqnaj-tinabah, bi rahmatika ya arhamar-rahimeen.

    O Allah! Let us see the good as good, and bless us with following it. And show us the falsehood as falsehood, and bless us with staying away from it, with Your mercy, O Most Merciful!

    On another note :There was an op ed printed in today’s LA times, which has me questioning do U.S. Citizens leave the rights given by this country at border when we leave for over seas:
    U.S. targeted killing: Putting an American on a CIA hit list –

  21. Umm Bilqis

    April 23, 2010 at 2:05 PM

    Sr. Amal I do not think Muslims ever had it soo bad. The whole ummah is divorced from Rule by Shariah and has no credible defenders against aggression. Insha’Allah we will get a back bone, repent, change our ways and address the defeatist mentality that ails us. Easier said then done.
    Simply put , change will occur when we take akhirah seriously and fear Allaah as He Azawajaal should be feared and trust in Allaah as He taala should be trusted.
    Our people are imprisoned , and murdered without guilt.
    Our sisters are raped in many countries by the worst of the disbelievers.
    Their oppression is without bounds.
    How many Muslim countries are in despair?
    Without a shadow of doubt, these times of fitan are the most barbaric. When I think of the captives my heart aches and I ask Allah to make us a restored nation.

    • Umm Bilqis

      April 24, 2010 at 3:30 AM

      I should not have said there are no credible defenders but rather not enough defenders of aggression aagainst Muslims.

      By the way Bro Amad you should answer Bro Salahudin’s concerns or just say sorry.

      P.S I’m sick of articles bashing AA :(.

  22. Abdulsalaam

    April 23, 2010 at 2:50 PM

    Amad – “However, we will NEVER defend a person who defends murder”

    I take it you won’t be campaigning for Obama come the next election then.


  23. Iffy

    April 23, 2010 at 4:09 PM

    First it was brother Tarek and now Imaam Anwar. May Allah protect sh. Yasir and co. from ever facing the same fate of their brothers lest they receive the same treatment from the ummah

  24. Abu Safwan

    April 23, 2010 at 9:01 PM

    Subhanallah.. it seems the the entire collection of writers and contributors behind MM, are unable to get a good nights sleep without writing more articles showing how they are working hard to rid what they deem as “extreme elements” from the Muslim ummah.

    This entire article, and previous articles against Imam Anwar, including the shameful article against brother Abu Sabayah, all reek of trying to please the kufaar and show how “moderate” and a bunch of “nice Muslims” they are.

    Everyone talks about how Imam Anwar has changed, how can any sincere Muslim not change and not wake up when a country has openly called for a crusade against Islam and invaded Muslim lands. At the same time in the last few years we have seen many of the students of knowledge like Yasir Qadhi, Tawfique Chowdry etc change also. Beards have started to get shorter and shorter. Garments are now hanging below the ankles. One wants Muslims to become “allies” of the West, while the other registers to attend lectures delivered by a person whose hands are covered with the blood of hundreds of Muslims.

    Also we see Yasir and others sitting side by side with people of Bid’ah who openly invite people to Shirk and delivering talks alongside them on the same platform.

    Where has the al-walaa wal baraa gone?

    Have you even stopped to think before you open your mouth that will these words of mine please the kufaar and hurt and upset other Muslims?

    How many times have you heard Tawfique or Yasir write or speak out against the crimes of the UK and America? Yet we find MANY non-Muslims who cannot remain silent and who speak out against the crimes and injustice committed by America and the UK. While our Muslim du’aat and speakers remain silent and instead rush to warn against another Muslim who cant stand and bear to see these criminals commit their crimes.

    Wheres the justice?

    Wheres the balance?

    Rather its a case of being soft and gentle with the kufaar and harsh with the Muslims.

    Shaitaan may have deceived them into thinking what they are doing is right by speaking out and warning against their fellow Muslim brother while remaining silent or hardly saying anything against those that openly give orders to drop bombs on Muslims.

    Walaahee know this.. that one day you WILL be held to account.

    In my opinion, these same students of knowledge who are living a life of luxury in America and Australia, would they DARE to warn against or label Umar Ibn Khattab [RA] as an extremist who was over harsh with the kufaar?

    p.s. all the while MM claims to promote freedom of speech, yet any comment that hits a nerve with them and they cannot answer, they are quick to delete and edit subhanalah.

