Archive for the ‘Fatwas’ Category

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) is an organization dedicated to spreading Shar’ ia within our judicial system and encouraging Muslims in America to reject our Republic. The AMJA maintains an English and Arabic websites. Of course, when the AMJA posts something they do not want Americans to know about they do so on their Arabic site.

The AMJA issues fatwas or religious decisions which are to be followed by the Ummah. Recently, the AMJA was asked about Jihad here in America. The author of Translating Jihad (bio – translated the Arabic into English.

Here is the Arabic.

بعد التحية والسلام، هل الدعوة الإسلامية في بلاد الغرب كما هي اليوم تغني عن جهاد الطلب؟ شكرًا.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله، وعلى آله وصحبه ومن والاه، أما بعد:
لا تملك الأمة الآن القدرة على جهاد الطلب وغاية ما نتطلع إليه بإمكاناتنا الراهنة هو جهاد الدفع فيحسن الوقوف عند فقه هذه المرحلة، ولكل حادث حديث. والله تعالى أعلى وأعلم.

Here is the translation:
“The Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows best.”

Notice two things. First, the AMJA believes in offensive jihad but not at this time only because the Muslim population in America is not strong enough. Therefore, the AMJA is claiming that Islam is in its American Meccan period.

Nevertheless, the AMJA claims they are aspiring to defensive jihad. But defensive jihad according to Shar’ ia is (1) where a Muslim protects a Muslim country or home and family from invaders or (2) attempts to retake Islamic lands which the Kafir have retaken. But America has never been in Islamic hands like Israel. Or has it? At the moment there is an ever increasing cry among Islamic scholars and groups which claims that Muslims found America first. If so, since the American land is controlled by Kafir, the Muslim world must rise up and take the land back.

Either way, these Muslims who live in America are calling for the political and religious overthrow of our Republic.

 Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Egyptian Shaykh: Jihad Is Solution to Muslims’ Financial Problems

Posted by Translating Jihad

In this short audio file, prominent Egyptian Salafi Shaykh Abi-Ishaq al-Huwayni explains that Muslims’ financial difficulties are due to the fact that they have abandoned jihad. The solution? Go on jihadist raids a few times a year, and bring back prisoners, including women and children, which can be sold in the market like groceries to bring in extra income when times are tough. Unbelievable. The subtitled video is below, and the transcript follows that (thanks to Nonie Darwish for sending this one in):



We are in the era of jihad. The era of jihad has come over us, and jihad in the path of Allah is a pleasure. It is a real pleasure. The companions (of the Prophet) used to compete to (perform jihad). The poverty that we’re in—is it not due to our abandonment of jihad? But if we could conduct one, two, or three jihadist operations every year, many people throughout the earth would become Muslims. And whoever rejected this da’wa, or stood in our way, we would fight against him and take him prisoner, and confiscate his wealth, his children, and his women—all of this means money. Every mujahid who returned from jihad, his pockets would be full. He would return with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women, and 3 or 4 children. Multiply each head by 300 dirhams, or 300 dinar, and you have a good amount of profit. If he were to go to the West and work on a commercial deal, he would not make that much money. Whenever things became difficult (financially), he could take the head (i.e. the prisoner) and sell it, and ease his (financial) crisis. He would sell it like groceries. Of those who are–(cuts off)


Thursday, June 2, 2011

Al-Qaradawi: “[Moderate Muslims] Accept Offensive Jihad, and Attacking the Infidels in Their Lands”

Posted by Translating Jihad

The following is a translation from an excerpt of Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s Fiqh al-Jihad, which was posted on Here al-Qaradawi defends the position of those he terms ‘moderates’ from attacks by ‘extremists’ who argue that moderates don’t accept offensive jihad. Al-Qaradawi argues that to the contrary moderates do accept offensive jihad, including raids into enemy territory, and gives some reasons for which they would accept it.

This is interesting in light of statements of Muslim apologists and spokesmen in the West, who routinely argue that Islam really means an inner spiritual struggle against sin, but inasmuch as it does refer to warfare, it is purely defensive. But when you look at the justifications al-Qaradawi gives for offensive jihad, you find that by his definition even the ‘moderate’ Muslims accept offensive jihad against the infidels under almost any pretense.

Translated from, 8 January 2011 (I previously translated the first half of this article here):

…I want to clarify here the difference between the moderates and extremists, or the “defensive (jihadists)” and “offensive (jihadists)”, as they are called by some.

Some of the offensive (jihadists) have not been fair to those who hold the opposing view. They have put words in their mouths which they did not say, and accused them of that which they are innocent. They say: “They (the defensive jihadists) do not accept offensive jihad under any circumstance, in any form, or for any reason. They do not believe jihad is legitimate except in one condition, which is if Muslims are attacked in their homes and lands.” This is how they depict the opinion of the moderates or the defensive (jihadists).

I think they are not being fair with the opposing side, and are not being precise or honest in presenting their views. Whoever reads their [i.e. the moderates’] opinions, will find that they accept offensive jihad, and attacking the infidels in their lands, for several reasons, including the following:

1- To ensure the freedom to propagate the call to Islam, to prevent fitna in the religion (of Islam), and to remove the physical obstacles which prevent the call to Islam from reaching the multitudes of people. This was the reason for the conquests of the rightly-guided (caliphs) and the companions (of the Prophet), as well as those who followed them in righteousness. (They fought) to remove the power of the tyrants who controlled the necks and minds of men, and who said what Pharaoh said to those of his people who believed (in Islam): “Have you believed before I gave you permission to believe?” This is the embodiment of the goal expressed in the saying of the Almighty: “Fight them on until there is no more fitna.”

