Monday, August 01, 2016

Robert Spencer in FrontPage: Khizr Khan, Servant of the Global Umma

Robert Spencer in FrontPage: Khizr Khan, Servant of the Global Umma

With the above article posted at Jihad Watch in mind, and all connected to it, the following:

Mr. Khan, Having heard your arguments over the past several days, and in them, your charges stating Mr. Donald Trump has spoken from a swell of “ignorance” with respect to the bases for his call for a Temporary ban on Muslims entering our nation, Sir, I am compelled to question you.

I do not know you, Sir, but in your media appearances over the last several days you have also presented an argument on your “religion,” Islam, that is a false representation of that faith. You have claimed the actions of the “terrorist” have nothing to do with Islam.

Mr. Khan, in that claim, Sir, you are patently wrong.

Though your “sacred texts” suffer from no dearth of text substantiating precisely why high-profile Muslims kill, maim, and strike terror in the hearts of non-believer, I will not draw largely from that well  in this post.

What I will do, Sir, is ask you, how, Sir, do you reconcile, that in your “sacred texts” with your son’s service in our Military, when, your “prophet” taught it was idolatry for a Muslim to fight for anything other than in the Way and for the Cause of Allah?

Mr. Khan, as I am sure you know, if you are the Good Muslim you state you are, as I am sure your beloved son also must have known, if he was the Good Muslim you state he was, “Allah’s Book” declares, “ Those who believe fight in the Way of Allah. Those who disbelieve fight in the way of false gods (Shaytan).” (Surat an-Nisa 4: 76, Al-Jalalayn, Tafsir.)

I do not question your son, Army Captain Humayun Khan’s, motives for serving in our Nation’s Armed Forces, he looks like a good young man, absent conclusive reasons to believe otherwise, I will accept him as being just that.

That said, surely he knew, when he was deployed to Iraq, there, on the ground, the mujihadeen were fighting whom they called the infidel occupying forces. Your son, Humayun, had to have known, in taking up arms against the mujihadeen, whom were fighting in the way of Allah, fighting to make Allah’s word supreme, he would be doing what your “sacred texts” qualify as fighting against “Allah and His Messenger.” Fighting, from the Qur’anic perspective, as cited above, “in the way of false gods.”

As you surely must know, Mr. Khan, your “Book” likewise asserts, with respect to the actions of the believers against the non-Muslims, “You did not kill them, but Allah killed them, you did not throw when you threw but Allah did throw….” (Surah Al-Afal 8: 17)

Surely, your beloved son knew, the Qur’an, in speaking of the hypocrites, it declares of them, “They made their oaths into a cloak [--a covering to protect themselves and their property --] and barred [the believers from doing jihad in] the Way of Allah [by killing them and taking their property]; so they will have a humiliating punishment.” (Surat al-Mujadila 58: 16, al-Jalalayn, Tafsir.)

Surely, Humayun knew,“Allah’s Book” declares, “If anyone is hostile towards Allah , Allah is Severe in Retribution.” (Surat al-Hashr 59: 4, al-Jalalayn.)

Surely he had to have likewise known, “Allah’s Book” declares, “You will not find people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having love for anyone who opposes Allah and His Messenger, though they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers or their clan.” (Surat Al-Mujadila 58: 21)

Surely, Mr. Khan, your son was aware of all the above and thus when he was deployed to Iraq he was so doing as a member of the said “infidel occupiers.”

Only he and God know what was in his heart. But it is certain, he either deployed to Iraq with allegiance to honor “Allah and His Messenger” above all others—as all Muslims are commanded to do—or he separated himself, in  his head and heart, from the fold of the people of the mujihadeen, and thus placed himself and his allegiance in the camp of the Non-Muslims.

“It was narrated,” reads hadith, “from ‘Abdulalh bin ‘Umar that the Prophet said: ‘Whoever  bears weapons against us, he is not one of us.” (Sahih) (An-Nasa’I, Vol. 5, Book of Fighting, P. 80, #4105)

Comments on that by the Scholars read, “Not one of us’ means outwardly. This is because killing Muslims is the act of unbelievers. If such a person goes on a killing spree” killing Muslims around as rebels do, then he would be included among the enemy combatants (who fight against Allah and His Messenger). (Ibid, FN, P. 81)

The Hadith following that reads, “It was narrated …. The Prophet said: ‘… there will be people who recite the Qur’an but it will not go beyond their throats, and they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes through the target. They will kill the Muslims and leave the idol-worshippers alone. It I live to see them, I will kill them as the killing of ‘Ad.” (Ibid, P. 81, #4106)

We regard, regard-worthy tafsir provides, “the people of Ad were eliminated to the last man.”

(Surah Al-Araf: 7: 72, Ma’ariful Qur’an. V. 3. P.628.)

We further note, “Sa ‘d bin Abi Waqas told us that the Messenger of Allah said: “Fighting a Muslim is Kufr and defaming him is evildoing.” (Sahih.) (An-Nasa’a, Ibid, P. 84, #4109.)

We likewise note, “kufr” defined is as follows:

The state of disbelief. Its original meaning is ‘to conceal.’  This word has been used variously in the Qur’an to denote: (1) state of absolute lack of faith; (2) rejection or denial of any of the essentials of Islam that constitute to believe in Allah, His angels, His Messengers, His revealed Books ….” (3) attitude of ingratitude and thankfulness to Allah; and (4) non-fulfillment of certain basic requirements of the Divine guidance communicated through the Prophets and Messengers of God. More specifically, ever since the advent of the last of the Prophets and Messengers, Muhammad, rejection of his teaching constitutes Kufr. Killing a believer also constitutes disbelief.  (An-Nasa’a, Ibid, Vol 6, Glossary of Islamic Terms, P. 434.)

We recall and regard, The Qur’an asserts, “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him [--his Companions among the believers --] are fierce to the unbelievers, [and do not show mercy to them,] merciful to one another ….”   (Surat 48: 29; Tafsir al-Jalalayn.)

We likewise regard, speaking to the Islamic tenet borne out in, ”Surely, the worst of all the living, in the sight of Allah, are those who reject Faith, so they do not believe….” (Surah Al-Anfal 8: 55), regard-worthy tafsir provides, with respect to cherishing and thus fighting for ones family, tribe, or nation, the following:

After reaching Madinah, the Holy Prophet laid the initial foundation of political theory in Islam. The first step he took was to eliminate prejudices of country and tribe from the Muhajirin (Emigrants: those who had migrated from Makkah) and Ansar (Residents of Madinah who helped the Muhajirin). In its place, he established a new nationality in the name of Islam. (Ma’ariful Qur’an, V. 4, P 257, “Toward Islamic Nationality: The First Step.”)

From the same source, same concept, different verse, same surah:

“O those who believe, do not take your fathers and your brothers as friends, if they prefer infidelity over Faith. And whoever from you has friendship with them, then such people are the wrongdoers.” (9: 23)

…this verse has made it very clear that each relationship has its limit. Every relationship out of these, whether that of parents and children or that of real brother and sister, has to be bypassed when it stands in competition with one’s relationship with Allah and His Messenger. Should these two relationships come on a collision course on some occasion, then, the relationship that has to be kept intact is one’s relationship with Allah and His Messenger. All relationships competing against it are to be ignored. (Ibid, Vol 4. Ibid, P. 335.)

Again, speaking to the same, shedding light on the above assertions of Islamic supremacy, and the two-camp doctrine, trampling nationalism, this elucidation on that verse, under the subtitle, “The real bond is the bond of Islam and Iman—all bonds of lineage and country must be sacrificed for it”:

The relation with Allah and His Messenger should be given precedence over all relations of kinship and friendship. The relation that clashes against it deserves to be broken. This was the way of the noble Companions. This was why they rose to be the superior most people of the Muslim Ummah.  It was some trail they blazed by sacrificing all . . . their life, wealth, property, relatives and bonds of all sorts, only for the sake of Allah and His Messenger…. The bond of Islam was supreme …. That the bonds of linage and tribe had to be cast aside was demonstrated when, on the battlefields of Badr and ‘ Uhud,  swords were crossed between father and son and between brother and brother. These are significant evidence of the creed they held dear. (Ibid,  V.4, P. 336.)