    • Ify Okoye

      April 24, 2010 at 6:20 AM


      I tend not to wade into these frays, which to me seem more about worst aspects of ego than truth and sincerity, yet the injustice of your words would be laughable and easy to ignore if not so lamentable. Where is your own balance and justice? How can you claim to call others to account, when you level unbalanced and untrue accusations (see examples in your first and last paragraph) left and right or do you think only others that you may disagree with will be called to account? Have you scrolled down on the left hand side to see how many writers there are on Muslim Matters and researched our views before you rush to characterize us all with such a broad stroke? Both writers in the post posit that it is a mistake to kill al-Awlaki, which I would assume you also agree with so on this issue, you’re on the same side with the writers, right?

      Injustice is injustice, regardless of the perpetrator. The post mentions two types of injustice, one on the individual level and one from a governmental policy angle thus your argument holds no water. It’s interesting how many people like to criticize the “crimes of the US and UK” but where as you say is the balance to mention the good of those nations for example in their somewhat liberal immigration policies that have allowed untold numbers of Muslims to emigrate and more or less practice their religion with much impediment?

  25. ar.m

    April 23, 2010 at 9:15 PM

    may Allah preserve Imam Anwar, destroy his enemies and give the Muslims victory, ameen

  26. Abu Bakr

    April 23, 2010 at 10:34 PM

    While our enemies have built up a good deal of operational experience, culminating in the assassination of several CIA agents last year,

    فَقُطِعَ دَابِرُ الْقَوْمِ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ

    I see that MM has kept true to its allegiances post-Irum Sarfraz

    • MM

      April 24, 2010 at 5:13 AM

      Any opinion expressed in any article, comment, etc., may only be attributed to its Author(s), and as such may not reflect the opinions of MM, nor of MM’s board, editors, writers, and readers.

      • Abu Bakr

        April 24, 2010 at 8:41 AM

        Is that intended to be your excuse to me or to Allah? As if Irum Sarfraz was going to get you into legal trouble…

        • Amad

          April 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM

          i think the point was that legal or otherwise, all opinions belong to author alone, and don’t necessarily represent MM or all of its authors, a charge that you had implied.

          • Abu Bakr

            April 24, 2010 at 9:08 AM

            Well, it certainly represents you as it was you who defended it tooth and nail and then insulted your readers’ intelligence by claiming that it was ‘misunderstood’ even though we could all see damn well what was meant.

          • Amad

            April 24, 2010 at 9:40 AM

            EVEN if that 2-year old revoked post represented my opinion (which it didn’t but its useless to argue with your ilk), no post represents the entire MM (unless posted under MM)… do you understand the difference? I hope I am not insulting your intelligence by assuming you can?

            P.S. Everyone can see proof in the pudding for Abu Bakr’s misrepresentation (lie) of my position by clicking link of the post in question. In fact, I did not even make a single comment on the post, and the reasons for the post’s revocation were compiled from the shura, and laid out by me clearly in the post space. Sound like “tooth and nail” defense to you? You be the judge. Also, consider how the same people screaming “70 excuses” cannot get over a REVOKED 2-year old post!

          • Abu Bakr

            April 24, 2010 at 11:46 AM

            P.S. Everyone can see proof in the pudding for Abu Bakr’s misrepresentation (lie) of my position by clicking link of the post in question.

            Hmm… not really sure what that was supposed to prove. You did defend it tooth and nail. You only took it down because one of the Shura members (you know who I’m talking about) insisted that Irum Sarfraz was a source of bad PR, and not because of any point of principle.

            In the non-apology that followed (the sort that we’ve become accustomed to you from you and your ‘ilk’), you simply stated that she was misunderstood.

            Now, you might very well be deserving of seventy excuses were it not for the fact that you refused to make any correction or real apology, but that time has long past. MM has proven time and again that that article was not a glitch. Sarfraz was just one in a line of cheerleaders for the War on Terror to be given airtime on MM:


          • Amad

            April 24, 2010 at 1:35 PM

            Abu Bakr:

            You did defend it tooth and nail.

            How did I defend it? Prove it.

            On your forum? Nope. On MM in comments? Nope. In your dream? Perhaps.

            The “non-apology” has already been linked to, for everyone to see. My dreamed-up “defense” so far hasn’t. Instead of throwing more red herrings, I await your proof. Otherwise, you should be a man and accept that you were mistaken.

          • Abu Bakr

            April 25, 2010 at 9:54 AM

            You deleted the original post. As for your link, it only brings up the following:

            Error 404: Page Not Found

          • Amad

            April 25, 2010 at 11:26 AM

            The post was not deleted. Its status was set to draft, probably when we were converting Sr. Iram’s posts to guest category.

