Sunday, June 30, 2013

Dr Muhammed Musa Al-Sharif

According to Muad Khan:
The speaker is Dr. Muhammad Musa Al-Shareef who was born in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and graduated from the Faculty of Shari`ah, Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University, in 1408 A.H. He obtained his M.A. and Ph.D. in the Qur'an and the Sunnah from Faculty of Usul Ad-Din (Theology) -- Umm Al-Qura University. He is an assistant professor in the Department of Islamic Studies, King Abdul Aziz University.
This scholar gives lectures on history of Islam like no one else.

Imam Abu Hanifa (RA)

Junaid Baghdadi (RA)

Sultan Muhammed Al-Fateh

Aurangzeb Alamgir


Hasan Al-Basri (RA)

Abdullah Ibn Mubarak (RA)

Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi (RA)

Umar Mukhtar


Traditions on Dajjal


1. An-Nawwas b. Sam’an reported that Allaah’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) made a mention of the Dajjal one day in the morning. He sometimes described him to be insignificant and sometimes described (his turmoil) as very significant and we felt) as if he were in the cluster of the date-palm trees.
When we went to him (to the Prophet) in the evening and he read (the signs of fear) in our faces, he said: What is the matter with you? We said: Allaah’s Messenger, you made a mention of the Dajjal in the morning (sometimes describing him) to be insignificant and sometimes very important, until we began to think as if he were present in some (near) part of the cluster of the datepalm trees. Thereupon he said: I harbour fear in regard to you in so many other things besides the Dajjal. If he comes forth while I am among you, I shall contend with him on your behalf, but if he comes forth while I am not amongst you, a man must contend on his own behalf and Allaah would take care of every Muslim on my behalf (and safeguard him against his evil).
He (Dajjal) would be a young man with twisted, contracted hair, and a blind eye. I compare him to ‘Abd-ul-’Uzza b. Qatan. He who amongst you would survive to see him should recite over him the opening verses of Sura Kahf (xviii.). He would appear on the way between Syria and Iraq and would spread mischief right and left. O servant of Allaah! adhere (to the path of Truth).
We said: Allaah’s Messenger, how long would he stay on the earth? He said.. For forty days, one day like a year and one day like a month and one day like a week and the rest of the days would be like your days. We said: Allaah’s Messenger, would one day’s prayer suffice for the prayers of day equal to one year?
Thereupon he said: No, but you must make an estimate of time (and then observe prayer). We said: Allaah’s Messenger, how quickly would he walk upon the earth? Thereupon he said: Like cloud driven by the wind. He would come to the people and invite them (to a wrong religion) and they would affirm their faith in him and respond to him. He would then give command to the sky and there would be rainfall upon the earth and it would grow crops. Then in the evening, their posturing animals would come to them with their humps very high and their udders full of milk and their flanks stretched. He would then come to another people and invite them. But they would reject him and he would go away from them and there would be drought for them and nothing would be left with them in the form of wealth.
He would then walk through the waste, land and say to it: Bring forth your treasures, and the treasures would come out and collect (themselves) before him like the swarm of bees. He would then call a person brimming with youth and strike him with the sword and cut him into two pieces and (make these pieces lie at a distance which is generally) between the archer and his target. He would then call (that young man) and he will come forward laughing with his face gleaming (with happiness) and it would at this very time that Allaah would send Christ, son of Mary, and he will descend at the white minaret in the eastern side of Damscus wearing two garments lightly dyed with saffron and placing his hands on the wings of two Angels. When he would lower his head, there would fall beads of perspiration from his head, and when he would raise it up, beads like pearls would scatter from it. Every non-believer who would smell the odour of his self would die and his breath would reach as far as he would be able to see. He would then search for him (Dajjal) until he would catch hold of him at the gate of Ludd and would kill him.
Then a people whom Allaah had protected would come to Jesus, son of Mary, and he would wipe their faces and would inform them of their ranks in Paradise and it would be under such conditions that Allaah would reveal to Jesus these words: I have brought forth from amongst My servants such people against whom none would be able to fight; you take these people safely to Tur, and then Allaah would send Gog and Magog and they would swarm down from every slope. The first of them would pass the lake of Tiberias and drink out of it. And when the last of them would pass, he would say: There was once water there. Jesus and his companions would then be besieged here (at Tur, and they would be so much hard pressed) that the head of the ox would be dearer to them than one hundred dinars and Allaah’s Prophet, Jesus, and his companions would supplicate Allaah, Who would send to them insects (which would attack their necks) and in the morning they would perish like one single person. Allaah’s Prophet, Jesus, and his companions would then come down to the earth and they would not find in the earth as much space as a single span which is not filled with their putrefaction and stench. Allaah’s Prophet, Jesus, and his companions would then again beseech Allaah, Who would send birds whose necks would be like those of bactrin camels and they would carry them and throw them where God would will.
Then Allaah would send rain which no house of clay or (the tent of) camels’ hairs would keep out and it would wash away the earth until it could appear to be a mirror. Then the earth would be told to bring forth its fruit and restore its blessing and, as a result thereof, there would grow (such a big) pomegranate that a group of persons would be able to eat that, and seek shelter under its skin and the milked cow would give so much milk that a whole party would be able to drink it. And the milked camel would give such (a large quantity of) milk that the whole tribe would be able to drink out of that and the milked sheep would give so much milk that the whole family would be able to drink out of that and at that time Allaah would send a pleasant wind which would soothe (people) even under their armpits, and would take the life of every Muslim and only the wicked would survive who would commit adultery like asses and the Last Hour would come to them.
[Sahih Muslim, The Book of Tribulations and the Signs of the Last Hour, Chapter: ACCOUNT OF THE DAJJAL AND HIS FEATURES AND WHAT WOULD BE ALONG WITH HIM, Book 41, No. 7015]
2) Narrated Abu Huraira (رضي الله عنه‏) :
The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, “Shall I not tell you about the dajjal a story of which no prophet told his nation? The dajjal is one-eyed and will bring with him what will resemble Hell and Paradise, and what he will call Paradise will be actually Hell; so I warn you (against him) as Noah warned his nation against him.”
[Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, The Book of Prophets, No. 3112]
3) Anas b. Malik (رضي الله عنه‏) reported that Allaah’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said:
“There would be written three letters k. f. r., i. e. Kafir, between the eyes of the Dajjal.”
[Sahih Muslim, The Book of Tribulations and the Signs of the Last Hour (41), CHAPTER: ACCOUNT OF THE DAJJAL AND HIS FEATURES AND WHAT WOULD BE ALONG WITH HIM, No. 7008]
4) Anas b. Malik (رضي الله عنه‏) reported that Allaah’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said:
“The Dajjal would be followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan wearing Persian shawls.”
[Sahih Muslim, The Book of Tribulations and the Signs of the Last Hour (41), CHAPTER: THE REMAINING AHADITH PERTAINING TO THE DAJJAL, No. 7034]
Source : Islam Tees