Then, under the heading of the “Two Nation Theory,” speaking to the concept established in, “He is One who created you, then some of you are disbelievers, and some of you are believers,” (Surah At-Taghabun 64: 1), the same tafsir, different Volume expounds as follows:

The Holy Qur’an has divided mankind here into two groups: a believing group and a non-believing one. This indicates that the children of Adam is one single brotherhood, and all human beings are members of this brotherhood. Kufr [unbelief] is the only dividing line that severs relationship with this brotherhood and creates another group. He who becomes a Kafir has severed the relationship of human brotherhood. Thus group-formation can only take place on the basis of ‘Iman and Kufr. Neither colour [sic] nor language, neither linage nor family, neither land, territory or geographical region can divide human brotherhood into rival groups. (Ibid [Ma’ariful Qur’an], V. 8, P.479.)

That clarification continues:

In the Days of Ignorance, ethnicity and tribal divisions had become the basis of factionalism, but the Messenger of Allah broke down these idols, which they pursued. By the express text of the Holy Qur’an, “All believers are but brothers’ irrespective of their county or territory, their colour [sic] or family, or their language. They all belong to one brotherhood. So likewise, the non-believers, in the sight of Islam, belong to a single community. (Ibid.)

So too this:

It is common knowledge among Muslims that the battles of Badr, Uhud and al-Ahzab were fought among individuals coming from the same families. This clearly demonstrates that Islamic nationality or brotherhood does not hinge on lineal bond or geographical or linguistic unity. Instead, it revolves round faith and deed. All believers, residents of any country, members of any family and speakers of any language, are a single nation, a single brotherhood. The Qur’anic verse: (The believers are but brothers –40:10) means just this….

….In our time, the edifices of nationalities is raised on the foundations of homeland, language or color whereby Muslims are segregated into one or the other “nation” under false banners. This is contrary to the Qur’an, and Sunnah, and amounts to rising in rebellion against the principles of political and social management enunciated by the Holy Prophet. (Ibid, Vol.4, Surah Hud [11]:45-49, P640, 641.)

Mr. Khan, it is clear, authoritative works of your faith declare, on the battlefield of Iraq, in “Allah’s” eyes, there were only two nations represented there. There likewise, only two causes fought for.  One, according to “Allah’s Book,” was the nation of believers in the way of Muhammad, and their cause was fighting in the Way of and for the Cause of Allah.

The other, again, according to “Allah’s Book,” was the nation of non-believers, and they fought against “Allah and His messenger” and those fighting in the Way of and for the Cause of Allah.

Likewise, speaking only with enforced limitedness here and now of the account of the Battle of Muraisi, and what tafsir calls “the scene of dispute” at which, once “Allah’s Messenger” learned of the situation, alighted on it, there, provides tafsir, he “expressed his indignation” on the reason for the said dispute. (Ma’ariful Qur’an, Vol. 8, P. 462, 463.)

(The said Battle and “scene of dispute,” asserts revered tafsir, was the background of Revelation behind, a verse cited earlier, “…the hypocrites …. They have prevented others from the way of Allah…. They declared their faith (apparently), then disbelieved (secretly),” [Surah Al-Maunafiqun 63: 2, 3.] “They,” affirms Qur’an, “They are the enemy; so beware of them. May Allah destroy them.”[ 63: 3])

Did so in these words: “What is this slogan of paganism [that you call for defence (sic) on the basis of regional, racial and national bias]?” (Ibid.)

Therein clarifying the Islamic above-stated precept that to divide mankind into groups by anything other than that of Iman or the absence of it is idol worship--“paganism,” in the words of your “prophet.”

Thus, the story goes, Allah’s Messenger said, “Give up the slogan. It stinks.”  (ibid, p. 464.)

Hence this exemplary Qur’an provided assertion of Ibrahim, with clarity and boldness asserting,  “Between us and you there will be enmity and hatred forever, unless and until you believe in Allah alone.” (60:4)

Mr. Khan, contrary to what some in leadership in our nation may lead you and others to believe, the U.S. of A. is not yet a nation guided solely by the din of Muhammad. As such, when we invaded Iraq in 2003, we did so with the lion’s share of our troops sent there being “non-Muslims,” unbelievers in the way of Muhammad.

Therefore, Sir, please regard these words of the men of knowledge in your din:

Jihad is … obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young,) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (O: on everyside, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslims forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible gathering….)

(Al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, Revised, English; Text, Commentary, and Appendices Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Min Keller, amana publications [sic] , Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A., 1994, ISBN 0-915957-72-8, P. 601.)

With whatever respect is due you, Sir, I state, whether your masking of the realities of the teachings of your din is intentional or unknowingly, it is still deception.

It is still an open effort to deceive the gullible.

Surely, Mr. Khan, you know, your “prophet” spelled out who was to  be fought, for what reasons the Muslim is allowed to fight, as well as when, where, how, and unless and until what conditions were met they are to fight,

Why, Sir, are you pretending such facts are not?

What, Sir, do you do with all the above as well as with, “Fight those who neither believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor take as prohibited what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor submit to the Faith of the Truth …. “? (Surah Al-Taubah 9: 29)

What, Mr. Khan, do you do, Sir, with, “So, fight in the way of Allah.” (Surah Al-Nisa 4: 84) What, Sir, do you do with, “The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who fights that the word of Allah  be exalted fights in the way of Allah.”

(Muslim, Sahih Muslim, By Imam Muslim, Rendered in English by ‘Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, Islamic Book Service, First Edition: 2001, Fourth Edition: 2005, ISBN: 81-7231-450-7 [Set] (Vol. III], Book of Ermitage [sic], # 1904, P. 304.)

Mr. Khan, in claiming your son was a Good Muslim and yet 100% loyal to our non-Muslim nation, what, Sir, do you do with these words and admonishes of the men of knowledge in Islam:

…one should be cautious not to fight (with the intention) to show off, or for good reputation or for dignity, or for pride and haughtiness, or for the clamour [sic] (noise) of nationalism and for false-forged slogans. Whenever the Messenger appointed a Commander-in-Chief for an army unit, he used to advise him specifically to be afraid and dutiful to Allah, and to be good to those Muslims who were accompanying him. He then used to say (to that Commander):

“Invade in the Name of Allah and for the Cause of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.”

(Al-Bakhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari, Translated by: Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1997, ISBN: 9960-717-31-3 (SET), 9960-717-40-2 [V.9] Vol. 9, Appendix, III, The Call to Jihad [Holy fighting for Allah’s Cause], P. 474.)

In concluding here, Sir, I ask you, Mr. Khan, why are you using the loss of your son, Army Captain Humayun Khan, as a vehicle with which to advance a mythical form of Islam, one that allows one to, for reasons other than subterfuge, disregard the doctrines of Qur’an and sunnah and remain Muslim?


Ben said...

My comment was rejected because of its length. I will post it as a new post : My Answer to Khizer Khan.

TropicalCoder said...

To the author, thanks for your well researched article.
Posthumously, to Kahn the soldier and war hero: "You ain't no Muslim Bro!" ... and I mean that as the highest form of compliment.

Debi Brand said...

Thank you, T.C.

It—know, and thus, expose True Islam—is the least I could do given obedience to “Allah” is why those killed on 9/11 were killed.

Obedience to “Allah” is the reason countless apostate Muslims are killed and maimed.

Obedience to “Allah” is why if not everyone of our troops killed and/or maimed in this war have been killed or maimed than darn close to it.

It is thus what I owe every mother, father, brother, sister, daughter, or son killed by those adhering to Sunnah.

And not the least of those killed whom I owe this debt, my Son, my only Son, the sole fruit from my womb, Sgt. Emerson Noah Brand, US Army, Baghdad, 15 March 2007.

Debi Brand said...

"to Kahn the soldier and war hero: "You ain't no Muslim Bro!" ... and I mean that as the highest form of compliment."

Roger that. Indeed.