By Francesco Bergoglio Errico
September 6, 2018
The concept of Takfir – declaring a Muslim
a disbeliever – is a very modern propaganda weapon of al-Qaeda and Daesh. But
its origins are to be found in distant times. Indeed, in order to better
understand this concept, it is essential to travel all the way back to the 7th
Century roots – the Khawarij and Murji’a groups.
The Khawarij emerged from the battle of
Siffin in 657 AD, where the fourth caliph ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and his successor
Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufyan clashed. During the battle, Mu’awiya’s troops,
outnumbered and facing almost certain defeat, called on ‘Ali and his troops to
accept arbitration between the two parties. ‘Ali took up the offer, but some of
his own troops rejected it. They thought that ‘Ali had been swayed by Mu’awiya
rather than divine guidance and that such an action should actually be seen as
an affront to God’s order. These troops then seceded from ‘Ali’s camp and
became the Khawarij group, the name they also applied to themselves.
The group’s first distinctive tenet
concerned the possibility of revolt against Muslim rulers who had been deemed
insufficiently pious. When ‘Ali agreed to arbitration with Mu’awiya, the
separatists, the people later known as Khawarij, reportedly shouted “La Hukm
Illa Li-Llah”, “judgement is God’s alone”. Only God has the authority to
arbitrate, they held, not human beings. Not even the caliph ‘Ali, in fact.
Later on, the slogan came to represent
their broad view that all judgements and rulings should be left to God.
Applying Qur’anic rulings very strictly, they fought Muslims who were deemed
guilty of major sins and expelled them from their community.
The consequences could not be more serious.
Since they believed sinful Muslims to be Kuffar (disbelievers), they
immediately applied Qur’anic lines concerning jihad against non-Muslims. This
meant that, according to the Khawarij, the application of jihad was not just
limited to ordinary people. If necessary, it could even include the caliph.
Indeed, they assassinated ‘Ali in 661 AD.
The second tenet of Khawarij ideology
addressed their conception of Iman (faith) and disbelief. In particular, what
is faith? And when does a Muslim become a Kafir, a disbeliever? One of the
greatest questions was whether A’mal, or deeds, acts or works, were an integral
part of the faith or not. Some theologians of Islam’s early years, including
Abu Hanifa, believed they were not a part of it. As a result, he equated Iman
with the belief residing in the heart and its profession by tongue.
Conversely, other scholars, including
Mu’tazilites and Hanabalites, believed that deeds, acts or works were indeed an
integral part of Iman and that this Iman would not be complete without them.
Among other outcomes, this dispute led to
what may be called the orthodox Sunni view, as well as almost all Salafi views,
according to which Iman consists of assent to the Iman in the heart, its verbal
confirmation by the tongue, and corresponding acts with the limbs.
Respectively, Tasdeeq Bi-L-Qalb, Iqrar Bi-L-Lisan and A’mal Bi-L-Jawarih
As for the Khawarij themselves, even though
they too believed that Iman consisted of these three elements and others, they
placed more emphasis on A’mal than mainstream Sunnism does.
The question of what actually constitutes
Iman is very important when defining enemies as unbelievers. On the one hand,
if A’mal is not an integral part of Iman, sinful acts cannot undermine that
Iman by themselves. On the other, if A’mal is an integral part of the Iman,
sinful acts can definitely compromise faith.
Moreover, while Sunni scholars have
separated major sins, Kaba’ir, from less severe ones, the Khawarij have
included A’mal among major sins, such as killing one’s child, adultery
and especially polytheism and idolatry, or shirk.
Scholars later separated shirk from other Kaba’ir,
establishing that only an act of shirk would immediately turn a Muslim into an
unbeliever, or Kafir, and therefore justify his or her excommunication from
Islam, Takfir. Additionally, any further proof of a person’s unbelief through
verbal confirmation was not necessary. Other major sins were certainly still
considered serious and deserving of punishment, but they were not enough to
turn a believer into a disbeliever – further proof was needed.