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Vindictive Wife

A woman in US has been sentenced for life for chopping off the organ of her former husband and tossing it into the waste basket. There is a technical name for this from the west: Bobbitization.

One might fell relieved with the justice served but should one?
The real problem remains unaddressed.
And what is the real problem?
Well the confusion prevailing in the US about roles of man and woman in society.
A confusion that has spread far and wide because of the simply observation that ideas of leading economic power become ideas of the world.
So India is not so impervious to these pervert notions.
When you talk of competing with the US on the economic front there is a possibility that you might be imbibing some cultural  notions also that are not yours.
Like assigning perverted roles to man and woman.

But first little bit of look at what US has come to. A book reviewer, Thomas E. Victor, finds the book Man on Strike terrifying and infuriating. The book details how American society has been screwed up in favour of woman. How American society has been completely screwed up against man. In hos own words:

Dr. Smith concisely describes how American society has become anti-male. As a result, men are opting for non-participation. A stand-out chapter is "Why Does Dad Stay in the Basement?" (pages 95-118), which posits that too many women view men as "perverts, predators, and goofballs." This chapter brings to mind the TV and radio commercials with dumb husbands being put in their place by their rude, condescending wives. Usually a callow male says or does something stupid, and then the wife sneers, "Slow down there, champ! Time to grow up and stop being a moron!" Imagine the outrage if the roles were reversed.
By the grace of Allah (SWT) we do have our faith to address the situation. Let us begin now for we have delayed it enough already.

Monday, June 24, 2013

Of a King and His Return

William Dalrymple has been making waves in India for decades by now.

Sometime back he came out with his new book Return of a King about the British Afghanistan war of nineteenth century.