2- To ensure the security of the Islamic state and its borders, when they are threatened by the enemies (of the Islamic state) who lie in wait and conspire against it. This is what is termed in our present day “preemptive war.” This is one of the prerogatives of the ruler, and is in accordance with the right to self-defense. Most of the Islamic conquests were of this type of preemptive war, after the Islamic state was attacked early during the reign of the Prophet by the two great kingdoms of Persia and Byzantium. The conflict with Byzantium began with the battles of Mu’ta and Tabuk, and the conflict with Persia began with Chosroes tearing up the Book of the Prophet (PBUH) [i.e. the Qur’an], and threatening what he threatened thereby.

3- To save the oppressed among Muslim prisoners, or those living in a minority status, who suffer afflictions, persecutions, and torture at the hands of the arrogant oppressors who rule over them without right. As the Most High said:  “And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is:  “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!” [Qur’an 4:75].

If oppressed and persecuted peoples, even if they are not Muslims, seek aid from the Islamic state, and if the Islamic state possesses the ability to save them, then it should answer their cries and come to their aid. For conquering the unjust ruler, helping the weak, and deterring the oppressor from the oppressed is a religious duty under the shari’a. It is also a moral duty within every religion. Every society protects virtue, and safeguards high moral values, whether the oppressed is Muslim or non-Muslim.

4- To remove all polytheism from the Arabian Peninsula, which is considered a free and pure nation for Islam and its citizens. Therefore it is a special stronghold for Islam, whose protection is not shared with anyone.

By Allah, there is wisdom in this:  the Hijaz and the Arabian Peninsula around it is the haven and incubator of this religion. Islam seeks refuge in it whenever trials afflictions are brought by different factions. History has confirmed for us its usefulness and importance throughout the ages through which the ummah has passed.

On this wise the verses from surat al-tauba were sent down on declaring immunity from (the contract with) the polytheists, and their delay of four months, during which time they wandered around the land [see Qur’an 9:1-3]. After which they had to choose for themselves:  accept Islam, depart from this land [i.e. the Arabian Peninsula], or fight. These four months are those which are called forbidden because it was forbidden to fight during them. The Almighty said:  “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful” [Qur’an 9:5]. Allah wanted the Arabs to choose to enter Islam before the four months had ended, and thus make the peninsula purely for Islam, and make the Arabs the band of Islam and its preliminary soldiers, to carry its message to the world.

This is Allah’s favor for the Arabs, with what he favored them:  the Qur’an was sent in their language, the Messenger was sent from them, and the Ka’ba and the Masjid al-Haram and Masjid al-Nabui are in their land. They have become the guardians of Islam, and the preachers to carry its call to the inhabitants of the world.

Allah knows best.


American Muslim Leader Issues Fatwa Against Democracy

Posted by Translating Jihad

Translated from the website of Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the secretary-general of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), 28 March 2011:

Between the Shura and Democracy

Q: What is the difference between the Shura and democracy, and which is preferred? Are there any books which could benefit me on this topic? May Allah reward you well.

A: In the name of Allah, the most merciful and gracious.
Praise be to Allah, and peace be upon him the Messenger of Allah, and upon his family, companions, and those that follow him. The Shura comes from the rulings of the shari’a, and an entire surah of the Qur’an was sent down with this name. The difference between it and democracy is that the Shura does not exist (under Islam) except in the areas of permissible actions or legislative amnesty. For things which have been stipulated in the texts of Islam, the Ummah possesses no power except to acknowledge and obey, following the saying of the Most High:  “It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path” [Qur’an 33:36]. For example, it is not for the Shura to consider, “Should the noon prayer contain four or five bows?” Or, “Should we fast during the month of Ramadan, or should we replace it with the month of Shawwal?” Or, “Should we forbid wine or allow it?” Or, “Should we forbid adultery, or permit it if it’s done by consensual agreement of those who have reached the legal age, and it’s not done on the married couple’s bed?”

Al-Bukhari said in his Sahih:  “The Imams after the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) would consult the trustworthy scholars in things which were permissible, to take the best option. But if the Qur’an or the Sunnah was clear on the matter, they wouldn’t transgress against it, following the example of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The reciters of the Qur’an would consult, whether old or young, and they were careful to adhere to the book of Almighty Allah.”

But democracy gives free reign to the authority of the Ummah, and puts no ceiling on it. The law is the expression of its will, and if the law says it, the conscience must be silent! A constitutionalist even said:  “We have departed from the divine right to rule for kings, and replaced it with the divine right to rule for parliaments!” The shari’a, on the other hand, differentiates between the source of the legal system and the source of the political authority. The source of the legal system is the shari’a, while the source of the political authority is the Ummah. Meanwhile democracy makes the Ummah the source of both. On my website there is a book named “Political Pluralism.” If you review it, it will you benefit you in regards to this topic, Allah-willing. Allah Almighty is all-powerful, all-knowing.

Thanks to Translation Jihad: