“The East London Mosque, which you personally and the MCB closely associated with, it’s also the venue for a number of extremist speakers and speakers who espouse extremist positions. This year Shakeel Begg, he spoke there and hailed jihad as “the greatest of deeds”
“53. … As a Muslim, I am committed to combatting extremism in all its forms because it is destroying our social harmony, creating suspicion and poisoning the minds of our youth. The actions of groups such as the so called “Islamic State, ISIL or 1 Salafism is the movement within Islam which argues that Muslim practice should return to that of the 17. ISIS”, are responsible for destroying the reputation of Islam, a religion that promotes peace, tolerance, justice, fairness and equality. I am totally opposed to ISIS and have actively campaigned and spoken out against the evils of ISIS.” “59. … The teachings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) have been misconstrued and I consider it my duty to deconstruct any warped interpretations of Islam that may encourage someone to commit unlawful violence against the teachings of Islam.”
“…[T]he tragic events which took place in Woolwich, the brutal killing and murder of Lee Rigby goes against the very foundations of our Religion and the characterisation of a Muslim. As Muslims, we find this act to be something totally abhorrent and unacceptable and we extend our and the condolences of the Lewisham Muslim community to the family and friends of Lee Rigby for their loss.”
“…[T]he highest form of jihad was to speak the truth in front of tyrant ruler in the footsteps of Jesus (peace be upon him) and his stance against the Romans; following in the footsteps Moses (peace be upon him) in the stance against the Pharaoh; following in the footsteps of Abraham (peace be upon him) in his stance against Nimrod…”
“(1) The governing principle is reasonableness. (2) The hypothetical reasonable reader is not naïve but he is not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read in an implication more readily than a lawyer and may indulge in a certain amount of loose thinking but he must be treated as being a man who is not avid for scandal and someone who does not, and should not, select one bad meaning where other nondefamatory meanings are available. (3) Over-elaborate analysis is best avoided. (4) The intention of the publisher is irrelevant. (5) The article must be read as a whole, and any “bane and antidote” taken together. (6) The hypothetical reader is taken to be representative of those who would read the publication in question. (7) In delimiting the range of permissible defamatory meanings, the court should rule out any meaning which, “can only emerge as the produce of some strained, or forced, or utterly unreasonable interpretation …” (8) It follows that “it is not enough to say that by some person or another the words might be understood in a defamatory sense.”
“If there are two possible meanings, one less derogatory than the other, whether it is the more or the less derogatory meaning that the court should adopt is to be determined by reference to what the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand in all the circumstances. It would be unreasonable for a reader to be avid for scandal, and always to adopt a bad meaning where a non-defamatory meaning was available. But always to adopt the less derogatory meaning would also be unreasonable: it would be naïve.”
“(1) The court should give to the material complained of the natural and ordinary meaning which it would have conveyed to the ordinary reasonable viewer watching the programme once in 1985. (2) The hypothetical reasonable reader [or viewer] is not naive but he is not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read in an implication more readily than a lawyer, and may indulge in a certain amount of loose thinking. But he must be treated as being a man who is not avid for scandal and someone who does not, and should not, select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available (per Neill LJ, Hartt v Newspaper Publishing PLC, unreported,26 October 1989 (Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 1015): our addition in square brackets). (3) While limiting its attention to what the defendant has actually said or written, the court should be cautious of an overelaborate analysis of the material in issue. We were reminded of Diplock LJ's cautionary words in Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd[1968] 2 QB 157 at 171 [to avoid a minute linguistic analysis of every phrase and a protracted exercise in logical positivism]. In the present case we must remind ourselves that this was a factual programme, likely to appeal primarily to a seriously minded section of television viewers, but it was a programme which, even if watched continuously, would have been seen only once by viewers many of whom may have switched on for entertainment. Its audience would not have given it the analytical attention of a lawyer to the meaning of a document, an auditor to the interpretation of accounts, or an academic to the content of a learned article. In deciding what impression the material complained of would have been likely to have on the hypothetical reasonable viewer we are entitled (if not bound) to have regard to the impression it made on us.”
“9. It is important to acknowledge that assessing the meaning(s) of an hour long television programme is to a large extent a matter of impression. Yet it is also necessary to remember that the test is objective, so that one must always have in mind how the reasonable viewer would interpret it. Nonetheless, it is recognised in the authorities that the judge can take into account his or her own subjective reaction as part of the process. Beyond that, one must not be over-analytical, in the sense of subjecting the text to a leisurely or legalistic breakdown: ordinary viewers will not have had that opportunity. The overall flavour of a programme may contribute to an interpretation which would not necessarily be found when subjecting the text to piecemeal analysis. There is a risk that such an exercise will focus on the trees and miss the wood.”
“...[T]he court should take as its starting point the general features of the article and the impact these are likely to have on how the words used strike the mind of the ordinary reader. It should bear in mind [1] the positioning within the paper of the article under examination (for instance whether it is in the news section or in an “op ed” piece or magazine); [2] the general nature of the subject matter dealt with in that article (news, political, social, financial or other); [3] who has written the material, if this is apparent (is it for example the paper’s political correspondent or an established commentator?); and [4] the form of expression the reader would be likely to expect from an article on this subject matter, positioned as it is, and by this or these author(s). It is against that background that the court should consider the particular statements in the article and assess, as far as possible at the same time, what if any defamatory meaning it conveys and the extent to which this is factual or comment. In performing this last task the court should be alert to the importance of giving free rein to comment and wary of interpreting a statement as factual in nature, especially where here it is made in the context of political issues. In drawing the distinction the court should consider what the words in their context indicate to the reader about the kind of statement the author intends to make.”
“The Court should not be too literal in its approach or insist on proof of every detail where it is not essential to the sting of the article….. “…It becomes important in such a case to isolate the essential core of the libel and not to be distracted by inaccuracies around the edge – however extensive.”
“In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges.”
“The Claimant had recently promoted and encouraged religious violence by telling Muslims that violence in support of Islam would constitute a man’s greatest deed.”
“Distance yourselves from being extreme in religion” and, “Beware of going to extremes in religion, for those before you were only destroyed through excessiveness”
“Anyone who disturbs the free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate, is guilty of terrorism [hiraba], be he a Muslim or a non-Muslim, free or slave, and whether he actually realises his goal of taking money and killing or not.”
“1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where — (a) the action falls within subsection (2); (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. 2) Action falls within this subsection if it — (a) involves serious violence against a person; (b) involves serious damage to property; (c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action; (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. 3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1) (b) is satisfied. 4) In this section— (a) “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom; (b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated; (c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom and (d) “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom. (5) In this Act, a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.”
“So the Muslim should be strong as pertaining to his deen (belief) even though there might be a war upon Islam where they want the Muslims not maybe a physical war but an ideological war where they want the Muslims to stop talking speaking about the deen of Islam and stop having the Aqeeda or creed of islam. We say no if you compromise on this you are that weak Muslim. Islam is not your religion because the religion of Islam requires strong men, strong women strong individuals because these issues where there are telling us where there are issues which are not correct the issue of jihad or the Muslims women wearing Islamic dress, if you look at these issues you’ll find great wisdom in it.”
“As men you brothers when You see a women dressed in Hijab, wearing jilbab covering herself and you see another individual not covering herself maybe dressed immorally maybe dressed in a mini skirt, which one do you respect? As a man maybe the sisters cannot understand but as men, even non Muslims men by Allah, by Allah a non-Muslim man came to me he said when I see a Muslim woman wearing hijab I lower my gaze, this is what he said. So the issue of hijab we say is pride. Not pride in the sense of being arrogant but we say it with happiness that this Allah (SAW) has given to the Muslim woman to honour the Muslim woman.”
“Out of respect for the Muslims woman and yes the same with Jihad. Jihad if a country is attacked like America or Britain and America decides to defend itself and Britain decides to defend itself would you say that this is good or bad. You would say that this is having courage defening [sic] yourself defending your land defending honour. So when it comes to Muslims today when the Palestinian Muslims want to defend themselves when the Chechen muslims want to defend themselves when the Kashmir Muslims want to defend themselves with the Iraqi muslims want to defend themselves why do we say that this is terrorism? No this is not terrorism. This is courage this is good the person is defending himself and his family and his womenfolk and his land and his deen this is something which is good. So a characteristic of the muslims should be strength. Be strong in your deen, Be strong in your deen be steadfast in your deen, Be firm in your deen because at the end of the day everyone of us has to die. As Allah (SAW) tells us you may die you will perish every soul will taste death then you will meet allah and if you have turned away from the deen of islam and you have become weak and you become weak minded and you weren’t steadfast you will have to account to Allah for this. But if you are steadfast and you are firm and even if you face trials and tribulations, how long is it for, how long is life for?”