After their decisive humiliation in Afghanistan the British did manage to subdue India and neutralize Muslim power there but they did give Afghanistan a pass for a century and a half.

But they did not learn their lesson. They did come back to Afghanistan. And now a Scott is showing them the mirror. As he did at other times. The glorious British Empire of erstwhile does look little less glorious when a better perspective, like of Dalrymple, is introduced.

And it is even less glorious if looked upon from a realistic point of view.

Let us do that in the form of a commentary on an article by William Dalrymple in the Deccan Herald.
Comments will be in blue.

Ghosts of Afghanistan's past make striking return

William Dalrymple, April 18, 2013, DHNS:
History never repeats itself exactly, but the events now bear similarity to the war of 1840s

On March 10, Afghanistan’s president Hamid Karzai, shocked western leaders by declaring that recent attacks proved that the Taliban “are at the service of America.” The implication was clear: terrorists were colluding with the United States to sow chaos before America’s planned withdrawal in 2014. American and European leaders, mindful of the blood and treasure they’ve expended to defend Karzai’s government, were baffled and offended.
William may we call the American and European leaders as western leaders?
Not because they represent the west as a cultural construct but because they are western.
And that is important.
Because the issue of western materialistic values and eastern  wholistic values is essential to the present discourse.
And yours truly asserts the above east and west construct with a lot of appreciation for your efforts - your efforts in unraveling the British Empire enigma have been very refreshing and heart warming. Thank you a lot.

So if the western leaders are baffled then this merely shows their disconnection with the ground reality.
If they expended blood and treasure to defend Karzai’s government then it was for their own ends.
If they are surprised at their loss then it is understandable but if they think of it in terms of betrayal then a reality check is in order. It helps to keep your thinking and logic straight.

Not that yours truly is fond of American or British, or western, logic. Their logic is subservient to their ends.

The objective of western misadventure in Afghanistan is rather mundane and sort of facile.
Once upon a time there was a person called Osama Bin Laden who was killed by the Americans, his body disposed in unknown manner.
He, O Bin L, called Tim Usman by his enemies pulled a trick on the then mighty British Empire, I mean the American Empire. The trick became known as the 9/11.
And that is at the core of US debacle or British debacle two in Afghanistan.
O Bin L mustered a few kids who managed to dupe the American might.

(No one should bring the civilian casualties of 9/11 and demand apologies left and right. If you have the guts then call them collateral damage. And if you do not have the guts to call that collateral damage then be prepared to tender apology for every civilian Muslim casualty. We shall be demanding that after every sentence you speak.)

And since reality takes the longest route to reach the British, American and western shores it will be appropriate to start the communication now. Here is the info. In the Muslim world people do not hate O Bin L. In fact there are a few Muslims who parrot exactly the same sentiments as done by the American, British or western people but all of these look fake and artificial machines when they indulge in simulating US gratifying sentiments.

Is that clear?
And there is a number, a large one, of Muslims who drool over the western wealth and the sinful pleasures offered by the western way of life.
That is there. A reality of life.
But that too is now tempered by something else - the Gulf. It has enough riches to cater to some of the Muslims inclined towards worldly pleasures.
In fact much of the west drools over the Gulf.
So things are not the same as these used to be till about fifty years back when the west was all that was to be desired.

US devastated the  poor Afghanistan nation because of 9/11.
US had a silly choice. What to do to an extremely poor nation whose guest, O Bin L, had pulled that cheeky trick on them.
US went muscle flexing in one of the poorest regions of the globe.
And id get a taste of their self-respect, bravery, mettle.
To say the least US did not claim victory, just like the USSR not accepting defeat.
Very ironical outcomes both.

But to students of Afghan history, Karzai’s motivation for publicly spurning foreign powers was quite obvious. A Taliban news release on March 18, which received little notice in the western press, declared: “Everyone knows how Karzai was brought to Kabul and how he was seated on the defenceless throne of Shah Shuja,” referring to the exiled Afghan ruler restored to the throne by the British in 1839. “So it is not astonishing that the American soldiers are making fun of him and slapping him on the face because it is the philosophy of invaders that they scorn their stooge at the end ... and in this way punish him for his slavery!”
William makes a reference to western press.
Clearly he knows that east and west is involved in the issue at hand.
That Hamid Karzai is Shah Shuja II is rather mundane observation.
Many of us remember a flag in the anti-American demonstrations where British and USSR tombs were sketched together with an open grave, open for the Americans.
Afghans were mundanely aware of the comparison.
And since William is aware of the metaphor will it not be appropriate to make full use of it?
One simple implication is that Hamid Karzai is an evanescent spook.
He is here today and will be gone tomorrow.