The Khawarij disagreed with this last point
since, according to their beliefs; a Muslim culpable of any Kaba’ir
should be avowed a Kafir, with or without further proof. This creed thus
heightened ordinary major sins to the level of Kufr, making its adherents
swifter to apply Takfir than those endorsing the movement later known as
The last relevant point about the concepts
of Iman and Kufr concerns the effects of sinful acts on a person’s Iman. Not
considering sins as equal to shirk, many scholars believed faith to be
diminished by sinful acts and increased by good ones. This led to an
understanding of Iman as flexible. The Khawarij, by contrast, believed that
iman could not fluctuate. It was either present or lost as a whole through
major sins. This made the Khawarij radically different from other groups, and
this was reflected in their use of jihad against other Muslims holding what the
Khawarij saw as aberrant ideas of iman, which made them legitimate targets, up
to and including the rulers and the caliph.
Another important group criticized the
beliefs of Khawarij – the Murji’a. According to most scholars, the genesis of
the Murji’a can traced back to the conflicts between the third caliph, ‘Uthman
bin ‘Affan, and his successor ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. At that time, the Murji’a
refused to take sides and opted for postponement of judgement, irja’, in such
matters. In their view, only God could decide on these subjects. Before taking
the name of Murji’a, this group were called Ahl-Al-‘Adl Wa-L-Sunna, or
“the people of justice and Sunna”.
The Irja’ “postponers” concept was later
dated back to the Qur’an itself by the Murji’a, in particular by referring to
Sura 9:106. This verse provided them with a conceptual basis for avoiding
taking sides in the conflict. In time, the Irja’ term became the most
important tenet of the Murji’a.
In that regard, there are two important
relevant points. The first is the development of the term Irja’. While
it was initially applied to political conflicts such as the battle between
‘Uthman and ‘Ali, between the 18th and 19th Centuries it acquired a theological
meaning. In particular, Irja’ was applied to people’s Iman; in
other words, judgments on anyone’s faith was postponed and left to God. For
that reason, unlike the Khawarij, adherents were generally loyal to rulers and
only rarely supported riots against them.
The second point regards their conception
of what constitutes faith and disbelief. Once again, unlike the Khawarij, they
felt that Iman only consisted of the belief residing in the heart and
its confirmation by the tongue, not concrete acts. Consequently, acts alone do
not establish whether an individual is a believer or a disbeliever. When the
takfir of such an individual was justified, then, they could ask.
In fact, from the Murji’a perspective, the Kaba’ir
intrinsically could not throw someone out from Islam, except in the case of a
sinner verbally confirming his disbelief, including shirk. Additionally, unlike
the Khawarij and orthodox Sunni, they didn’t believe that faith could be
altered by sinful acts and therefore excluded A’mal from Iman.
All of this contested history of the Takfir
concept flows down to our own times.
Al-Qaeda and Daesh both use the ancient concept to justify their goals
and their jihadi attacks on Muslims they see as disbelievers, including rulers.
In their view, these people are enemies who are destroying the true Islam and
the whole Ummah (community of believers), so jihad is warranted, indeed
mandated. They defend this position by manipulating many passages of the Qu’ran
It is very important to underline this,
because an increasingly high number of people now take the manipulations as
truth, radicalizing themselves, embracing jihad, and becoming fascinated and
indoctrinated by terrorist propaganda that promises salvation of the soul and
access to paradise to those who embrace the “true way” or the “true Islam”.
This makes it crucial to understand what Takfir
is and how the concepts of Takfir and jihad are used by the terrorist groups,
not only to better comprehend how they justify their existence and their
bloodshed, but also, above all, in fact, to improve strategies of disengagement
Kafir/ Mushrik/ Munafiq-Manufacturing Factories, Says Sultan Shahin, Defending
New Age Islam against Talibani Onslaught
It is Ghulam Uncle Sam (GUS) who has run out of arguments and therefore
has been using words such as "loony", "idiotic",
"dim-witted", "stupid" etc. These words describe him.
One must have above normal IQ to ferret out a hidden devotee of Uncle
Sam who alternates between extreme cleverness and extreme stupidity as it suits
him. He may not be a real devotee but only a hypocritical one for
self-preservation, and if so, he deserves pity.
Is GUS saying that the Chilcot Report
that directly connects war on Iraq with 911 is also part of a "Conspiracy
Is GUS saying that General
Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander
of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia, and Democratic Party presidential
nomination as a candidate in 2003, is also a “Conspiracy theorist” for saying the
following in the interview and in his book Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003?
In the interview, Clark describes his
conversation with a General in the Pentagon nine days after 9/11 in which the
General called him in and said “We’ve made a decision, we are going to war with
Iraq”, Clark asked him ‘why’ and the General answered “I don’t know, I guess
they don’t know what else to do” Clark asked “did they find some information
connecting Saddam to Al-Qaeda?” The General said “No, no, there is nothing new
that way, they just made a decision to go to war with Iraq. I guess it’s like
we don’t know what to do with the terrorists, but we got a good military and
can take down governments”.
Clark further says that he came back to
see the general a few weeks later and by that time the US were bombing in
Afghanistan and he asked him, “do you still want to go to war with Iraq?”. He replied,
“it is worse than that”, he then picked up a paper and said, “I just got this
from the Secretary of Défense’s office, it is a memo that describes how we will
take out seven countries in five years beginning with Iraq, then Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
The Chilcot Report makes it clear that
Tony Blair prevailed upon Bush not to immediately attack Iraq but create a
better argument for doing so, and after enlisting the support of UN and a
coalition of countries. Blair changed his stand in 3 months and by December, he
was rooting along with Bush, for attacking Iraq claiming it possessed WMD.
Why was there a 911
Joe Wilson, last ambassador in Baghdad before the war, refers to
then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comment: "There are no targets
worth striking in Afghanistan, go strike Baghdad."
Then he recollects the
statement made by Bush at a fundraiser that "they tried to kill my
But the heart of the reason,
Wilson believes, lies in a document called the Project for the New American
Century. In it, a group that came to be known as the "Neo-Cons"
postulate an American military presence around the world, rather like the great
Roman Empire. "It says quite clearly that in order to make their grandiose
imperialistic ambitions come to life, you were going to need a cataclysmic
event along the lines of Pearl Harbor - 9/11 provided them that."
Linked to this, Wilson argues,
is a Middle East policy the Neo-Cons espoused. "They talked in terms of
the way to peace in the Middle East is not through Jerusalem, it is through
The question again - why would
the administration want to link 9/11 to Iraq?
"Nine-eleven got connected
to Iraq because you can't argue with 9/11. Every American out there and most
people worldwide have a gut reaction to 9/11. It is the perfect selling
point" Says Geoff Millard.
Will GUS also say that Joe Wilson is a
What Ambassador Joe Wilson said
fully corroborates what General Wesley Clark said although they are speaking
based on completely different and distinct sources of information. The Chilcot
report also confirms that Bush wanted to immediately attack Iraq but Tony Blair
held him off for sometime although not enough to make him seek the mandate of
the UN for attacking Iraq. Blair aligned completely with Bush by December 2001.
While no one of any consequence, and not even Bush and Blair
delink 911 with war on Iraq, GUS argues otherwise. What motivates him to show
such devotion to Uncle Sam that he has to be more loyal than the King?
Ghulam Uncle Sam wants us to
believe that Uncle Sam had nothing to do with 911, but were fortuitously
presented with the very cataclysmic event that they were hoping and wishing
for! He ignores all the evidence of the acts of omission and commission that
implicate the US government in 911. If the US government did not cause 911, then
why are they afraid of an open inquiry and investigation of the reasons for the
collapse? Can he find even one of the supporters of the Official lies, who have
addressed the question of free-fall of WTC7 through 8 stories for 2.25 seconds?
If there is no explanation for it except Controlled Demolition, then it was a controlled
Uncle Sam has indeed lost all his marbles to think that the war against Iraq
had nothing to do with 911. War with Iraq was part of the US' "War on
Terror", following the 9/11 attack, as set out in a 2003 State Department
document. Both Bush and Tony Blair openly made 911 the cause for a “war on
terror” which included war to change the Saddam regime. A four star highly
decorated General of the US army informs us, based on a visit to Pentagon, a
week after 911, that the US plan was
to wage war against seven countries in the next five years. youtube.com/watch?v=B3B5xzApMZg
one to my knowledge has even attempted to delink 911 from the war against Iraq.
The only exception is Ghulam Uncle Sam. This slave of Uncle Sam is more loyal
than the King!
to the Chilcot report, the 911 incident fundamentally changed" the US and
UK's approach to Iraq, hardening the
pair's (Bush and Blair) view of Saddam Hussein's regime.
report concludes that after the 9/11 attacks, the West abandoned its previous
policy of "containment" in favour of stamping out threatening regimes.
The Chilcot Report says then UK foreign
secretary Jack Straw told the inquiry "that the attacks led to a consensus
across the world that a policy of tolerating failing or failed states was
unacceptable. The perception of risk changed."
says the sheer scale of the carnage wreaked by Al-Qaeda changed the thinking.
GM sb conveniently forgets that Bush tried his best to link Iraq to 911 and when his efforts failed, he accused them of having WMDs and in general accused Saddam's regime as an encouragement for Al Qaeda. The efforts to implicate Iraq to wage war against it started in 2001 immediately following 911.The bombing of Afghanistan started a few weeks after 911 without giving diplomacy a chance.
General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia.
speaks of the prior plan to wage war against 7 countries and the US has waged war against four of them post 911.
Major General Albert Stubblebine is credited with redesigning the U.S. Army intelligence architecture during his time as commanding general of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) from 1981 to 1984. Here him speak on the subject:
The Pentagon, the White
House and Capitol Hill are protected at multiple levels and no plane or missile
can get anywhere near them and not get shot down by ground to air missiles. If
a plane or missile hits any of these targets, it can only be if there is "stand
down" order not to intercept the plane.
Plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania had taken off from Newark Airport
and after being hijacked, turned around and was heading back towards New York
and was most probably meant to hit WTC7. The 911 commission however
say that it was probably meant to hit the White House. This is an obvious red
herring and the flight path clearly shows that it was heading towards NY and
not Washington before it crashed. As
already discussed, WTC7 was in full readiness to be brought down with
Controlled Demolition, but unfortunately the plane that was to hit it, crashed into
a field in Pennsylvania because of resistance put up by the passengers. The WTC7
was brought down nevertheless, blaming
it on fires started by falling debris. The same falling debris did not affect
the two WTC towers standing between WTC1
and WTC7 or the Verizon building standing next to WTC7 and closer to WTC1.
Cases are decided by circumstantial evidence by
weighing the probabilities of occurrences.
is the probability, that on any given random day and time, a flying object
could enter the protected zone around the Pentagon and not get shot down? The
answer is zero.
what is the probability that a plane known to have been hijacked and heading
straight towards the Pentagon, can hit the Pentagon 47 minutes later without
any action being taken to divert it or bring it down? Less than zero if that is
what is the probability, that it is known that two hijacked planes have crashed
into the WTC, and a third hijacked plane is heading straight towards Pentagon,
and the plane hits Pentagon 47 minutes later? Beyond imagination.
What is the probability that after
the unimaginable has happened, no heads roll, no one is held accountable, and
no one is even reprimanded? This is beyond belief.
So, if somebody believes in the official story what
should we call him? We should call him a blind believer and devotee of Uncle
To believe in Uncle Sam’s story, if the person consciously
rejects the Laws of Physics and believes that what has shown to be a physical impossibility
has occurred simply because Uncle Sam says so, then the believer has stronger
faith in Uncle Sam than in Allah and His Laws of Physics.
Ghulam Mohiyuddin is such a believer and devotee of Uncle Sam. He leaves
Uncle Tom far behind and had he been born before, we would have called Uncle
Tom, Ghulam Uncle Sam. From this day, we should call him Ghulam Uncle Sam.
is GM sb who shows that either he is naïve or a knave.
What I have shown is that the FBI can and does
create a plot, trap people into participating in the plot, help them with funds
and material and clear all obstacles.
What is known and admitted
is that all three agencies the CIA, FBI and the NSA were aware of the
possibility of such an incident and the CNN even broadcast an interview, 9
weeks prior to 911, purportedly with OBL, that OBL was planning a major attack.
Bill Cooper, an independent broadcaster, warned that OBL would merely be the
scapegoat and that something terrible was going to happen and used as an excuse
to take away from the people their freedom. His words proved prophetic and he
relentlessly pursued exposing the government’s lapses. Bill Cooper was shot
dead shortly after 911. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phKiT2-94XU
The FBI was aware of those
taking flying lessons and tapped their conversations. All obstacles to carrying
out the plan were apparently cleared and the otherwise certainty of the USAF
bringing down the planes before they could do any damage was taken care of, and
none of the four planes was intercepted by the USAF.
The first hijack was at 8:14
AM which hit its target 32 minutes later, the second at 8:42 which hit its
target 20 minutes later, the third hijack was at 8:50 which hit Pentagon 47
minutes later, the fourth hijack was at 9:28 which crashed because of
resistance and fighting 35 minutes later. The drama of these four hijacked planes
went on for I hour 45 minutes, and not even the plane that hit the Pentagon 47
minutes after being hijacked, and I hr 23 minutes after the first hijack, was
intercepted by the USAF.
the terrorist plan was part of the government plan, and was helped through
execution. When it comes to making war, there is no difference between the
Democrats and the Republicans and the US media also fully supports it as part
of their nationalist duty. Stray broadcasters
like Bill Cooper are therefore easily eliminated. Bill Cooper is not the only
911 related victim of targeted killing.
Thanks Hats Off for exposing the farcical nature of the discussion that Ghulam Mohiyuddin carried out.
For those who are willing to learn more about the active role the FBI plays in acts of terrorism in the US, read: The Report of The Human Rights Institute, Columbia Law School https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/07/21/illusion-justice/human-rights-abuses-us-terrorism-prosecutions
This is a report of incidents since 911. The first bombing of the WTC in 1993 was also with the active involvement of the FBI. An excerpt from the report:
All of the high-profile domestic terrorism plots of the last decade, with four exceptions,30 were actually FBI sting operations—plots conducted with the direct involvement of law enforcement informants or agents, including plots that were proposed or led by informants.
Today’s terrorism sting operations reflect a significant departure from past practice. When the FBI undercover agent or informant is the only purported link to a real terrorist group, supplies the motive, designs the plot and provides all the weapons, one has to question whether they are combatting terrorism or creating it. Aggrandizing the terrorist threat with these theatrical productions only spreads public fear and divides communities, which doesn’t make anyone safer.34 In many of the sting operations we examined, informants and undercover agents carefully laid out an ideological basis for a proposed terrorist attack, and then provided investigative targets with a range of options and the weapons necessary to carry out the attack. Instead of beginning a sting at the point where the target had expressed an interest in engaging in illegal conduct, many terrorism sting operations that we investigated facilitated or invented the target’s willingness to act before presenting the tangible opportunity to do so. In this way, the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals.
In these cases, the informants and agents often chose targets who were particularly vulnerable—whether because of mental disability, or because they were indigent and needed money that the government offered them. In some cases—which have been particularly troubling for American Muslim communities—targets were seeking spiritual guidance, and the government informants or agents guided them towards violence. Relevant aspects of these cases are described below.
In the case of the “Newburgh Four,” for example, a judge said the government “came up with the crime, provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles,” and had, in the process, made a terrorist out of a man “whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope.”