mark hanson on isis

It can be argued that Ibn Taymiyya purposefully did Takfir of Ghazan Khan in order to facilitate armed struggle against him on behalf of the Mamluk Sultan of that time, Sultan Nasir. In Islam's Reformers, which is the most comprehensive book written till now on the narratives of the 20th century Salafiyya, there is a passage which described how Ghazan Khan was a true believer and Ashari, and Ibn Taymiyya purposefully depicted him as corrupt in order to finance his operations and his being given patronage of the Mamluks.

This method was later used by Ibn Abdul Wahhab, this method is being continued by The 'Jihadi' groups such as ISIS.

 

Brother wadood, what's your take on the following:

Ibn Taymiyah’s “fatwa” of jihad against Muslims

What is also well-known about Ibn Taymiyah is that he lived in turbulent times when the Mongols had sacked Baghdad and conquered the Abassid Empire in 1258. In 1303, he was ordered by the Mamluk Sultan to give a fatwa (religious edict) legalizing jihad against the Mongols. Waging a holy war on the Mongols for the purpose of eliminating any threat to Mamluk power was no easy matter. The Mongol Khan Mahmoud Ghazan had converted to Islam in 1295. Although they were Muslims who did not adhere to Islamic Law in practice, and also supported the Yasa Mongol of code of law, they were deemed apostates by the edict of Ibn Taymiyah. To Ibn Taymiyah, Islamic Law was not only rejected by Mongols because of their lack of wholesale adherence, but the “infidel” Yasa code of law made them legal targets of extermination. The so-called jihad ensued and the Mongol threat to Syria was exterminated. Wahhabis and other Salafis to this day brand the Mongol Mahmoud Ghazan as a kafir (disbeliever). Orthodox Sunni Muslims, however, have praised Mahmoud Ghazan as a Muslim. Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani writes:

In fact, Ghazan Khan was a firm believer in Islam. Al-Dhahabi relates that he became a Muslim at the hands of the Sufi shaykh Sadr al-Din Abu al-Majami’ Ibrahim al-Juwayni (d.720), one of Dhahabi’s own shaykhs of hadith….During his rule he had a huge mosque built in Tabriz in addition to twelve Islamic schools (madrasa), numerous hostels (khaniqa), forts (ribat), a school for the secular sciences, and an observatory. He supplied Mecca and Medina with many gifts. He followed one of the schools (madhahib) of the Ahl al-Sunna [who are the orthodox Sunnis] and was respectful of religious scholars. He had the descendants of the Prophet mentioned before the princes and princesses of his house in the state records, and he introduced the turban as the court headgear.[7]

Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab would later follow Ibn Taymiyah’s footsteps and slaughter thousands of Muslims in Arabia.

source:http://www.sunnah.org/articles/Wahhabiarticleedit.htm

 

I can't find any statement where he said that he was the first person to do this although he was one of them. so I take back this clause.

Hamoudeh's comment on the article posted here:

"Important to note that the revolution in Syria did not constitute rebellion by any means when it sparked in Damascus in January of 2011 or when it took off in Der`a in March of 2011. If verbally, there were no demands for the fall of the regime or Bashar in person for weeks to come. If militarily, there were no such activities for months to come and when they began they were defensive for another year until an actual offensive began. Genocide is what changed this."

 

abridgement is an euphemism these days for leaving out anything they find disagreeable. you should see albani's abridgement of shamayil sharif.

original: PDF

albani abridged: PDF - try reading this version with its many calibrations (when he mentions sahih near the number, it is the sanad; when he mentions near the matn, it means the matn saHiH with a different sanad and so on). and oh, yes; because of 'mukhtasar' he has the liberty to omit the comments of the author (imam tirmidhi) except what he (albani) thinks are worthy of mention.

have a look at both PDFs, the ordinary (full) version and the abridged, which is so confusing and al-iyadhu billah, a threatening version, that it is difficult to focus, in spite of it being such a beautiful subject. may Allah ta'ala give albani what he deserves, because i think under the guise of 'academic exercise' that vile man wanted people to keep away from shamayil.

paRhe khaak ho jayeN jal jaane wale

---

 

jazakAllah for the correction and the additional info. I think I was mentally-multitasking when I wrote that and hence the blunder.

btw, I've read an abridged translation-cum-mini-commentary on the book talbis iblis. by whom? please don't ask

 

So, is there sukoot on al Muradi's iyman?

Could not this be used to tolerate to the same extent the takfir of shaykhain etc?

 

khawarij were named for their khuruj against mawla ali; and the khariji who martyred mawla ali (raDiyallahu `anhu) was abd al-RaHman ibn muljam al-muradi (may Allah taala give him what he deserves). whereas the second khalifah sayyiduna umar al-farooq raDiyallahu `anhu was martyred by a persian mushrik.

indeed in talbis iblis of ibn al-jawzi it is mentioned that he didn't utter a word when the (enraged) muslims cut off his hands, but was mortified when someone wanted to cut off his tongue - when asked, he said: "it prevents me from dhikr Allah; and uttering the kalimah before leaving this world".

---
when you read the narrations of khawarij in this book, you can easily recognise the wahabi-salafi morons on forums and on battlefields today. may Allah ta'ala protect muslims and deliver us from the evil of these madmen.

 

you misunderstood me. It has nothing to do with the level of his scholarship or who he actually is but rather what he thinks and believes he is.

There are two categories of misguided people, those who are aware that they are wrong and knowingly conspire to beguile the masses (like abu jahl or the munafiq ibn 'ubayy) and those who think and firmly believe that they are on haqq (like the khariji who martyred the second caliph sayyiduna Umar (radhiAllahuanhu) who, as per talbis-iblis tried his best to not speak a word even when he was tortured because he wanted the shahadah to be the his final words before death. then there are these misguided 'jihadis' who believe that by killing or destroying tombs they will attain jannah - while their handlers higher up in the hierarchy may be well aware of their own misguidance, these youth who actually carry out the 'martyrdom' operations are actually convinced of their own righteousness).

Which of these two categories does HY belong to? Allah('azzawajal) knows best. My point is that he need not belong to the former in order to be hazardous to the iman of the gullible muslim youth.

I agree that this is one possibility.

which 'movement traditional to Islam' did he lead? are you trying to say that he led traditional, orthodox sunnis in the aforesaid military encounters? I ask because he is notorious for his unorthodox doctrines.

 

It could be because Tariq Ramadan has a different agenda of modernism or progressive Islam too quick for HY and his associates.

 

http://sheikhhamza.com/transcript/Rethinking-Reform

Tariq Ramzan has fallen out with them now.

Bayyah keep's on inventing new organisations after each one fails

 

@Unbeknown

May be not divide the Muslim community but he did try to reform it due to which mini divisions occurred in the Levant and Egypt.

HY, unlike ibn taymiyya, is not in a Master / Student traditional relationship, because he is not a scholar, and those around him are on an equal status as him. Its a conglomerate of spider webs. No one is on top of another, and they all use Deen as a means of living. HY has been highly unsuccessful as admitted by him in this very speech because he claims to be at square 1 after 30 years of haphazard proselytizing a new Islam with air blown on the spot silly speeches. It seems like he was the cover boy, and now wants to be that again at old age.

HY can never lead a grassroots movement traditional to Islam like ibn taymiyya who engaged in jihad against the akhbari twelvers, nusayris in kesrawan, jabal nusayriya, and Aleppo. He also joined the fight against Mongols. He wasn't afraid of losing his life in the process.

HY, and his web is all about money laundering. Suhaib Webb, Yasir Qadhi, Ninnowy/Mokhtar Maghroui, Siraj Wahhaj all have joined the web.

 

simile for what HY's speeches are like (or even TQ's): delectable muffins laced with black widow spiders - you're safe only so long because you have no idea which bite may prove fatal.*

Nevertheless, HY need not be part of some grand conspiracy. Maybe he really believes that he is in the right just as Ibn Taymiyyah and his students did. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has accused the original taymiyyan circle of being minions of conspirators working to undermine the foundations of our deen unlike ibn sabah who has been accused of a deliberate attempt to divide the Muslim community, a conspiracy which resulted in the formation of the shi'a sect. Perhaps HY and his ilk are just under a stupor of intellectual elitism.

Allah('azzawajal) knows best.


*black widows are fatal only to the weak — usually to small children, the elderly, or the infirm. so also are HY's speeches, fatal to the layman.

 

at that 30 min area, he says "one religion, my religion" deridingly

all of the Muslim ummah says "only my religion, Islam, is right". the problems with isis are other than this

it seems he's just cashing in on the isis thingy to push his agenda for perennialism, where he considers christianity as guidance. may Allah take this evil scholar of misguidance away from this world very soon.

 

i don't like the way he mentions Sahih Hadith with scorn. At 30 mins he speaks unfavourably against the Niqaab.

 

Brother, he does not use Hanson.

i was calling him Mark due to following the crowd; from now onwards i will follow your advice. Thank you.

@Unbeknown

 

disclaimer: I believe that HY has uttered/written statements which are kufr. But I am cautious about calling him a murtadd. In my opinion there is still ihtimaal since my only source of info about him is the internet. Unless a Mufti I trust issues an explicit fatwa of kufr against him I will withold from calling him a kafir. I refer to him as 'hanson' because it's his surname: HY Hanson and usually converts do maintain their family names. According to wikipedia his wife's name is still Liliana Hanson although sandala only mentions HY. I don't like to use his first name cause I dislike him.

 

the below quotes from his buddhism epistle alone qualify as giving up on Islam itself - except by keller's standards where even explicit blasphemy or riddah is not really riddah until and unless you see the person's intention inside his heart!

mark hanson can dance around the syntax and what he wanted to imply and what the lexical origins of "import" and "theology" are, and all sorts of verbal acrobatics, but what he is saying is very clear - he is saying that Muslims can't say that kafirs will go to hell, and that this is a fundamental article of faith confirmed by many hadith and statements of the companions of the Prophet, 3alaihis salam (wal 3eyadhu billah).

there is no rule that says that it is absolutely impossible to leave Islam after coming to it, wal 3eyadhu billah.

other people can think what they want, but i believe in cases of explicit and open riddah like this below, a mufti or qadhi is not required to call a murtad a murtad. 5 year olds should be taught to do it. if Muslims don't call this riddah as riddah, then deen will go to dogs and we will leave a very deplorable legacy for our coming generations. yes, a new convert who doesn't know the fundamentals can be taught better, but this guy's supposedly a faqih al-a3zdham and a mujaddid.

i believe mark hanson is an enemy of Allah and the Prophet, 3alaihis salam, and a caller to disbelief and the gates of hellfire.

 

Mark is not being truthful. He is misleading people. These people [ IS ] are not the most heinous in Iraq. The most heinous in Iraq are the shia terrorist militias operating under the following names

a) Mahdi Army - Peace Army
b) Badr Corps
c) Asaib ahl al Haq
d) Hezbu Shaytan

..and their western and Iranian helpers responsible for countless crimes against Sunnis of Iraq, entire families. They too behead innocent Sunnis in Iraq without any mercy and more brutally than IS. Most innocent people killed in Iraq are Sunnis at the hands of shia terrorist militias.

IS would not have taken over much of Iraq if it were not for Sunni indifference to them and the sectarian shia terrorists sitting in Baghdad