The Taliban inadvertently put their finger on a key factor in understanding Karzai’s psychology. After all, as an elder of the Popalzai tribe, Karzai is the direct tribal descendant of Shah Shuja ul-Mulk, Britain’s handpicked ruler during the first western attempt at regime change in Afghanistan in the mid-19th century.
May we assert that British Divide and Rule thing failed once more in Afghanistan?
It is true that British and US drones and snipers have killed nearly all able bodies Afghans, with help of the rival spies from the same region, but that is a dubious honour.
One, it reminds people of the observation Mussolinian Italian action on Ethiopia - kill as many Ethiopians as you must to get Ethiopia.
Two, world is no more the same as sixty or seventy years ago. Soon people will be asking for accounts.
If the civilian casualties in 9/11 were a concern then so are the casualties in Afghanistan.
You can not decimate the male population of a country and walk away.

Today, Shah Shuja is widely reviled in Afghanistan as a puppet of the west. The man who defeated the British in 1842, Wazir Akbar Khan, and his father, Dost Mohammed, are widely regarded as national heroes. Karzai has lived with that knowledge all his life, making him a difficult ally — always keen to stress the differences between himself and his backers, making him appear to be continually biting the hand that feeds him.
Hand feeding, biting the hand and all these are lame descriptions.
"O my God my puppet has a conscience", is all that the west can exclaim.

In 2001, top Taliban officials asked their young fighters, “Do you want to be remembered as a son of Shah Shuja or as a son of Dost Mohammed?” As he rose to power, the Taliban leader Mullah Omar deliberately modelled himself on Dost Mohammed, and, as he did, removed the Holy Cloak of the Prophet Muhammad from its shrine in Kandahar and wrapped himself in it to declare jihad, a deliberate historical re-enactment, the resonance of which all Afghans immediately understood.
Can we shift the spotlight to where it belongs?
It is not the tribal nature of Afghan society.
It is Islam and Muslims.
Let us try not to make the tribalism as the red herring.
Even the Arab society, where Islam was perfected for us, is tribal till today.
So keeping the spotlight on tribalism is not going to reflect much light back.
Bring Islam and Muslims into focus and the analysis will be smooth.
Acknowledge that Muslims are driven by and governed by Islam and the western attempts to wean them away from Islam have failed and you will be on a highway to understand the dynamics.
If the west still insists on ignoring Islam then it will be western responsibility if they look silly.

The parallels between the current war and that of the 1840s are striking. The same tribal rivalries exist and the same battles are being fought in the same places under the guise of new flags, new ideologies and new political puppeteers. The same cities are being garrisoned by foreign troops speaking the same languages, and they are being attacked from the same hills and high passes.
Agree to a large extent but the focus is not correct - Islam is relevant for deciphering the conundrum.

Not only was Shah Shuja from the same Popalzai sub-tribe as Karzai, his principal opponents were Ghilzais, who today make up the bulk of the Taliban’s foot soldiers. Mullah Omar is a Ghilzai, as was Mohammad Shah Khan, the resistance fighter who supervised the slaughter of the British Army in 1841.
The US/British sniper slaughtering the able bodied Afghans is the relevant detail.

The same moral issues that are chewed over in editorial columns today were discussed in the correspondence of British officials during the First Afghan War. Should foreign troops try to “promote the interests of humanity” and champion social reform by banning traditions like the stoning of adulterous women? Should they try to reform blasphemy laws and introduce western political ideas? Or should they just concentrate on ruling the country without rocking the boat?

British, and their heirs in trickery - the Americans, are adapt at devising ideological issues.
It is not likely to work anymore.

Untried soils
As the great British spymaster Sir Claude Wade warned on the eve of the 1839 invasion, “There is nothing more to be dreaded or guarded against, I think, than the overweening confidence with which we are too often accustomed to regard the excellence of our own institutions, and the anxiety that we display to introduce them in new and untried soils.” In this early critique of democracy promotion, he concluded, “Such interference will always lead to acrimonious disputes, if not to a violent reaction.”

There is an anachronism here. British monarchy was much stronger in those days. There was no democracy talk at that time and in today the invasion of Afghanistan has nothing to do with democracy and nothing to do with the British. British came this time in a shameful capacity as lackey of the US.

Just as Britain’s inability to cope with the Afghan uprising of 1841-2 stemmed from leadership failures and the breakdown of ties between the British envoy and Shah Shuja, the strained and uneasy relationship of Nato leaders with Karzai has been a crucial factor in America’s failures in the latest imbroglio.

US persuaded the NATO and British allies to join Afghan butchering.
9/11 was extraordinary event because of the pygmy size of the undertaking entity - O Bin L and a few kids.
Even US invasion of Afghanistan was not warranted.
It was silly and 9/11 did make US look silly. Period.
That US reacted in a way that it did understandable but not condonable.
Afghans did not implement 9/11.
And that fact can not be changed even if US is joined by NATO and the British.
To kill all able bodied Afghans because their guests pulled a spectacular trick on the US is not justifiable.
And after committing their heinous crimes when they are leaving then it makes them look silly if they expect that the Afghans, including Karzai, should be behaving as desired by the west.

Afghanistan is so poor that the occupation can’t be financed through natural resource wealth or taxation. Today, America is spending more than a $100 billion a year in Afghanistan: it costs more to keep Marine battalions in two districts of Helmand than America is providing to the entire nation of Egypt in military and development assistance. And then, as now, the decision to withdraw troops has turned on factors with little relevance to Afghanistan, namely the state of the occupier’s troubled economy and the vagaries of politics back home.

And William should be as tough on the Americans as he has been on the British. Americans are the new British and the people at the receiving end are the same, the Muslims, in the theater of absurdity under consideration. Muslims would like to live according to Islam whether America, and the west in general, likes it or not. And if you kill all able bodies men of a Muslim country then we would be interested in justice.

History never repeats itself exactly, and there are some important differences between what is taking place in Afghanistan today and what took place during the 1840s. There is no unifying figure at the centre of the resistance, recognised by all Afghans as a symbol of legitimacy and justice: Mullah Omar is no Dost Mohammed or Wazir Akbar Khan, and the tribes have not united behind a single leader as they did in the 1840s.

It is too soon to write off Mulla Omar. And even if the west manages to take him out then the Muslim world does not come to an end. Personalities are important but not most important. In Muslim life it is Islam that calls the shots.

Moreover, the goals of the conservative, defensive tribal uprising that brought colonial rule to an end were very different from those of today’s Taliban, who wish to reimpose an imported Wahhabi ideology on Afghanistan’s diverse religious cultures. And most important, Karzai has tried to establish a broad-based, democratic government, which, for all its many flaws and prodigious corruption, is still much more representative and popular than the regime of Shah Shuja ever was.

William dabbles in things like Jinn technology, read Sufism with a tint.
And that makes him dub any other view on Islam as Wahhabi.
It is true that Wahhabi and Salafis are doing damage to the image of Islam but all Islam is not Wahhabi and Salafi. And the Sufism dear to William Dalrymple is not the main stream. He is interested in Sufism because of the exotica and that is dead give away.

Karzai is keen to learn the lessons of his forebears’ failures. When my book came out in India in January, he got hold of a copy and read it. “Our so-called current allies behave to us just as the British did to Shah Shuja,” he told me. “They have squandered the opportunity given to them by the Afghan people.”

Silly of Karzai. For the record Afghans did not invite the west. Information starved Karzai can take it from yours truly.

Karzai believes that Shah Shuja didn’t stress his independence enough, and he made clear that in his own last year in office he is going to act in such a way that he will never be remembered as anyone’s puppet.
May we get connected with the reality once again? Karzai is not that important.
With due regards for him as a Muslim.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Take Modi on Chin

L.K.Advani has done a U-turn and supported Modi as BJP campaign chief.

But then why did we have any hopes from Mr L.K.Advani of Babri Masjid demolition infamy?

This is not a news that Modi is  a bad news for Muslims. Let us take it as such.
The road to face a calamity starts with the acknowledgement that it is looming on the horizon.
Let us accept the reality.
That way we are one step closer to deal it.

Muslims are marginalized, hapless, powerless, resource deprived, participation in power structure deprived and disorganized. But the power of the detractors is not more than the power of Allah (SWT).

If Allah (SWT) has preferred Islam as a way of life for us then He (SWT) must surely have put in elements in Islam that can be used to face the situation. Let us cut our vacation from Islam, once and forever.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Order Out of Chaos in Muslim Lands

A post from brother Warrior:

I consider myself an Orthodox Muslim, a believer in Madhab and the established doctrines. It is interesting that you would think that, why would i need to indulge in or develop/promote other ideals? Well to be honest, it is because of my Orthodox doctrine, that i promote my ideology to defend the Orthodoxy. Developing new ideas are not a sin, as long as it is to uphold the established ideals (see: Ashari, Maturidi, etc). But my ideas are not theological-based at all (because I'm not an Islamic scholar), in fact they are designed to be cautious against those who develop such religious or non-religious ideals, groups and movements, which are ultimately designed to thwart Islamic Orthodoxy, and in a broader context Traditonal/Abrahamic orthodoxies (outside of Islam). To sum it up, my ideals are purely political, social and socio-political (that is why my tirades are geared against Zionism, Cultural-Marxism, Corporatism, and Revisionism).

You might not believe me, but i was once part of the Hive Mind that plagues Muslims; I was a mod/admin at a number of j1hadist forums, and due to a series of events and realizations over the span of several years, i left that. I realized that contradictions, inconsistency, and blatant ignorance of truth/facts is abundant everywhere. And this is hurting Islam and Muslim Orthodoxy in the long run. That is why i have now resorted to a completely new fight: the info-war, but of a totally different kind. When i was on the forums, i was trying desperately to bring attention to the massacres in Iraq of 'Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah' at the hands of the Shia (namely the Badr Brigades and Jaish al-Mahdi), all of whom were backed by Iran. Back then nobody cared, everyone supported Hezbollah and Iran, and people would rather blame America (even though the bigger killer was someone else).

That was when the West worked with the Shia to bring down Saddam, and now the same West is working with Sunnis/Salafis to bring down Assad/Hezbollah/Iran. All of a sudden, everyone has joined the bandwagon. This showed to me that the Muslims – while in denial – are actually in a Love/Hate relationship with the US/West. Their (re)actions are all based upon the actions of the US. It took the West to target Shia'ism, for Muslims to realize that Shia's are now a threat. This is why "Dialectic" becomes an issue, because everybody (Muslims, Westerners, etc) are trapped within a paradigm/dichotomy, instead of looking outside the box, independently and objectively. They only act in response to or influence by someone else (the establishment, or some other group aspiring to be the establishment).

The main issue why i left was that the inconsistencies and blind-following of partisanship plagued the masses who support j1hadist groups. It was a bother to me, because over the years Salafism became more prominent but it changed; it was contradicting the previous codes of conduct with regards to its operation. For example- Under "AQI" and "Mujahideen Shura Council" (2004-2006), Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi worked alongside rival/local groups to target the invaders and safavids in Iraq (that was when the Iraq insurgency was its most fierce/formidable), and he defended the 'People of the Book'. But after he died, the self-proclaimed "Islamic State of Iraq" (2007) formed in his place and its leadership became Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Hamza al-Muhajir. But they now started to target and attack the rival groups claiming that they will be the sole authority in Iraq. This causes massive splits, and weakened the insurgency, and many former-mujahideen joined the enemy forming "Sahwas" (pro-govt/US militias). However, the ISI still defended the People of the Book, there was an incident where they saved several Christian hostages from kidnappers.

However, after Baghdadi and Muhajir died (2010), and were replaced by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, one of the first things they did was attack and massacre a Christian church in Baghdad killing several dozen. This had crossed the line for me; unlike the sheeple who were blindly supporting such activities on other forums, i atleast (being a veteran) realized the inherent inconsistencies in tactic/principle. It became obvious to me that, as time goes on the Extremism snowballs larger and larger, and the deviation and infighting that comes with it grows larger and larger.

A similar story happened in Somalia, where after the Ethiopian invasion (2006), the "Islamic Courts Union" began its insurgency, and the various factions were unified, formidable and winning. The enemy withdrew in 2009, but then a split emerged, some factions (Sheikh Sharif Ahmed) wanted to join the government others wanted to topple it (Hizbul Islam & Al-Shabab). But soon after, Al-Shabab started fighting its rivals groups (Hizbul Islam) for territory and taxes. This hurt the insurgency, and showed that their main agenda is power and control. And worst of all, these infightings are always done with the excuse of "unity", in reality its 'monopoly' (subjugation). Soon, they started attacking shrines and digging up graves and bodies. Because of that they created newer enemies, the group calling itself the "Ahlus Sunnac wal Jamaa" who were now driven to join the government side. This renewed infighting actually brought back the AU and Ethiopia back into Somalia.