“We have lost our practicality of Islam. A person will scream about Jihad. A person will scream and shout yes we need to fight. But where is the practicality about doing something for islam? You want to make jihad? Very good. Don’t shout and scream and fight with your Muslim brother who is doing something else for the deen. Take some money and go to Palestine and fight, fight the terrorists, fight the Zionists in Palestine if you want to do this. But Muslims have the lost the practicalities of the deen of Islam.”
“As an Imam, I have spent my entire career promoting peace, tolerance, unity and respect for human rights. I did not call the audience to “make jihad” in Israel as alleged by the Defendant.”
"Take some money and go to Palestine and fight, fight the terrorists, fight the Zionists if you want to do this"
“Bismillah al-Rahman Al-Rahim It is with much sadness that I read Tawfique Chowdhury’s speech to the anti-terrorism officers in Wales, which he brazenly posted on an Islamic blog. I was deeply shocked and appalled by his enthusiasm for collaboration with a body that has failed tis [sic] own war against Islam and the Muslims at home and abroad. It is deplorable for a graduate from the prestigious Islamic University of the Prophet’s city – the first Islamic State – where the subject of ‘Aqida is emphasised the most, to declare himself an ally of the West against Islam, not even by choice, but naturally. It is ridiculously outrageous for a Muslim speaker to lure the anti-terrorism officers into using him and other religious leaders against the Muslim community. This is not to say that we should not work to prevent unlawful violence. In fact, many have been at the forefront of this work, without signing a deal with the devil, or joining any sort of alliance, be it natural or otherwise, with the brutal, cunning and oppressive anti-terrorism workforce. In light of this, I urge Tawfique Chowdhury to publicly and unequivocally retract his irresponsible and reckless speech, in order to save himself and his institute from disrepute. The failure in doing so will only reaffirm the public sentiment in the UK that he has clearly taken side with the enemies of Islam the Muslims. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the scholars, preachers and Imams that their silence is consent. Tawfique Chowdhury is not the first to fall into disrepute and controversy, and he certainly would not be the last, unless and until they fulfil, and not betray their covenant with Allah, like those of whom Allah makes mention in His Book: “(And remember) when Allah took a covenant from those who were given the Scripture to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it, but they threw it away behind their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And indeed worst is that which they bought. Imam Shakeel Begg of Lewisham and Kent Islaamic Centre.”
“In the mistaken equation of terrorism with mainstream Islam and denigrating it with labels of radical or fundamental, the war on terror has sidelined and marginalized one of its greatest allies – Independent Islamic Scholarship. Worse still, the war on terror has failed to recognize that those that we have come to call fundamentalist Muslim scholars are precisely those who have been long fighting the war on terror – long before September 11 and long before the Gulf War. For example, the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia was of the opinion that hijacking airplanes was “an extremely great crime”…[and] condemned the ‘Jamaaa’atul-Jihadd’, a terrorist group, [as] “…evil….harmful to Muslims…the brothers of Satan”
“It is nothing but oppression and tyranny”
“This [intellectual battle] continued throughout the ages – where independent Muslim scholars presented the best defence against distorted terrorist ideologies. Today, this is also seen as the manner in which Saudi Arabia has tackled their terrorism problems by putting independent credible Muslim scholars at the forefront in the intellectual battle for disproving terrorism. By equating these Muslim scholars representing orthodox Islam with religious extremism, the war on terror will lose its greatest ally in this long drawn saga.”