            Click again, it should be okay now.

  27. Salahuddin_A

    April 24, 2010 at 1:16 AM

    You mentioned the following in this article:

    “Difference of opinion is one thing, but in matters of life and death, where someone defends a potential murderer, all bets are off. We have difference of opinions with the tablighi jamaah for instance, but that didn’t stop us from praising them, or defending them. However, we will NEVER defend a person who defends murder. If that isn’t clear, then you are on the wrong forum.”

    Yet in the previous article, you defended Obama for authorizing the killing of sheikh Anwar:
    “If the support of Obama by “absolute” supporters, or by those who believed him to be the lesser of the two evils (as I did), is to be shaken by a few incidents in the big picture of a million things that go on, then that support was not well founded in the first place.”

    This is how hypocritical people like you are who find 70 excuses for disbelievers and yet absolutely refuse to give any benefit of doubt and would jump to worst conclusions regarding their own Muslim brother!

    • Amad

      April 24, 2010 at 4:29 AM

      Mashallah, you keep up with my posts quite well :)

      Where are the 70 excuses for me mate??

      P.S. I am never defended Obama for a horrible policy decision in this matter… all the pieces on MM have taken that position.

  28. Hamada

    April 24, 2010 at 9:00 AM

    Salaam all,

    I wanted to share my appreciation for all the feedback received, including Shk Yasir’s, on my Awlaki assassination article. Those who know me personally have seen how much extra respect I grant the sheikhs. So for those shocked at my personal/character critiques of Anwar, you are right to draw the conclusion that from my perspective it is not just a policy/fiqhi disagreement with him that I feel at this stage but a loss of respect for him to be even called sheikh. Sheikhs struggle to keep Allah’s deen pure and show a responsibility to their flock’s well being and guidance. I see Anwar now as simply another mufsid fil ard advocating hiraba. His past good works are frankly irrelevant as to judging his activities of today.

    Someone wrote:
    “Just because you disagree with a person’s point of view, doesn’t give you a right to target them for murder.”

    I couldn’t agree with this point more, whether it’s in the national security agencies where I had been arguying against this bad policy for some time; but also the flip side is also true and should be recognized by Muslims.

    They further stated:
    “Until, the evidence is layed out in plain view for all to see, only God can judge the situation clearly.”

    The person who believes that last sentence needs to recognize that governments have to step in before all the evidence is organized and ready for a public courtroom. That’s the responsibility of intelligence and law enforcement entities. It is our responsibility as citizens to speak up and hold our elected representatives responsible for consistently looking over the shoulders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to make sure there is no funny business going on because the negative consequence blow-back are on the entire society and not just the handful in the intelligence and law enforcement agencies making the decision to assassinate or not.

    So that’s my recommendation to everyone truely concerned about this issue. Choice seems obvious to me, either critique one Islamic activist, da3ee sheikh or Obama; or force the system to recognize your policy dissension by ORGANIZING (political advocacy as in hilf elfodoul) so you can achieve indirect pressure on these national security decisions instead of just being a party to their consequences.


    Mohamed Elibiary

    • joe

      April 25, 2010 at 8:38 AM

      ”so you can achieve indirect pressure on these national security decisions instead of just being a party to their consequences”

      or we can basically just work for the national security agencies.. like urself :)

      actually… im sorry.. fiqh of situiation.. maslahah.. maqasid….

      maybe now its wajib to work for fbi, cia, etc


  29. Ibn Masood

    April 24, 2010 at 10:58 AM

    Seriously… Seriously…. Seriously…


    for the sake of yourselves and the ummah…

    Ditch the Noam Chomsky, Ditch CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera, Ditch the Robert Fisk, Finklestein and online PDF political reports, Ditch Youtube videos and anything on how the world is suddenly caving in on the Muslims. Turn off the emotional tap.

    and for the sake of Allah…

    Enroll in a Political science/International Law program at a University… and start picking up books by Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi’i, Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim, Qudaama, Ghazali, Juwayni, Shatibi, Ashur, Taymiyyah, Qayyim etc. Turn on the knowledge tap.

    THEN you will have some authority to comment on the political sphere with an Islamic framework. Because only then will you thoroughly understand secular law, and Islamic law, and put the events of the world into context to understand how to solve the problems we have.

    If you don’t want to do all that… be quiet, because then you have NO AUTHORITY to speak. Just because people on the web agree with you, doesn’t mean that a major scholar wouldn’t get someone to slap you because of how proud you are in your ignorance.

    The bare minimum at least: go to a major scholar nearby, and sit with him everyday from maghrib to Isha purely for the sake of learning adab-ul-ilm.

    Otherwise do us all a favour, shut down the computer, and finish your homework before bed. Don’t forget to brush your teeth.

    Sorry for being so harsh, but I can’t stand these posts anymore.

  30. elham

    April 24, 2010 at 2:04 PM

    I hope we can stop arguing. Remember the one who leaves an argument his reward is with Allah (swt).

  31. SYousuf

    April 24, 2010 at 9:10 PM

    First & foremost we shouldn’t discredit any Muslim Scholar who has spend his entire life in spreading message of Islam.Even though i respect Sh.Yasir Qadhi & his work but i disagree with his thoughts.In Islam until a person is not proven guilty in court of law you can’t label him just like that.

    Using statements like ”Al-Awlaki is a one trick pony”?He speaks what angry minds want” is not only absurd but disgusting.

    How do you know the truth about Anwar al-Awalaki. Please don’t draw conclusions with no substantial facts in hand and just believe Western Media.

  32. Amad

    April 25, 2010 at 2:25 AM

  33. Uganda

    April 25, 2010 at 3:29 AM

    -Edited. Comment about Awlaki’s personal life is irrelevant to the topic.

    • amad

      April 25, 2010 at 4:22 AM


      Do you have any evidence for this? Resorting to slander (if this is not backed up) is another injustice in itself.

      • Abû Mûsâ Al-Ḥabashî

        April 25, 2010 at 4:44 AM

        If it was true and could be backed up it would be backbiting, so either way I think this comment should be deleted, especially considering it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

        • Amad

          April 25, 2010 at 5:27 AM


  34. Comment

    April 27, 2010 at 9:41 PM

    Alhamdulillah, ideas are shared. We should always remember that we are to open our minds to the truth wherever it might come from. As earlier stated, Awlaki’s ideas are declared wrong but there is absence of clarification on its wrongness. Well, some may b right and some may be wrong but a clarification with full evidence will be nice.

    May Allah guide all of us to the truth and save us from trying to defend ourselves in our views and turning away from the clear truth.

  35. AKhan

    April 28, 2010 at 8:26 PM

    Talk about jumping the gun. Until I hear Imam Anwar al-Awlaki himself saying things like its ok to kill Americans or to attack civilians, I will not throw stones at him. Since when do statements from the media give us the right to throw mud at our brothers. This article is more proof to believe that RAND is providing big funds to promote a washington version of Islam.

    Shaykh YQ, I have respect for you when it comes to fiqh and aqeedah. Unfortunately, your stance on our roles as Muslims as stated at ILMFEST that American Muslims are different than other Muslims and let them (the Muslims in the East) do what they have to do while we do what we have to do is devoid of the compassion we muslims should have for our ummah. Aren’t we suppose to be like one body, where one part aching causes the entire body pain?

    Yes we can be American Muslims and that is not a contradictory statement. However, let us all remember the adjective is American and the subject noun is Muslim meaning we are Muslim first.

    Wallahu Aalam. I apologize if I said anything wrong. You are my teacher and my shaykh and I have tremendous respect for you but I feel it is my duty to stand up for my brother when he is being attacked unjustly.

  36. SirMagpieDeCrow

    May 23, 2010 at 5:38 PM

    Well, here is popular wayward American Son Anwar Al Awlaki in a new propa… promotional video. He looks good and well groomed, I really like the media production values. In my opinion he looks like he has settled into his new tribal position with aplomb.

    Cool dagger. Here is an excerpt:

    Now what he is saying on other hand is a little… strong

    But at least he’s found a cool new crew to hang with and some new exciting activities. I give him a “E” for effort in his new public relations campaign.

  37. anonymous

    June 12, 2010 at 8:44 PM

    Yasir Qadhi = Majid Nawaz (Munafiq)

  38. Smumais

    November 23, 2010 at 9:22 AM

    I think a scholar should be a person with utmost humbleness. A scholar should also be better than a lay person than to refute others by name calling and instead use wisdom and refute with dignity and respect to a person no matter if he is a kafir or a a misguided Muslim, u don’t ever see the prophet joking about a misguided person or calling him names, rather he feared allahs punishment for them and was compassionate

  39. Pingback: Nifaq & Kufr | Peace, Bruv

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *