We do not allow for comments in each and every post in order to preserve the purity of material. So We have this page open for comments on any particular topic one wishes to address for the purpose of dialogue and understanding. If there is a particular subject of interest that you wish to be addressed in which you have encountered in any page of this blog, please reference the link along with a quote of the actual statement for further analysis. We ask that all comments made by any poster seeks as their intent to

  1. have some form of valid proof either historically, authoritatively, or from established logic
  2. that you (the poster) has as his/her intention to seek the truth of a matter and not to have an already preconceived notion and making that notion permanent in which would render any discussion useless
  3. that you (the poster) does not resort to personal attacks or foul language

Preserving the wishes of the first two points would result in a healthier discussion yet tolerated if violation occurs. With regards to violating the 3rd point mentioned above, it will have zero tolerance which will result to either editing or deletion. We appreciate your cooperation in advance

For further information please contact the admin at

50 comments on “Comments

  1. السلام عليكم و رحمة الله
    Im extremely sorry for taking 35 days to respond. I’ve been extremely busy with work. The response of of Shaykh Jibaly I believe was on his Kitaabu-Sunnah yahoo groups. I’m not sure if you have to be subscribed to get it but I believe its public.

    The entire response is actually in the article I made, all I did was break it up to sections for easier responses.

  2. Asalaamu alaikum Where could we read the entire response of Sh Jibaly to Br.Yasir Qadhi’s Article/. Jazakallahu Khairun

  3. walaykum salam warahmatullahi wa barakatuhu wa maghfirtuhu

    1. I remember calling some members on the IA forums of following a hawaalian manhaj but i don’t remember applying that to Abdullah Farsi.

    However I do know that he is mistaken and has taken the mistaken position of the mistaken fatawa of some of the shiyookh in their fatwa against Ali Hasan because of their delusion that what he has pointied out in his work has something to do with irjaa.

    2. And if so, so what. The work was a translation of our brother Mahmud Murad. Presenting it as “courtesy” here means providing the structure and look and publication of the document in this format. There is no format that exist like it, hence it was produced by us here. However the effort is to be attributed to Mahmud Murad. Myabe I should have chose the term “revamped”. Maybe I would not have got a reaction like this had I used this word instead.

    3. I don’t train myself with the views of the Jordanian Mashaa’ikh on this topic. In fact, I will give send you 100 U.S. Dollars if you can find at least 1 time, just once, where I refered to the name called “Hilaalee” or “Halabee” in any serious study produced here for the site outside of any statement they made against the hizbi salafis. At any rate, this is after having understood that the two positions are in actuality synonymous, but it takes a pretty good mind to understand the connotation of what each group means when they say a particular phrase. The problem was that some of the saudi shaykh who made the foney fatwa of irjaa against them could not compute this into their understanding the other side, particularly ad-Dawsari.

    4. I had to reread the pages you indicated in order to find this “variance” that you cite. After re-skimming a second time, I could not see this divergence you highlight between what Fawzaan says and what the jordanians say. And I can assure you that I have absolutely no second guesses or confusion about the topics pertaining to, or relating to the subject at hand.

    5. Why would I “NOT” want for the statements that I agree with in Fawzaan’s book to be “NOT” advocated. That makes no sense to me

    6. Sixthly, rechange your words from this “by a student of QSEP” to
    “by Mahmud Murad”, and then your entire paragraph will be accurate.

    7. So let me get this straight. You find that taking material from a web page or a printed work, and putting it into a pdf for mobility for people with a cover on the front and informing them that this action was in courtesy of the one who did it, as problematic. ajeeb

    8. I don’t undertsand your problem here. The one whose efforts is to be recorgnized outside of Fawzaan of course, is none other than Mahmud Murad for translating the it bro. And he was fully recognized in the front cover. Likewise the additional material produced by QSEP was LIKEWISE attributed to them, hence the appelation “Additional Notes by As-Sunnah” which happens to be the described name of QSEP.
    I don’t understand your math here, they ripped the material from Mahmud Murad as they themselves admitted, and added their notes and put it on their website. Why are you not inquiring them as to why they did this, but are pestering me for merely attributing to myself the “production of output” into pdf for it. I didn’t attribute the translation, the notes, or anything related to the information to al-Mustaqeem Publications.