“If we make a search for the causes of extremism and terrorism, some suggestions come to light, such as social injustice or terrorist ideation or political disenfranchisement. But not all people who suffer from these disillusionments become terrorists. The stronger argument is that these conditions are merely the fertile plain, but the common pathway or the motivating context for raising terrorists is through ideological persuasion. It is this ideological distortion that is the cause of extremism and violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, and it is best tackled by those who are most qualified to deal with it.”
“They are scholars from the broad spectrum of Muslims possessing authentic religious credentials that support the prevention of terror and extremism. They are not adherents to one specific brand of Islam, belonging to this or that group – rather any scholar and every scholar that supports the prevention of terror and working towards defusing any such tension. For America, 7 years of fighting terror around the world and conflating orthodox Islam with fundamentalism and terrorism – with little progress – truly demonstrates that alienation of key allies in the ideological battle ground is a costly mistake. It is imperative that we avoid this mistake as we look for a fresh strategy to tackling terrorism and its challenges into the future. There should be an active attempt to identify scholars from a broad spectrum of Muslim groups that support the cause.”
“We must stop inadvertently undermining the efforts of mainstream Muslims to oppose our common enemies and to expose our common enemies and to expose these enemies as the deranged and immoral fanatics they are. Our ignorant and blundering equation of terrorism with Islam has overshadowed and impeded their efforts to regain control of their own moral space. To help them to do so, we must restore respectful relationships with Muslim scholars and the governments they advise. Only then can we work with them to discredit Al Qaeda’s aberrant doctrines.”
“Ladies and Gentlemen, Islam is a religion of peace and enough of its history – world history over the past 1,000 years is proof of this fact. Terrorism and extremism is not a result of attachment to Islam, rather it is entirely due to a long detachment from it! The earlier that we realize this point, the better we can all prepare to cooperate and collaborate in making this world a safer place for us and our children.”
“I believe that the government should not alienate Muslim leaders but rather, engage with credible Muslim Imams, scholars, academic and the wider Muslim community… in tackling extremism”
“And every State which does not rule in accordance with Allah's Revelation is an [evil or rebellious against God] The experts agree that the correct translation of fasiq is “evil of rebellious against God” rather than “obscene”. 15 The words “It is a duty (wajib) to hate it” are the Claimant’s own words, added as a gloss to those of Sheikh bin Baz. 16 The Claimant uses the word ‘Shari’y’ which means literally ‘in Shari’a Law’ but which he translates as ‘religious’. and unjust State which disbelieves in the Quranic Verses". Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Baz may Allah have mercy on his soul he says in his book Criticism of Arab Nationalism and the State or government, it does not judge by what Allah the Exalted has revealed, is a state or a government which is rebellious or evil … unjust – what’s that? Oppressive, Disbeliever in the provisions of clear Quranic Verses … clear texts of Qur’an and Sunnah; and then he carries on to say, we should be hostile to it. It is a duty (wajib) to hate it.15 Now, this is the statement of Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Baz may Allah the Exalted have mercy on his soul.”
“A person who follows a law other than Allah’s law, or who follows legislation other than Allah’s legislation, is the same as a person who worships an idol.”
“But again sadly, you know, you find that this [i.e. fighting physically against the enemies of Islam] is not mentioned because sometimes we have the defeatist mentality and we don’t want to support, you know, those who are really struggling and striving and fighting in the path of Allah the Glorified and the Exalted. And again, Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Baz may Allah have mercy on his soul, you will be surprised or you shouldn’t be surprised but, you know, he had a book, or has a book again in the Fatwas (Legal Opinions) you'll find it The Merits of Jihad and Mujahideen (Fighters for Islam) … He says after a very beautiful introduction and then he says, “To proceed, Jihad in the path of Allah is one of the best methods of getting closer to Allah. As for jihad in the path of Allah it is from the best of those things that bring us closer to Allah and one of the greatest acts of obedience and from the greatest acts of obedience to Allah the Exalted. Indeed it is the best means for those who want to get closer to Allah, and compete to have Allah's satisfaction, after the religious duties.”
“Rather, [Sheikh bin Baz] says, it is the best of those things that can bring us closer to Allah the Glorified and Exalted and it's the best of those things for people to compete with in doing from after the religious duties after the obligatory things. And this is only because it leads to victory of the Believers And this is because it is, it comprises of what supporting and helping the believers and promotion of the religion (of Islam) and making the religion of Allah the Exalted supreme, and suppression of the Disbelievers and Hypocrites and destroying the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and facilitating the propagation of Islam all over the world and to make it easy for the word of Islam, or the Propagation of Islam to be spread over the world and taking the slaves (of Allah) out of darkness and to take slaves from … the slaves of Allah the Exalted from out of darkness into light into light and spreading the good features of Islam and also to spread the beautiful things of Islam.”
“So, here Sheikh Abdulaziz…, is mentioning how great jihad is, how comes, you know, with some of our brothers this is not mentioned, how comes with some of our brothers it is overlooked. How come with some of our brothers it is neglected and those sometimes who are doing those deeds. We’re not doing it ourselves, so, you know, we are weak, but at least we can support and make supplication for those who are doing and struggling in the path of Allah the Exalted where there is legitimate jihad such as Palestine, such as Chechnya, such as Afghanistan and so on and so on and so on.”
“Prescribed… Obligatory… Written for you”
“Fasting is prescribed.” "[Shakeel Begg]:O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you" fasting has been prescribed, what does prescribed mean here in terms of fasting? [Audience]: “Prescribed.” [Shakeel Begg]: “Prescribed … Obligatory… Written for you. Allah the Exalted uses the same verb and the same formation of prescribed for Fighting. Now somebody might say, you know, if they have an argument with jihad and say, "Look well, you know, jihad means struggle, how we translate Fighting?" How can you translate Fighting? How can you run away from this, that’s it, Fighting is prescribed upon you; fighting has been prescribed for you.” [Audience]: “Fasting is prescribed.” [Audience]: “Prescribed.”
“… I want to read from Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Baz Fatwas (legal opinions) and something during the jihad of Bosnia. Now during the jihad of Bosnia, you had national Fatwas (Legal Opinions), the national papers in Saudi Arabia from Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Baz and Sheikh Muhammad Saalih Al- Uthaymeen. The jihad in Chechnya had top students of Sheikh Al-Uthaymeen supporting the jihad, fighting the jihad and you had in the early stages of the jihad they were the ones who had set up Islamic Sharia courts in Chechnya. They would come to them, the Mujahideen (Fighters for Islam), the Chechnyan people would come to them for, you know, Islamic judgments and so on. These were students of Sheikh Muhammad Saalih Al-Uthaymeen. The scholars have always, always, past and present the true scholars, the likes of Sheikh bin Baz, and Al-Uthaymeen, Alalbani and others have always supported legitimate struggles and they make legitimate jihad in the lands of the Muslims.”
“But during the struggle in Bosnia something very common you would hear; it was that, you know, these people, they don’t pray. … No they didn't, they don’t fast, you know. We should really reconsider whether we should help them, are they really Muslims? Now the people who are classified as what they call Takfiri (a person who accuses other people of being Disbelievers) … Jihadi (a supporter of jihad), you know, "You’re a Takfiri, a Takfiri Muslim, you’re a Jihadi, you indulge too much in jihad," and so on. These are the ones who are now going to help people who say they are Muslims because of communism, you know, the rule of communism they forgot about the obligations in religion, you know, so Prayer wasn't being observed, alcohol was widely drunk, you know, inter, you know, relationship between the genders were taking place but the people who were being called Takfiris are now left their families and have gone to support them in the struggles of jihad in Bosnia. Look at the double standards here. Who is the real Takfiri and who isn’t the real Takfiri?”
“By solidarity among Muslims to save it and to have that unity amongst the Muslims to save Palestine… and by fighting the Jews in an Islamic Jihad until the Territory goes back to its proper people… and to make jihad against the Jews [Jews], in an Islamic Jihad, Islamic jihad until the Territory goes back to its proper people… until the earth, i.e. the land of Palestine returns to its people i.e. the Muslims of Palestine.”
“[Audience]: “Quick question, can you just say again the religious meaning of jihad? [Shakeel Begg]: Fighting in the path of Allah the enemies of Islam. [Audience]: Right. Yes. [Shakeel Begg]: “Question was what’s the religious definition of jihad? So, we said the linguistic definition that, you know, it’s a struggle, okay, from Arabic Verb: Jahada (which means "to strive"), from that linguistic definition. But it has a religious definition, a religious definition, which refers to physically fighting in the path of Allah, the Glorified. Where do we get these in terms of the rewards of the Mujahid (Fighter). If it was just a struggle and we die sitting in London in UK, and we die, you know, can we say that when our blood spills that the first drop of that blood, all the sins are forgiven? That we get, you know, intercede for 70 members of our family, those encouragers towards jihad, that there will be no punishment of the grave, that they will be in the house of green birds in Paradise that, you know, all our sins will be forgiven? No. So it’s not the struggle, the inner struggle that we go through every day that it’s referring to, it’s referring to physically fighting and then the specific rewards attached to it. So Allah the Exalted prefers Mujahideen (Fighters) to Sitters Mentions that Allah has preferred those who make jihad over those who are sitting. Those who are sitting have a struggle, struggle in terms of prayer, in terms of Islamic Propagation and other things, but those who fight have the higher status than those who do not fight. So it’s referring to specific struggle, which is referring to Fighting… The one who doesn’t make battle i.e. take part in battles and doesn’t have the intention to do so, he dies upon a branch of hypocrisy”
“Q: "Do I understand you to be saying that this section of your speech is entirely acceptable provided you replace the word Jews with the word Zionists?" A: "No because that doesn't mean every Zionist should be killed, but what I am trying to say is that there isn't a problem in terms of Judaism and Jews specifically but there is a problem with let's say Zionism in the sense that it has led to the oppression of the Palestinian people, that is the concept that I am trying to mention here."”
“144. The term ‘jihad’ means to ‘exert’, strive, ‘struggle’ and “making an effort”
“On the issue of Dominion/Authority (hakimiyyah)… we agree that it is highly likely that the Claimant himself endorses a position articulated on p. 70, ll 5-16 that: “…Every State which does not rule in accordance with Allah’s Revelation is an obscene (fasiq) and unjust State which disbelieves in the Qur’anic verses…” and that “we should be hostile to it. It is an obligation (wajib) a duty to hate it.”
“The one who doesn’t make battle i.e. take part in battles and doesn’t have the intention to do so, he dies upon a branch of hypocrisy. So at least a Muslim should have that intention of struggling and fighting and sacrificing himself for the sake of Allah the Glorified and Exalted.”
“[J]ihad [i.e. fighting] in the path of Allah … is the best of those things that can bring us closest to Allah… because it leads to the victory of the Believers … and making the religion of Allah the Exalted supreme … and the suppression of the Disbelievers and the Hypocrites and destroying the disbelievers and hypocrites, and facilitating the propagation of Islam all over the world…” “By solidarity among Muslims to save it and to have that unity amongst the Muslims to save Palestine… and by fighting the Jews in an Islamic Jihad until the Territory goes back to its proper people… and to make jihad against the Jews [Jews], in an Islamic Jihad, Islamic jihad until the Territory goes back to its proper people… until the earth, i.e. the land of Palestine returns to its people i.e. the Muslims of Palestine.”
“Verily, those who have Iman, those who have faith are brothers and sisters because of that faith”
“And never think that Allah is unaware of what the wrongdoers do”
“He was a martyr, why? He stood up against oppression. Because the messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: The best of Jihad, the greatest form of Jihad, is a word of truth, speaking the truth, before an oppressor ruler in front of a tyrant oppressive ruler. Malcolm X, AKA Malik Shahbaz, spoke the truth in front oppression, in front of tyranny in his time in America. … That he would charge the American Government of being the greatest oppressor on earth. The greatest tyrant on earth. The greatest bootlegger on earth. The greatest kidnapper on earth. The greatest criminal on earth and the greatest rapist on earth. But, he would have added one more. He would have added one more. He would have added the greatest terrorist on earth. The tyranny and the terror of the American Government that we’re standing right outside their embassy. The tyranny and the oppression and the terror that they put on people, and especially the Muslim people, is unheard of before. So he would have added ‘the greatest terrorist on earth’, but he also would have added…added what? That anyone who sides with the oppressor is an oppressor. Anyone who aids and abets the oppressor is an oppressor. So not only the American Government is that terrorist and that oppressor and that kidnapper and rapist. And those words are Malcolm, ‘kidnap’, ‘rape’, ‘terror’, ‘criminal’. All of those things have been put on Aafia Siddiqui. Raped, terrorised, oppressed and so on. Malcolm would have added the Pakistani Government who sell their people for a few dollars to the American Government. The Afghani Government oppress and sell their people to the American Government for a few dollars. And Allah [the Exalted] reminds us in the book of Allah [the Exalted], concerning this principle - this principle of siding with the oppressor - this principle of siding with the, with the unjust, with the tyrant. Allah [the Exalted] tells us [And whosoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is one of them]. Those who side with them, against the Muslims, side with the oppression and with Kufr and injustice against the Muslims, then they are with them. The Pakistani Government is with the American Government. Same rule applies. The Afghani Government and any individual who had a hand in this, then he is with the oppressors.”
“And my last and final point, brothers and sisters, a prayer, supplication that we need to make to Allah, the Glorified and Exalted. As some of the scholars mentioned: A believer’s weapon, the weapon of the believer, and as Imam Al-Shafi’i mentioned, do not underestimate the power of prayer, the power of supplicating and invoking Allah, the Glorified and Exalted.”
“The greatest oppressor on earth. The greatest tyrant on earth. The greatest bootlegger on earth. The greatest kidnapper on earth. The greatest criminal on earth and the greatest rapist on earth… [and] the greatest terrorist on earth.”
“Brothers and sisters in Islam, firstly it’s inspiring to be amongst leaders in the community and activists in the community, especially our brothers and sisters from Cage Prisoners, but also inspiring to be amongst some of our brothers who made Hijra in the path of Allah the Exalted, who made jihad in the path of Allah the Exalted and who suffered in the path of Allah the Glorified and Exalted, our brothers from Guantanamo Bay. May Allah the Exalted have mercy upon them. May Allah the Exalted accept all their good deeds and all their fasting in especially in the month of Ramadan and may Allah the Exalted grant them jannah. But likewise, it is also humbling for myself to be in the company of these great brothers and great sisters and great activists.”
“And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens (in Paradise)”
“But they who believe and do righteous deeds - those are the companions of Paradise”
“And Cage Prisoners today is following that legacy. And our gathering today is for what reason? To uphold that legacy. While we can’t fulfil that legacy we have an organisation who is fulfilling that legacy. It becomes an obligation on us to support them financially, to support them with our sadaqah to support them with our charity, to support them with our duaa so they can fulfil an obligation that many of the ‘ulamaa mentioned. That if only you have enough wealth in the bayt al mal in the bayt al mal in the Muslim treasury to free just the Muslim prisoners, then make that wealth of the bayt al mal be used for that purpose. And a hadith pertaining to feed the hungry and feed the prisoner. So Cage Prisoners is an organisation doing that and in the month of Ramadhan when actions are multiplied and actions are rewarded more, we should take that option of giving charity and giving sadaqah so that they can carry out this great obligation of helping our Muslim, our Muslim brothers and sisters who are in great need. May Allah Reward you. Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you.”
‘To make Hijra and Jihad in the path of Allah’
“Who do we see speaking and bringing to attention the issues of rendition, the issues of kidnapping, the issues of torture, the issue of arrests? Very few organisations like Cage Prisoners...”
“He who dies and has not fought [ghaza, meaning literally ‘raided’] and was not resolved to fight, has died a jahiliya [i.e. pagan, nor non-Muslim] death.”
“The Jihad of Islam is to secure complete freedom for every man throughout the world by releasing him from servitude to other human beings so that he may serve his God. … This is in itself a sufficient reason for Jihad. These were the only reasons in the hearts of Muslim warriors.”
“Jihad in Islam is simply a name for striving to make his system of life dominant in the world. … Thus, whenever an Islamic community exists… [i.e. when the number of Believers reaches three] See “Milestones”, p.102. it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system…”
“The paradox of fundamentalism is that it relies on precisely what it repudiates, [scriptural] interpretative latitude”
“My dear brothers and sisters in Islam, it gives me great pleasure and honour to be here at this event organised by HHUGS. An organisation that is doing work which, I can say, very few, if any, other organisations are doing this work. The work of supporting families of brothers who are in prison. Allah, the Majestic and Sublime, has blessed us with a noble deen. A deen that Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, will only accept. As Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, tells us in the Quran: “Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam”
“My dear brothers and sisters of Islam, I would firstly like to thank the organizers, the organizers for the Belmarsh Iftaar, may Allah the Exalted reward them abundantly for taking the time and making the effort in organizing this event to show our love and unity with our brothers in Belmarsh and around the world. Secondly, I want to focus on legacies. I want to focus on legacies, and what is a better time than the month of Ramadhan than to focus on legacies. AIlah the Glorified and Exalted tells us the wisdom behind the legislation of fasting. This Taqwah, this Taqwah. Selflessness piety. The Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib, may Allah be well pleased with him, the Fourth Caliph of the Muslims defined Taqwah and mentioned and said that Taqwah as being: Taqwa is to fear Allah, The Majestic, to act according to His revelation, to be pleased with little sustenance and to get prepared for the Day you of Departure. He defined Taqwah and said Taqwah is that you fear Allah the Glorified and the Exalted. The Taqwah is that you act according to Revelation, the Taqwah is that you are content with what Allah the Glorified and the Exalted has given even if it is little and that Taqwah is that you be prepared for the day of departure i.e. death and what comes after death, the meeting of Allah the Glorified and the Exalted on the day of Qiyamah and the Day of Judgment.… Reflecting on the issue of Taqwah and definition by Ali Ibn AbiTalib makes me think of legacies. A legacy of Taqwah, a legacy of piety left to us by our role models. The Prophet and the Messengers of Allah, the Prophets and the Messengers of Allah the Glorified and the Exalted, and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, specifically. The legacy of Taqwah in terms of our oneness, our unity, our love, with the nation of the Muslims and our brothers behind bars in Belmarsh and other places in which they are struggling and striving to implement the deed of Allah the Glorified and the Exalted. And, Allah the Glorified and the Exalted tells us: ''The Believers are but a single Brotherhood". The Muslims or the Muslim is a brother of another Muslim. And Allah the Glorified and the Exalted ''The Believers are but a single Brotherhood", that the believers are nothing other than brothers. And the messenger of Allah peace be upon him tells us in the Hadith of AI-Bukhari and of Muslim: A Muslim is a brother of (another) Muslim. The Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. So the first legacy, the prophecy of the messenger of Allah the Exalted left for us and Muhammad peace be upon him left for us. And Muhammad peace be upon him implemented in Medina was the legacy of the oneness of the Ummah. The oneness of the nation and the nation of the Muslim. In Medina, the messenger of Allah Peace Be Upon Him had Abu Bakr AISiddiq… And you had amongst them Salman al-Farsi, Salman the Persian, another close companion of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. There was no racism, there was no division, there was no disunity. There was oneness as Allah the Exalted says and as we just mentioned “The Believers are but a single Brotherhood". The believers are nothing other than brothers and sisters in Islam. So that's the first legacy to focus on in the month of Ramadhan. And it’s the first legacy that we must attach to Taqwah, which is the wisdom behind the legislation of fasting in the month of Ramadhan. The second legacy, the second legacy attached to Taqwah is the legacy of good actions. The legacy of deed, the legacy of struggle, the legacy of striving, the legacy of hard work because Allah the Glorified and the Exalted tells us “So race to good”
“And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens in Paradise”
"Be ye not afraid of them, but fear Me, if ye have Faith"
“The best of Jihad, the best form of Jihad a word of truth before and oppressor ruler.”
“…the greatest form of Jihad is to speak the truth in front of a tyrant, oppressive ruler.”
“The hijacking of a great faith to justify such heinous crimes sickens us all. As Muslims around the world have made clear such actions are an affront to Islam. … And yet, amid the carnage, came a sign of hope – over three million people of all backgrounds, marching to defeat the gunmen and to protect our values, free speech, the rule of law and democracy. We are proud of the reaction of British communities to this attack. Muslims from across the country have spoken out to say 'not in our name'. But there is more work to do. We must show our young people who may be targeted that extremists have nothing to offer them…”