These factional infighting weaken the insurgency as whole, but that doesn't matter because now they get to have a monopoly (of the 'resistance'). And when you have a monopoly on j!had, you get to become the "good guys" regardless of what actions you commit; you get to keep the sole taxes, ghanima and control, and dictate your version of "Islam" without any dissent. But the question arises, when the ICU were in power, you never broke shrine (you had the perfect opportunity and legitimacy to do so), then why do so now and create enemies and more infighting? It became obvious to me, that the Salafist strategy is simple: (1) establish yourself among local population/land, and work alongside local/rival groups; (2) gain enough support and traction among local population; (3) when opportunity arises, declare yourself sole Hegemon, fight for "unity" (monopoly) and start enforcing your version of religion (salafism) and politics.

We have seen this in Iraq, we saw this in Somalia, and we will likely see this in some form in Syria to come. Al-Shabab banned food aid and charities even, which directly contradicts the Taliban (Islamic Emirate of Aghanistan)'s position, which shows the blatant ideological inconsistencies. The fact that sheeple can still support this without ever thinking why the discrepancies, really showed the light of how blind and dumb Muslims can be (but this is not isolated to Muslims). Al-Shabaab went on to clash against Hizbul fiercely in 2010 over various lucrative territories, primarily Burkhaba, even threatening to behead the Hizbul prisoners. After that event, Hizbul Islam surrendered to Al-Shabab.

None of the above however, were covered on the j1hadist forums (except the 2 i was working with). That because the majority of the forums are under the control of Al-Fajr and GIMF (which are the same group anyways). And they are the ones who publish the media for the AQ "brand" groups (and "brand" is all they are anymore, since they have no moral ideological principles/consistency). No mention of any infighting in Somalia, then suddenly in the New Year they make an announcement "Glad Tidings.. Hizbul Islam have 'merged' with Al-Shabab.. Unity, yay!!". No context whatsoever, no mention of the surrender, everything's so right in happy-go-lucky land. With regards to Iraq, they promoted ISI as a sole legitimate group, and spread lies that all the other groups (IAI, 1920RB, JaR, SoI, etc) were either "nationalist", deviant, or "sahwa". These blatant lies were fed, and the sheeple ate. It is all about 'controlling the narrative', that way you control the people and the direction.

This is why i became opposed to salafism, because it is a sweet poison. Sweet and unsuspecting at first, but when the time comes it become poison and bound to kill you. It is evident, that as time goes on the extremism snowballs, and therefore we must not allow it to get traction from the beginning. When the bigger enemy was Shias, nobody cared about Shias. Now the bigger enemy has become Salafis, but Muslims dont care about Salafis, you support them now. Muslims are always 3-steps behind the enemy, 3-steps behind whatever is going on. Just like Iran/Shia, they will come to realize who the enemy was all along, and then they will regret it. That is what I'm trying to prevent. The #1 threat at this moment is Salafi-takfiris, the #2 threat is Shia'ism, the #3 threat is Zionism (by that i don't mean Israel, i mean Zionist agents who influence the policies of the US/West).

If you want details (with sources/links) regarding my commentary on Iraq, Somalia, J!hadist-media, then i have made more elaborate posts elsewhere; not sure if they're existent or deleted, but feel free to give 'em a read. The Salafists know that their sectarianism, factionalism, infighting weakens the insurgency/j1had and therefore drags on the war. But thats what they WANT, just like the US want to drag on the Iraq and Afghan wars. The longer it drags on the longer they keep up the "War on Terror" facade, the longer/more they get to put money into the pockets of the Military-Industrial Complex and corporations, and increase their power/control at home (increasing security measures, growing gov't bureaucracies). The salafis do the same thing, because the longer the war drags on, the more opportunity they have to propagate/spread their religion/ideology, because during peace-time they never get any success. But during war-time and desperation, people come to them in droves, and those whom they don't like they can simply kill. And it all becomes "justified" in the name of "j!had". Ordo ab Chao – Order out of Chaos.