    In short, I have no idea why your trippin.

    asalamu alaykum

  4. Salaam Alaikum,

    Given that you have previously stated on forums that you consider Dr. Abdullah al-Farsi to be on the Hawaalian Manhaj for his audio responding to Mujma Masail al-Eeman by the Jordanian students of Shaikh al-Albani (rahimullah), why are you presenting Aqeedah at-Tawheed as ‘Courtesy of al-Mustaqeem Publications,’ when;

    Firstly, it includes the section from page 34 to 37 in which it is made apparent that Shaikh Saalih al-Fawzaan’s statements are not conformity with those of the students of al-Albani, given the points about ‘general legislation’ versus ‘specific rulings’ being the dividing line between shirk and kufr duna kufr, so one would think you would not want to present such statements of the Sheikh.

    Secondly, when you have not done anything to this work at all, you have not changed a word or sentence from the original translation by a student of QSEP (Dr. Abdullah al-Farsi’s web-site), and indeed, the only differences in this and the other one are from formatting and font-changes.

    Is this really the best course of action for you to be taking? Pray istikhaara, as we all should do that more often, and think it over,

    Salaam Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.

  5. walaykum salam abz

    This is the website. I was not going to start a new website, I made this site the site, I just had a section in our pages on the right addressing the wikiIslam page. I fell back to produce anything for a number of factors, they being
    1. I have too many projects that are incomplete that needs completion
    2. I have been unable to recruit others as others whom I know who are fully capable are unavailable to offer services
    3. more importantly, I find that the material for which wiki islam presents is not worthy of a response. If anyone can really analyze their information, some of the material cannot be addressed because aspects of providing refutations entail going into the actual psyche of these people. When one concludes the argument, they are left with realizing that these people have a dangerous mental disorder.

    I had realized this because these are the same people behind the “faith freedom” forums, an apostate forum of ex-muslims. And since I had already debated these savages in their forums,I found that these people truly have a mental disorder. I couldn’t come to any other conclusion.

    One has to take into consideration these facts because osme of the things they present as “logical” actually have no connection with any form of reason at all.

    4. Lastly, i believe that there are other issues of more crucial and vital importance at hand that faces the ummah than the mouth foaming vitriol that comes out of the thoughts of ex-muslims.

    asalamu alaikum

  6. i will like to appreciate so much for the effort of making this site reality come true as it was say by the most honorable prophet that Muslim are
    The Prophet sal-allahu ‘alayhi wa salam said: “The Muslim is a unique Ummah among the whole of mankind:Their Land is ONE, their War is ONE, their Peace is ONE, Their Honour is ONE and their Trust is ONE.” so no matter we are far butt we are in one destination they so many things going wrong no has decided to take action about it and is for Ur own advantage ,look like yasser,arafat,sadam,now Gaddafi not the power they are fighting for butt Islam what they are fighting for.
    like here where i am much believable than Muslim how many radio station in the country no one has time to speech about Islam only now we are have open new station that only talking about Islam so my mean opinion is that we should try to united to achieve our goal

  7. Salam Alaykoum,

    I read that you are working on a website that counters wikiislam. When will you be establishing a website that counters the lies and ignorance of wikiislam? I’m really interested in that! Please let me know…

  8. WalHamdulillaah Ustaadh Abu Taubah has agreed to conduct free Classes during the Entire Month of RamaDaan. Saturday – Thursday at 5pm on Abu Taubah will be covering such topics as “Manners of dealing with the Qur-aan”, “Explaining every sign and symbol in the Qur-aan”, “Facts to familiarize us with the Qur-aan” and many more topics insha’Allaah. These Classes will cover Classical Works such as Imaam an-Nawawi’s “Manners of the Student & Teacher of Qur-aan” and Shaykh Ma’saraawi’s explanation of the “Reading signs in the Qur-aan” and from Imaam as-suyooti’s “In the Sciences of Qur-aan” what Imaam al-Ghazaali authentically narrated about the manners of the Qur-aan, Jameel Zeno’s “How to Understand the Qur-aan”, just to name a few.

    The students of these lessons will walk away understanding the Qur-aan in ways never expected! And Allaah Knows Best.

    For Registration and Log In information please visit and Click on the “FREE RAMADAAN CLASS” image. This will lead you into The F.I.K.S. Virtual University and the title of your Class is “RAMADAAN 1432”. We appreciate you all attending and joining, walHamdulillaah.

  9. walaykum salam warahmatullah ya Eesa

    According to what my teacher told me, the shaykh was not down with sufis like that. If he praised, it would be necessary to view what exactly he was praising them on in specific.
    As for Shaykh Muhammad Hasan, couple things
    1. he was commenting on the original ash’aris from what i know. The original ash’aris were not as the modern day ash’aris of today are like who have a jahmified aqeedah. This same position was even advocated by Shaykh Ghunayman, of course in my view I believe that their statements, although can be viewed correctly from one angle, is wrong because people who do not have knowledge will not be able to contextualize these statements.
    2. there are some problematic issues with Muhammad Hasan even though he does have a powerful educative curriculum in his school.

    My teacher personally told me that he advises no one to study in mauritania as of now and that the best one who was there to study under was Shaykh Muhammad Saalim.

    asalamu alaikum warahmatullah

  10. Asalau’alaikum brother alboriqee,

    I have a question Shaykh Muhammad Salim Wald Udood rahimahullah. I have a very good opinion of him but recently a brother sent me a link whereby he says the Shaykh praises certain tariqas from Africa and also Tassawuf. Unfortunately the link is in Arabic. Can I send you the link?

    Also, his nephew, shaykh Muhammad al Hassan dedew, I was given some links where the Shaykh defended the Asharis and said they are from ahlus sunnah, praises the Mawlid and believes in the concept of good bidah. Do you know of him? is he someone to benefit from or should we stay away from him?

    Jazakh’Allahu Khayr


  11. asalamu alaikum brother

    there is a saying.
    You do not give fools the light of day.

    Do you know how much “credibility” these people will get on the mere basis that some one of repute responded to them.

    What im trying to say is let them die in their state of nothingness. They are not worth the digital cyberspace that they occupy. Moreover we already know where they get their bologna from. It is not critical that each time a dog barks, that Islam or its representatives must respond back.

    Of course when I have nothing better to do, i will try to respond to some of their things that half way make sense, but im not going to go out of my way to do this, I have other matters of importance that must be fulfilled. In all honesty, plucking my pubic hairs is more worthy of my time and contains more benefit than responding to their delusions.

    At any rate, I think it is more proper to respond to people who have actual weight in the intellectual realm and in the world of academia like think tanks and research institutes. It is these forms of institutions which I have my focus towards, not pieces of filth and slime like the islamaphobes..As I have told others, in my own personal view, the islamaphobe problem is a problem of mental retardation. I don’t mean to insinuate this as a joke, rather I really do believe that they have psychological disorder because normal people cannot resort to the ideas of islamaphobes except that they have lost their minds. It is an impossibility for normal people to become swindled into the islamaphobic phenomenon.

    That is my personal view, and more and more people are recognizing the spade that I am describing for what it is and I hope you do too.

    asalamu alaikum

  12. asalamu alaikum Abdul-Aziz

    this is incorrect for the most part. a madhaab has nothing to do with legislating apart of Allah’s rule. The reason why madhaabs exist because 30 percent of the revealed shariah has revealed generalities or ambiguities. This means that when we disect an issue into specifics, then we will have differing, and in this, differing is acceptable as the companions of the messenger of Allah alaihi salatu salam differed in the application of the revealed law i.e. the shariah. Before the madhaabs, the ummah was divided between the school of Ibn Abbass and the school of Ibn mas’ud. The application of your view on the four madhaahib entails by default that it must be applied to the couple of companions who had their own madhaabs and who were followed.

    If your speaking about the heresies of sufis and ash’aris or the ahlul-kalaam movement, then I understand where you are coming from for they invented many aspects into the religion that is not from it that the classical Sunni Imaams have held.

    asalamu alaikum

    @ Muhammad Razvi

    go learn the kufr of your own creed first before you try to refute the Islamic creed. I don’t have time to render the absurdities you state down to the gutter where it came from. The method of your response reveals an extreme and gross ignorance of even basic fundamentals that I do not have time to educate you on in order to respond to you with.

  13. i think the root cause of the all deviations is the man-made system of Madhabib and Taqleed, this self-invented system gives to the scholars an authority to make changes in Islamic sharia.
    so they changed the concept of Ijtihad,Fiqh,….every thing.
    they changed the Tauhid to shirk,halal to haram, haram to halal,ittiba’ to taqleed…..
    So we have to declare Jihad against this evil Jahalat, by education people with revelation of Allah, ie. Quran and Sunnah.
    by answering all those misconceptions which common people have about the taqleed.

  14. if the subject that we are speaking of is a “clock” then that means when we say “The hand of the clock is on the 2″ we don’t mean a hand with blood flowing through and with five fingers since that is not the obvious meaning, rather we mean a hand that is befitting the subject i.e. the clock, i.e. a material made of plastic or metal or some type of material that looks like an arrow pointing at a circumferential direction. That is the obvious meaning of “Hand” when the subject is a “clock”.
    = =

    Yadh is sift (attribute), Hand is Dhat (a phisical part) hand of clock is phisical, and hand of human is phisical, and hand of martian alien, hand of jinn, hand of angle, are all hands, but these hands are Dhaat and not sift, so for you to use the above anolgy is hereitcal, and points to your mujassimi (anthropomorphist) aqeedah. By translating Yadh to mean hand you negate its being sift, and with ur reasonng which i quoted above makes it clear that your heretical anthropomorphist wahabi whos blood should be spilled for professing a creed which invalidates ones beleife in Islam.

  15. Walaykum Salam
    1. Firstly Egypt is not a democracy, it is an oligarchical autocracy.

    2. When you can find the topic of what has happened as being tied to the topic of permissibility, then let us know. There is a ton of information and all you could do is to interpret the laying of the Islamic sunni stance as a guide as being “tied to permissibility”.
    Inalillaahi wa ina ilaihi raaji’oon

  16. assalamu alaikum

    question, re: revolt

    egypt is a “democracy”
    egypt is not an Islamic state

    the people are revolting against whatever system is in place now.

    why is the issue of permissibility being dragged into this?



  17. I have changed the title and I also added extra material and took out what could seem offensive and merely addressed the matter. i also edited the material for punctuation or speech issues. Inshallah it is maybe 20% improved I would say.

  18. asalamu alaikum Uthmaan

    1. inshallah, that sounds like a perfect title to me, I will make the changes as soon as I finish with this reply inshallah

    2. I have not seen that discussion between ustadh Abdullah and YQ.

    3. There were components in the pledge which effectively stifles orthodoxy and allots growth for ideologies that have either no origin in the sunnah or that actually defy it through the route of re-interpretation, I guess as part of the revisionist propaganda racketeering.

    4. these individuals are not what may be called ulema. all of thir ranks are noted and can be respectively called “shaykh” but in reality they would be teachers in the wake of ulema being present.

    5. The issue of ijm’a is n issue that can be delicate with far reaching effects. i pretty muh understood the intent and gist of the work by reading the first two pages. All of the information is understandable.

    To offer a noteworthy explanation of it will be a daunting task for it would literally take a work of several hundred pages in order to examine its intricate matters. Moreover, I do not feel as a prominent enough person in the field to perform such a feat.

    6. I do not feel myself worthy to mention my mediocre credentials. I’ve studied some basic arabic with a professor who learned arabic at Muhammad bin Sa’ud. I have been learning a little bit of ajrumiyyah with my current ustaadh Abu taubah of . I have also learned some hadeeth, some ilmu-rijaal and mustalah with another teacher and I have isnaad for the first couple books of sunan at-Tirmidhee and some of the kitaabu-sunnah of ibn maajah, and who i also learned aqeedah from going over the aqeedatu-razi’ayn, and others. This particular teacher does not desire for his name to be mentioned anywhere on the internet for the most part and so I keep him aloof from the fitnah that happens on the net.

    I also studied for a short while with Jalal Abualrub who has studied under Imaam al-Albanee.

    I am currently studying with another ustaadh on ‘umdatul-ahkaam.

    I also had other teachers who were students of knowledge and went through some basic text like qawaa’id al-fiqhiyyah by Alamaah Abdur-Rahman bin Nasr as-S’adi, and portions of Zad al-Mustaqn’i, nothing major.

    I would not wholeheartedly consider myself a taalibul-ilm in the purest sense, rather just a tuwaylib, or even lesser than this.

    asalamu alaikum warahmatullah

  19. Wa ‘alaykum as-salaam

    Barakallahu feek for considering my feedback.

    For the title, I propose “A reply to Usama Hasan’s views on Islam and Darwinism” or something similar. It’s relatively succint and successfully captures the purpose of the blog post.

    With regards to Abdullah bin Hamid Ali, I realise that he is Ash’ari, but it seems to me like the mainstream scholars in the West have become more accomodating of them and are making a special effort to make their critiques of Ash’arism and the like more respectful (but no less firm of course). I’m sure you will have seen the polite conversation that took place between himself and Sh. Yasir Qadhi in the comments under MM’s blog post about the role of atomism in Kalam, in light of the famous pact that took place a few years ago. Of course, I realise at the same time that not everybody will have agreed with the pact and the reasoning behind it.

    Having said that, I would like to know your views regarding his research paper on scholarly consensus ( I’m but a layman who ‘listens in’ a lot to the people of knowledge, but what he said in his research paper seems pretty convincing and could have some pretty major ramifications, if true.

    One more thing – I think it would be a good idea to publish some background info about the authors of this blog somewhere regarding where/from whom you studied Islam, for the benefit of myself and others. If I’m going to take knowledge from someone and ask them for their views on something, I usually like to know that I have good reason to! Just an idea insha’Allah.

  20. Asalamu alaikum

    I appreciate your comments

    1. grant me a title that is pleasing to you, and if its cool, I’ll rename it

    2. Inshallah, I’ll try to reformat those comments that may imply some sort of insincerity.

    3. Abdullah Haamid Ali is in one world and Usama Hasan in another world, while one is a revisionist, the other is a open mubtadi.

    4. as for the grammer, you are once again correct again. So far, I am a one man operation performing several operations.

    asalamu alaikum warahmatullah

  21. As-salaamu ‘alaykum,

    I’ve just skimmed over the reply to Usama Hasan’s article on Darwinism. Insha’Allah I hope to read it properly when I have more time.

    Based on my cursory reading of your response, I feel that it could have a lot of merit if judged by it’s rebuttal of Hasan’s actual specific claims. However, I think your response was let down by two things:

    – a lack of adab. I feel that the title, for example, however true it might be, was unnecessasrily provocative. I also don’t think it was fair to describe part of his response as ‘deceptive’ since this implies a lack of sincerity on his part. If he is wrong, it could be that he is simply mistaken. It doesn’t mean he is deliberately trying to deceive people. Other parts of the response, when talking about Usama or addressing him directly, came across as quite rude and arrogant and I feel that this really impacts on the quality of the response and made it appear quite unprofessional. I noticed something similar with the reply to Abdullah bin Hamid Ali on this blog.

    – Some grammatical issues. Although the response shows a good command of the English language, I’m not sure whether it was proof-read properly before it was published. Also, sentences should always begin with a capital letter. I don’t mean to nitpick, but I feel that these things make a big difference to a reader and can affect how seriously they will take your article.

    My intention is not to offend you, but insha’Allah this is sincere naseeha and I hope you will take it into consideration.

  22. Hi,

    I found that website new, you are using a hard english to understand. I’ve a question about Islam, but i want to ask it in private (not public here) Could you send me an email, so that i can not send you may question ?

    Thanks !
    Kind Regards

  23. asalamu alaikum shaykh Abil-Hasan an-Nebraskee. (Im joking on the “shaykh” part)

    i’ve added you to the current events blogroll as I try to keep the essential content of a website under the topic it is centralized. I’ve added other topics as well. I also added loonwatch to the list of links required as it was definitely needed in spite of my lateness in adding it. I remember their primal post on the churches perpetual doctrine of servitude in contrast with the newly arisen Jewish conspiratorial concept of “dhimmitude” as espoused by Bet Yeor

    At any rate, keep up the good work. Im not so much of the newman caster like yourseld, im more into exploring the ideological framework of our surrounding while deconstructing non muslim interpretations about us.

    asalamu alaikum

  24. Yes, inshallah I’ll link it up. Sorry it took so long to approve the message. When I get a chance, I’ll post your link on the blogroll inshallah

    Asalamu alaikum

  25. As salaamu alaykum.

    I also came across some of the articles here and believe this blog and our website is like-minded.

    I’d love permission to post some of the articles on our site (properly credited of course).
    I’d also like to see our site be part of the wonderful group you have on your blogroll. I’d be more than happy to link to you guys as well.

    Barak Allahu feekum.

    wa salaam,

    Abul Hasan

  26. Walaykum Salam

    my time is extremely limited nowadays. However, on the bright side, I believe there may be some who would be able to help in the effort if you format the plea and theme, then you can place it on the Islamic-life forums

    If you wish to utilize the material here, you have my permission.

    asalamu alaikum

  27. Asalamalykum, i came across your post mentioning muslimwiki.

    muslimwiki is well established now, but in order for it to reach the next level it does need muslims who are interested in cooperating.
    contact me and we can discuss, inshallah

  28. asalamu alaikum

    I do not have time to respond to Abu Layth’s rabid atheism nor do I care too. If Allah’s words are not enough for him, then what can anyone on the planet say to him to change his course of action from Iblees’s course to that of Islam’s course of action.

    As I told him before, I’ll give him that argument of an-Nawawee to give him something to gain a delusional hyper adrenaline about. But thats all, he did’t prove the validity of his madhaab or the invalidity of Islam’s madhaab by winning the discussion that an-Nawawee was an ash’aree. If he was or wasn’t, so what, the generality of the Muslim ummah benefits from everything of our Imaam an-Nawawee save his aqeedah. No one reads his creedal doctrine wal-hamdulillah.

    At any rate, someone else can busy themselves with addressing his mouth foaming phobia of Islam.

    asalamu alaikum

  29. Asalamu Alaikum Abu Kanaaz

    As for utilizing the material, yes you can post the material on other social websites. As for identifying different subjects, the links on the right hand side of the site should be topic headings which could take you to specific issues related to them so it wouldn’t be so confusing.

    As for the brothers, I never met Musa Richardson or Tahir wyatt even though I know of them. I believe I met Shadeed Muhammad in a conference in Connecticut when my teacher Abu Khaliyl brought Shaykh Saalim at-Taweel to the United States in 2008.

    asalamu alaikum

  30. As Salaamu Alaikum, is there anyway we can share these articles on the differents social sites like facebook etc.? Maybe I’m overlooking the link as this is a vast website Mashaa Allaah.

  31. As Salaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullaah

    Barakallaahu Feekum my brother, have you been in contact with Brothers Musa Richardson, Taahir Wyaat, Shadeed Muhammad from the US or any of the Brothers from the UK?

    I’m pretty sure you have, any way keep up the good work, I love what you’re doing Mashaa Allaah. May Allaah give you His Tawfeeq Ameen.

  32. Salamu a3laykum wa ra7matuAllaah.

    Brother insha Allaah it would be more better and convenient for reader if you write something as a quote then do give references wit it too. And if some hadeeth like from abu dawud and at-tarmithi is written then its better if its told that its saheeh and who said that hadeeth is sahee or hasan etc. This will make the references more reliable in the eyes of Reader, just one suggestion.

    jazakumallaahu khayran

    Zaeem as-salafi.

  33. walaykum salam

    barakallahu feek. Im undergoing a couple of project which for now has kept me at bay. Adding to this, Im searching for candidates to contribute producing advanced level studies and critiques on various issues to be produced here.

    Asalamu alaikum warahmatullah

  34. Jazakallahu Khairan Akbar

    So how should not do that while at the same time informing readers of the extremist content on those sites
    asalamu alaikum

  35. Salaam Alaykum,

    Brother I see you have extremist watch list… everytime a site links to a site it brings up those sites higher up in the search engines.

  36. Thank you for your contribution Adam.

    You are correct indeed. Right now, Im pretty much the single entity that is running the site now. Im in the process of recruiting which will take some time due to certain methodological tweaks that need to be built which is taking the process just that much longer.

    I myself am not a technical marketer where I could improve the look of the site. Adding to this I have not had the time to actual promote and thus market the site.

    Do you have any specific suggestions?

  37. You guys need to seriously get to work on attracting visitors to the blog. Get a online marketing expert! Not to be rude but the anti-islam site have much more interesting layouts and are attracting a 1000000% more views. Stop playing second fiddle to these scummy sites and get on with it!!!

  38. Thank you very much Beth for your observation.

    In all of the site I don’t believe I spoke of Walid Phares except for one single time which can be found here Absurd Comments of Western Analyst About Muslims

    The only actual statement that I made of him was regarding a conference he was giving regarding his newest book that he held at the Heritage Foundation which was the following quote under the second point

    2. Not recognizing Western Foreign Policy as the source for extremism and terrorism

    In a social event celebrating the soon to be published book “War of Ideas”, he, Walid Phares, holds a conference explaining the details of his book. Within this lecture he explains how people “err” in interpreting that “jihadism” is a result of U.S. Foreign Policy and he argues the validity of this reality based on his observation that Muslims had prior enmity to the western world prior to 9/11, then he mentions prior to the end of the cold war, then mentions prior to the establishment of “Israel”, and even as far back as WWI.

    that to my knowledge was the sum total of everything that I have ever relayed about Walid Phares.

    So according to the sole paragraph that was mentioned about him by us above, the following claims were made

    1. he holds a conference explaining his book “War of Ideas”
    2. he explains how people “err” in interpreting that “jihadism” is a result of U.S. Foreign Policy
    3. he argues the validity of this reality based on his observation that Muslims had prior enmity to the western world prior to 9/11, then he mentions prior to the end of the cold war, then mentions prior to the establishment of “Israel”, and even as far back as WWI.

    these are the three argumentative claims that I made in representing his case which all of it can be found here

    As for the first claim, the link above on google video is proof in itself that he speech was in regard to his new book “War of Ideas”
    As to specifically pin point the exact minutes in where he said what he said then the place where the second claim that was made can be found exactly at 4:41 second and on up to 5 minutes in this lecture in which the link was provided above. He literally said verbatimly that
    “I’ve tried in “Future Jihad” (his previous book) to talk about, analyze these global strategies of these movements (meaning the jihadist movements), that alone is an argument telling that uh we (the west) are not dealing with mere reactions to foreign policies, of course foreign policies bring about policies, reaction but the global ideological movement which he and others, and jihadist themselves said, has a doctrine” (everything in parenthesis are my words to clarify the intent of his speech)

    that is the full exact quote of his words in this first excerpt that can be found from 4:41 all the way to 5:15 in this link above.

    What I was trying to show in my articl in the first link given is that this information he gave is fundamentally incorrect even though on the outset it seems correct. It is true that jihad is a doctrine, an Islamic doctrine. The problem comes in two manners,
    1. when western individuals l(like yourself which you just demonstrated in your reply to me) is in making a difference between jihadist and Muslims. Jihadist, academically is a term based on deception. It is neutralizing the Muslims from their religion. If a jihadist is one who is defined as believing in the doctrine of Jihad, then if compared to the very authentic textual narrative coming from the prophet of Islam himself which is “Whoever dies without intending to perform jihad, dies with nifaaq in his heart (which is a nullifier of Islam)”. The the classical legal orthodox jurist defined the “jihad” in this narrative as “jihad of qital” i.e. jihad of fighting. So according to the mass quantity of Muslims who had accepted the previous classical orthodox scholars centuries before the invention of this “jihadist movements” as explained by westerners, then by definition of the westerners, the mass amount of Muslims are “jihadist” and the only people who are not a jihadist are those who either left the religion or replaced a part of the Islamic viewpoint and incorperated an altered viewpoint in their thought, and the only peple to have done this in Islam are the progressives and extreme modernists. The vast majority of Muslims do not hold the viewpoints that the west are casting aspersion that the “vast majority hold”.

    2. the claim that the behavior of the “jihadist” is not a result of foreign policies which is a corruption of reality. The fatc that history bears witness against him is enough of a refutation of this point as we, as a world, have only witnessed the uprising of something called terrorism from our side within the last half century AT MOST. In other words, before the west took on more crucial tactics and before they placed the Jews on Palestine and allowed for the continual genocide of our brothers in order to gain more land from Palestine, and ultimately the degradtion and social upheaval the west has brought on us by placing in despots in our lands who will ensure that justice will not take place in our lands (by not implementing Islam as law), then with all of these factors of social upheaval, all of this brought the birth of modern day terrorism from our side of the aisle. before 50 years ago in the Muslim world, it was never dreamed that the Muslims would or could do such things. This fact alone shows that these actions is not part of Islam, and specifically, it is not part of the Jihaadi beliefs of Islam.

    As for the third claim, he argues the validity of this reality (that people misjudge the issue by claiming jihadist are merely reacting to foreign policies) based on his observation that Muslims had prior enmity to the western world prior to 9/11, then he mentions prior to the end of the cold war, then mentions prior to the establishment of “Israel”, and even as far back as WWI.

    This claim that I have conveyed can be seen after the second reporting of his views sometime after he talks about the division of jihadist ideology which are, in his awkward view,
    1. salafist
    2. khomeinist

    If you would so kindly refer to this link “The Fallacy of Salafi Trends“, near the middle of the article, you would understand the absurdity of Walid Phares views about “jihadism” being the doctrine to be espoused since after the second world war, particualrly when I quote a passage of Uthman ibn Foday, commonly knonw as Uthman Don Fodio, a sufi, espousing “jihadist” asperations in 1800 whcih is likewise decades befor the “wahhabist” ever gained ground, which only shows that this understanding is not the deemed “jihadist” or “wahhabists” or “khomeinist” understanding of Islam, it is Islams understanding of jihad adopted by the vast majority of Muslims and was misrepresented by a modern group involved in actual terrorism today, and continues to be misrepresented by media and pundits like Walid Phares.

    I do disagree with his theories, but one thing I am sure, is I will not misrepresent what he actually says, and the above claims are things he has actually said. If you can prove my error by actually providing a transcript of his statement which intellectually is contradictory to what I represented of his views, then by all means I am open to correction and change, but please cite the exact location and an actual transcribed quote by which you have a solid case against me.

    secondly, I am opeb to debate, anyone and all about him, including Walid himself, or anyone of his collegues, any foundation, any think tank, and I am willing to decipher and expose the inaccuracies of their statements via transcription (I do not do talks, my main theme or mode of argument is through the channels of literature rather than through speech). If you can refer any of them here and discuss with me, I’ll even open an entire page dedicated to this if they can challenge me.

    In conclusion, I do not believe I have misrepresented his views. i quoted him when I made these claims verbatim, or the spirit of his intent at least. If you can bring us the proofs regarding our inaccuracy of relaying what he actually says, then we are open to change and correct what we mistook.

    thank you for your reply once again

  39. Dear manager,
    You assumed in your writing about Dr Walid Phares book “The War of Ideas” that he was talking about Muslims and US foreign policy. That is not accurate. Phares is very specific. He mentions the Jihadists, including Salafists and Khomeinists not Muslims at learge. His articles, lectures and interviews are all verty clear and specific. Your attribution to him are false and need to be corrected to maintain credibility. You may agree or disagree with his theories and analysis but you need to be correct in reporting about his arguments so that you are accepted as a debater.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s